Medicine and medications are based more around profits than they are results in the United States

Pro completely drops Pro's arguments about "unregulated" dietary supplements, about "preventing" the advertising of positive benefits of food, about the "CIA trafficking of cocaine", and about the censorship of the alternative medicine industry.Pro: "[N]ever ... cases of psilocybin mushrooms being associated with fatalities[.]"Great, the mushrooms don't kill people. That doesn't mean that they are the best treatment, or that their ban is a medicial issue, rather than the continuation of social conservatism in drug policy, which is a legal issue.Pro: "[W]hile ... the FDA does still somewhat ... verify that medicine actually works, it does so in a biased way that favors companies and corporations that yield more profit."Pro never proves this. All that Pro has proven is that the FDA recieves funding from pharmaceutical companies, rather than that the FDA is actually biased. Considering that the FDA recieves money for tests conducted, it's in the FDA's interest to test more, rather than less, which should hurt profits, because testing is expensive, and the cost of the testing hurts the companies' profits. The fact that testing has been sped up does not mean that testing is worse or profit-driven -- Pro, again, has not proven this, and instead faster testing is likely used to help get life-saving drugs to market faster to save lives.Pro: "Antineoplaston therapy ... trials were sabotaged."Actually, antineoplaston therapy has had over 60 clinical, phase II trials [10], the vast majority personally conducted by Dr. Burzynski, so it's hard to claim that every single one was sabatoged by the FDA. However, none of these trials have ever been published in a scientific journal, and Dr. Burzynski has never actually made any attempt to complete trials for his product in since it was discovered in 1972. Dr. Burzynski cannot claim that his "cure" is being censored when he has never proven that it actually cures anyone.And if we're going to play the "for-profits" game, then Dr. Burzynski certainly hasn't been going the stingy route, amassing literally millions from his patients [11][12].And if we're going to talk about results, then Dr. Burzynski isn't coming out so hot, considering that his treatment has no effect on patients, as he himself admits, and may cause neurological damage, especially for in-uterus humans [13].Pro: "Dr. Richard Crout ... in a 1982 newsletter: "I never have and never will approve a new drug to an individual, but only to a large pharmaceutical firm with unlimited finances.""1982 is not the same as 2014, and the statements of the Director of the FDA are not necessarily the same as FDA policy.SUMMARYPro has never sufficiently proven that medicine is based more around profits than results in the United States, instead focusing on instances of supposed censorship of dubious treatment methods.Pro has never refuted the point that FDA oversight in the United States serves to harm pharmaceutical industry profits and increase reliability, which serves to counteract any doubt over the motives of the FDA arising from the User Fee funding method.Pro has been lacking in sources, providing 6 sources, most of them from unverifiable YouTube.com videos and from a website dedicated to selling a film based on the assumptions behind Pro's case, while Con has provided 13 sources that aren't encouraged to lie about these issues.Vote Con.REFERENCES[10] http://rationalwiki.org...[11] http://burzynskiscam.com...[12] http://theotherburzynskipatientgroup.wordpress.com...[13] http://www.quackwatch.org...