May 4th, 2009, 11:15 PM
Hey all,
In the opinion of people on these boards
- Is there a CURE for cancer currently that is actively suppressed ?
I understand that this may sound ridiculous to many.
There are currently plently of well-educated people who do seem to think that- Yes there is a cure(s) and yes they are been supressed...
Any comments?
Cancer isn't a single disease. It's a bunch of diseases that share a common trait- they're characterised by uncontrolled cell division. There are treatments and preventatives for some of them and those certainly haven't been suppressed. So no, it seems very unlikely to me that such a cure exists, because it's probably not possible. It's also very unlikely that anyone could or would suppress such a cure. There's no motive and it would require a vast conspiracy.
What "educated people" disagree?
-Unlikely to you that such a cure exists, becasue its probably NOT possible???Originally Posted by TheBiologista
First off what gives you the idea that it must be impossible ?
You also are making quite a presumption there that anyONE could or would suppress such a cure...
First thats just point out that, yes of course it wouldnt be ONE person- It would be more than one.
Therefore more than one i.e. A group - Could indeed supress a cure if it was benefical to that 'group' to do so. So that point is invalid.
To the next point- Would they supress a cure? -Yet again- If its benefical to them- Why would 'they', the 'group' doing so NOT do it?
Lets think outside the box here shall we...
"Theres NO motive" ?
I would definitely NOT be so sure about that.
As for your comment that that would be a 'conspiracy'- Well, that word is perhaps NOT the right one to be using in my opinion. People hear 'conspiracy' and imagine some looney running down the street naked claiming the 'aliens have landed!' and that he is now crown savior of mankind.
See my point?
People use the word 'conspiracy' to make others automatically look the other way without any real investigation...
Its a psychological technique used to discredit an opponent without 'fair trial' or without hearing them out first..
As for the 'educated people' who claim to know of cure(s)... Have you ever investigated for yourself? I think you would be suprised...
Google search my friend, google search...
I am not at this point going to name names and side with any particular doctor or his methods... See for yourself. The evidence is there.....
Want a motive for supression?
The common ones that have always been there
-Money
-Greed
-Arrogance
-Control / Power
-Ignorance
If any one out there that can please prove to me with evidence that a cure is impossible or nonexistent, please do so.
Its seems our scientific community has become the modern day priesthood in many regards. Science- The New Dogma.
Because it would be a cure for dozens of unrelated diseases- I already explained that. It would be like finding a single cure for all viral diseases- they're such a diverse range of diseases that this would be well beyond our ability at present.-Unlikely to you that such a cure exists, becasue its probably NOT possible???
First off what gives you the idea that it must be impossible ?
Not true. Cancer research is conducted by many hundreds of competing groups. If one group decided to suppress a cure, their competitors would happily either expose them or develop their own cure to reap the rewards. That's the nature of the scientific community, it's adversarial.
But what specific benefit would there be?
Not really. Some of the pharmaceuticals companies have conspired to suppress negative clinical trials data. The tobacco and oil industries have variously conspired to suppress scientific findings on cancer and global warming respectively. The activists and scientists who exposed them certainly weren't crazy.
As I said above, this is crap.
You're the one making the specific claim. If I had to go investigating every spurious claim made on these forums I'd have no time for my own research or anything else. The burden of evidence is on you, not me.As for the 'educated people' who claim to know of cure(s)... Have you ever investigated for yourself? I think you would be suprised...
Google search my friend, google search...
So show us, please.
How do you make money by suppressing a treatment? Surely you'd make more money by selling it? And the potential loss of business you'd suffer if people discovered you'd suppressed the cure would be crippling.
Isn't that just the same motive as "money"?
Arrogance isn't a motive, it's a character trait. You can't do something for arrogance.
To what end? How does having exclusive access to a cure give one control or power if nobody knows about it? That's not motive to suppress a cure, but to have exclusive access to it.
How is ignorance a motive for anything? How can you suppress a thing if you're ignorant of it?
Once again, you're the guy with the extraordinary claim. So you can back it up. We don't have to do anything for you.
I can see where this thread is going already.
Merlinconspiracy
Noun
pl -cies
1. a secret plan to carry out an illegal or harmful act
2. the act of making such plans
I think this is the point that you show us some evidence if you have any.
TheBiologista is right; there is not going to be ONE cure for cancer; there are many drugs and treatment modalities currently employed for different cancers, some of them curative. This is due to the different causes, pathogenesis and molecular biology underlying different types of cancer.
