Pure heresy they may call it, especially if it is a threat.

This was a response Deepak Chopra's article, I think you touched all the bases and then some. Of course what you are writing might be considered heresy by those with a vested interest in the ignorance you dispel. Hopefully Barack Obama will understand it and address the issue on behalf of the nation as we see here on his web site.

What is heresy?

A proposition that is, at the same time, a challenge to present understanding, current beliefs and a challenge to power.

"If we keep others believing the world is flat, the fear that they will fall off will keep them from discovering new lands and our sources for spices. We will be able to discover the new lands first and remain dominant in the spice industry. "

Do so called "authoritative" resources like to admit they are wrong? What does it do to their authority?

Is what they taught you about the world around you while you were in school correct? Is it unbiased?

Activities of science are supported by, and to some extent controlled by, organizations such as scientific societies, agencies of the federal government and (to a lesser but non-negligible extent) by the structuring of universities and corporations into schools, divisions, departments, laboratories, etc. These organizations in turn need respect from their competitors, approval from their colleagues, support from the public and favorable press from the media and economic support. Any scientist who jeopardizes the good standing of these important scientific organizations may, knowingly or unknowingly, weaken organized science and thereby hurt his fellow scientists. In this way, the issue of true science is converted from one that is purely intellectual to one that has sociological, political and economic consequences. Such issues perceived as heretical may be so because they involve a combination of political and economic ramifications.

If a researcher finds a cure he must find another job or project which may be difficult and the institution gets no more funding (not in it's best interest). Worst is the fabrication of a problem that does not really exist or one that exists mainly due to a lack of understanding.

For example pests generally attack unhealthy plants culling them from the cell line. Since most crops are grown in unhealthy mineral deficient soil it necessitates the need for pesticides. Herbicides also kill natural flora needed to balance the area.

Why is it that there is so much disagreement between scientists? Motive, desire for a particular reality (illusion) or fear of a new one?

For more reading, with benefits, supporting Deepak's contention.

The end of disease - executable steps and technical details

Amaranth - The fix for poverty, malnutrition and hunger

Rock Dust Surface Soil Reminerlization - Restoring balance