That's interesting. I'd never heard about this (or don't remember hearing about it anyway).

This is a time I actually wished I learned more about biochemistry because you do have a point. Unless there is something scientifically "wrong," this does seem to scream "we rather people get sick and/or die as long as we get some money out of it instead of helping people and not making money" on the surface.

Actually, I'd say it's pretty obvious just from thinking about it that businesspeople care more about money than about alleviating the suffering of others. If they cared more about the latter, then competitors of theirs who cared more about the former would be spending less on charity and more on things like marketing, hence drowning out the more charitable ones through competition.

That still doesn't tell us whether or not whichever industry would actually be guilty of suppressing whichever cure, though. I often see this kind of rhetoric in the context of many medical issues on which I don't know who to believe.

"People only say milk is good for you because the dairy industry cares more about money than about people's health!"

"Obviously, but do their motives automatically make everything they say a lie?"

"No, but it suggests the system would have been influenced by corrupt businesspeople!"

"Of course, but does that mean the influence of diary is more misleading than whatever other vested interests might have their own incentives in conflict with dairy?"

Etc... basically, society is such a mess of lies these days that it's hard to tell who just so happens to be saying something that's true. -.-

This is all hard to believe.. This is hope incarnate yet its being kept in the dark?

Well, clearly not, or it would actually be in the dark. Instead of right here.

There is always conflicting information. The information that makes the most money is the most common information.