To say that there may be one cure for all cancer is like saying there would be one cure for infectious diseases; there is obviously going to be a different treatment for a bacterial infection to a viral infection to keep it simple.
there are quite few of us here who would consider google an adequte research tool alone. Have you heard of ncbi or pubmed!?Google search my friend, google search... Smile
Your reasons for suspecting that a cure exists out of ignorance of others leans more towards paranoia than rationalism as a cure would be hugely profitable to the companies which discovered it.
Where might that be I wonder?Because it would be a cure for dozens of unrelated diseases- I already explained that. It would be like finding a single cure for all viral diseases- they're such a diverse range of diseases that this would be well beyond our ability at present.-Unlikely to you that such a cure exists, becasue its probably NOT possible???
First off what gives you the idea that it must be impossible ?
Well beyond whose ability exactly- yours?
So you are presuming the root cause could not be treated that would end the chain of 'dozens of unrelated diseases' ?
Not true. Cancer research is conducted by many hundreds of competing groups. If one group decided to suppress a cure, their competitors would happily either expose them or develop their own cure to reap the rewards. That's the nature of the scientific community, it's adversarial.
Yet again I see this as a presumption. I see no real evidence they are competing in the way you imply..
'reap rewards' THERE it is. Its about the rewards Sadly for the greedy directors of these companies the rewards are mainly NON-EXISTENT
As the cures are usually very simple and inexpensive- So how would they profit??
A much better marketing strategy would be to fool the unknowing masses and play on their fears- Then hit them up for a few grand in hospital fees and chemo treatment. See?
Expose 'them'? Well they would be exposed to then wouldnt they?
Yes- The scientific community is VERY adversarial and cunning too.
But what specific benefit would there be?
Herein lies the main point! Research- I have NO obligation to convince you. I already know whats happening...
*Hint- Money, greed, bruised professor ego's, control. The meltdown of an entire sector of the economy- Which in turn effects- Jobs and other industry.
Not really. Some of the pharmaceuticals companies have conspired to suppress negative clinical trials data. The tobacco and oil industries have variously conspired to suppress scientific findings on cancer and global warming respectively. The activists and scientists who exposed them certainly weren't crazy.
What? Did I just hear you say the above? So negative trials data have been supressed??? So whats then stopping that from happening with positive clinical trials data?
Indeed- They weren't all crazy... Yet the sacred medical egg and its many problems is yet to be cracked.....
Have you not seen the evidence, similar to what you discribe above in other areas too? Including cancer research?
I can understand that there are many people researching away looking for 'treatments' etc. so I can see they would find it a little shocking when they have gone off the deep end looking at dna this and chemical that- All of a sudden something VERY simple is found to work.
What happens?
Well your left with one very piss-off scientist who has been wasting many years of his/her life looking for a COMPLEX answer.
Keep it simple, eh.
As I said above, this is crap.
Well, it may be for you personally. You see? Another statement of disillusionment- 'this is crap'. Really, why? because you said so?
In the 'above' you have 'said' alot, yet its not convincing, sorry..
You're the one making the specific claim. If I had to go investigating every spurious claim made on these forums I'd have no time for my own research or anything else. The burden of evidence is on you, not me.As for the 'educated people' who claim to know of cure(s)... Have you ever investigated for yourself? I think you would be suprised...
Google search my friend, google search...
Lets clarify shall we? We are BOTH making claims here.
I can see that time may be a problem for you, yet look at it this way- Why wouldn't you investigate? 'spurious claim' -Mmmm- Yet this is the reaction of one TOO many scientific minds in our world.
A real Scientist has an open mind. A real scientist is also prepared to be wrong about there own assumptions. Sadly Ive seen this isnt the case with many who call themselves 'scientists' these days.
So show us, please.
Its there is plain sight. Look a see..
How do you make money by suppressing a treatment? Surely you'd make more money by selling it? And the potential loss of business you'd suffer if people discovered you'd suppressed the cure would be crippling.
See above- This has already been addressed.
Why do you automatically assume there is money to be made?
And this is the point- Its supressed to MAKE MONEY.
Isn't that just the same motive as "money"?
No its not the same but is linked to money yes.
Arrogance isn't a motive, it's a character trait. You can't do something for arrogance.
But you can do many things because of / or due to arrogance
To what end? How does having exclusive access to a cure give one control or power if nobody knows about it? That's not motive to suppress a cure, but to have exclusive access to it.
You obviously have failed to discover how our economy functions and how things interlink
The fact that medical research is linked to OTHER fields and research.
Think about it...
How is ignorance a motive for anything? How can you suppress a thing if you're ignorant of it?
Ignorance implies you know and are ignoring the truth of that particular topic.
You therefore supress something INDIRECTLY through ignorance and failure to see or accept your fault.
E.g. If a scientist is so on his high-horse that he wont even look at the present facts that becomes a problem, see?
Once again, you're the guy with the extraordinary claim. So you can back it up. We don't have to do anything for you.
Why is it so extraordinary to you? I find that your claim of a cure to be impossible the extraordinary claim.
As you dont have to do anything for me- I dont have to do anything for you either do I?
I can see your logic here and I'm not impressed although I do find it honourable you have stepped up to the plate to be challenged.
I can see where this thread is going already.
Discovering the scientific priesthood isnt so all-mighty afterall perhaps?
I wonder......
Seriously though- I'm not here to dish out personal remarks and insult people. I'm merely looking for and finding the truth in certain areas.
The only real thing I'm attacking here is the beliefs of others and their thinking patterns NOT others themselves. See the distinction?
The world could move forward at rapid speed if we all just stopped believing in the bullshit 'limitation' paradigm. Why do we as humans tend to look at ourselves as so limited? And that many things are so 'impossible'?
I for one dont buy it.
Unitl next time....................
FULL RELPY ABOVE IN ITALICS**************
See reply in italics above. Sorry but I dont spend to much time on forums... Life is too short
I'm confused.
REALLY..? hughly profitable eh? See my response to the other fellow above...
Why do you automatically PRESUME there would be massive amounts of money to be made ?
Alas, the programming of modern man
I rest my case.... for now
**FULL RESPONSE IN RED ABOVE and yes I am unsure exactly how you do the little quotes in sections if your wondering... I dont use forums much at all
Merlin, have you read the research on cancer? The primary papers, that is? Try Google Scholar (not normal Google) and Pubmed. These are the search engines we use to get access to scientific research. Google will mostly give you mainstream websites, which tend not to be as reliable when it comes to science. I know you probably won't want to accept this but it is quite painfully obvious to anyone vaguely familiar with medical research that your argument seems to mostly be coming from ignorance of how science is conducted and published. I'd suggest you fix that before you start making what appear to me to be very naive claims regarding the state of science.
We already have preventatives for cervical cancer and various fairly effective cures for certain specific forms of cancer. A single catch-all cure is far beyond our current medical knowledge. That is not a "limitation paradigm", just the unfortunate reality of modern medicine and the complexity of "cancer"- a blanket term for a bunch of diseases which do not have a common root cause as you suggest.
I have to say, the poll seems redundant since your immediate response to me arguing against you was to suggest that science itself, not just me, is some blinkered dogmatic system. If your assumption is going to be that anyone who disagrees with you is immediately wrong due to closed mindedness then that basically means you aren't prepared to consider the possibility that you may be wrong yourself- so the debate is going to go nowhere. This makes me wonder if you're really interested in hearing arguments against your position at all. You're also not interested in backing up your assertions, which is a silly thing to do anywhere, let alone on a science forum. I for one will not be engaging in any further discussion with you until you start providing evidence to support your claims.
Merlin;
If you do not issue some form of hard evidence in your next post I'm moving this thread; you have so far provided nothing but conjecture and conspiracy theories.
Geez, easy on the threats eh...
Why start throwing out the 'conspiracy' word too?
We already mentioned why NOT to use that word above.
http://www.studentprintz.com/home/in...d-b529895da103
http://www.laetrile.com.au/copy.asp?sect=q2&page=drs
http://www.laetrile.com.au/copy.asp?...&page=symptoms
http://www.phifoundation.org/cure.html
http://www.apricotkerneloilaustralia.com.au/
1 Most Medical Doctors would be out looking for another line of work. (**There are known cures for most disease.)
2 Remaining doctors dispensing pharmaceuticals become the leading cause of death in the USA (** According to AMA (April 15, '98 JAMA) Heart Disease and Stroke (same disease process) rank as the number 1 and 3. The cure for Cancer (at number 2) may have been found in the 1920s, but in any case, would probably be significantly reduced if USA or world population increased vitamin C intake to 3 gm. Adverse reactions to drugs, according to AMA estimates (probably low), are now the forth or fifth leading cause of death in the United States.)
3 Pharmaceutical companies have 80 drugs for heart disease going through FDA (**Pharmaceutical companies are investing millions to get new heart drugs approved. These investments are jeopardized by the inexpensive Pauling discovery.)
4 Pharmaceutical company stock prices would drop. (**Most Americans have something invested in the stock market/mutual funds, etc. So most of us have an interest in pharmaceutical stocks, which are widely held. The AMA reports that super-safe nutritional treatments work better. (May 1998 JAMA) So drug companies are likely to suffer drops in both their product prices and their stock prices from a well publicized Pauling announcement.)
5 Possible World-wide Recession **A drastic change in medical expenditures might jolt U.S., and probably the world economy. Suddenly stopping the 50-100 billion currently being spent on heart disease, and perhaps hundreds of billions on other medical problems, would lead to an economic event. (The outcome is hard to predict, no matter that we would all be better off in the long run.) The potential economic upheaval, combined with the upcoming Y2K event, are way beyond the pale.
6 Media Income and Influence Decline Members of the media gain their power through their sources. Medical inside sources would dry up for any reporter that looked too hard at this cure. **We can not prove that members of the media have Swiss bank accounts full of bribe money from powerful pharmaceutical interests, but what do you think? In any event, pharmaceutical companies are BIG advertisers. The downfall of the U. S. pharmaceutical industry will drastically affect the pocketbooks of the mainstream media moguls.
7 Strain on Social Security **The world's life expectancy would increase by at least 5 years, based on the Enstrom study. Not only would such an increase cause USA and other countries social security systems to fail sooner (not a healthy development for politicians or world economies), but the world faces a population crisis because of many factors.
8 Loss of faith in Major Institutions **As we all know, the United States Federal government is suffering from a wide-spread loss of confidence due to recent events, however, if news of the Pauling discovery were widely released, faith in the medical profession, American Heart Association, FDA, NIH, etc., and various other authorities would be seriously eroded. Many so-called medical authorities would look pretty stupid having to explain how and why they ignored vitamin C all these years... Who would we trust?
9 Loss of Incomes to the Government and Health Insurance Industry **A drastic cut in the cost of health care threatens the health insurance industry. (Most of us would only carry catastrophic insurance.) We would save billions in the cost of MEDICARE, but politicians would lose a power base. Even smoking becomes a non issue. It has been known for some time that smokers are subject to more illness and they have lower tissue levels of vitamin C. There is evidence that higher vitamin C intake would prevent some smokers from suffering serious illness. Thus, the billion dollar "windfalls" that the state and federal Governments are getting from settlements with Tobacco companies might dry up.
10 Creates a Moral Obligation for our Physicians **If the Pauling vitamin C/lysine news were made public, doctors would be under a moral obligation to offer this completely non-toxic therapy to their terminal heart patients, even if the efficacy were not proven, thereby precipating all other events. Therefore, the Pauling discovery can not be news.
Article From: http://www.internetwks.com/pauling/tt.html
http://www.paulingtherapy.com/
http://www.alternative-doctor.com/cancer/atkins.htm
http://thedoctorwhocurescancer.com/
http://www.beating-cancer-gently.com/
http://www.graviolaleaves.com/
Aaaaah- Its called google search, you guys heard of it before?
Im not here to research all my time away trying to convince people with closed minds that it time to get them open....
The above sites and their respective links and resource sections contain more than enough to keep one busy for a long, long time.....
So I suggest you all get cracking...
Honestly, I shocked that I have been threatened here in the post above- Produce proof or your ganna pull the thread? Whats the deal here?
I thought this was a forum where people come to learn and exchange ideas, theories and research. Did I make a mistake here?
Point is even if I didnt produce any evidence (WHICH I HAVE) Why would you pull the post?
Why not leave it there to get others thinking? To get others questioning the science priesthood and the Pharma gods?
I suggest anyone reading this thread to look clearly at what is been presented here.
Follow the 'white rabbit'- so to speak and make up your own minds.
The scientific community does NOT have all the answers and in many cases they DO have some of the answers and are supressing them. Many are just oblivious that there are simple answers out there.
Pull the thread- Why? To supress whats been said? Honestly- This has further proven to me that the below is indeed correct:
"" "There is not one, but many cures for cancer. But they are all being systematically suppressed by the ACS, the NCI, and the major oncology centers. They have too much of an interest in the status quo."
Dr. Robert Atkins, MD""
Hippocrates said "let food be your medicine."
I and many others can see clearly that to some degree science is like a modern religion.
Why try to discredit what I am saying through using the poll statement as an indicator of what the truth is?
The poll is simply that a poll. Its not important. I thought it might just be a little fun to chuck it in the mix.
I obviously dont really care all that much what the poll reads as I am automatically going to presume it WILL be in YOUR favour. After all this is a very mainstream science forum from my observations- Why would they agree with me telling them to reconsider their views?
Sadly many cling to the status quo.
So do you now agree or disagree there are cure(s) for cancer ?
Your statement above indicates you have done a 'u-turn'...
If you do agree there are cure(s) I see no point in fussing over this stuff.. More to the point I would like to ask why no one is hearing the truth about there been cures.....
Another thing...
What we have discussed thus far shows that there is ways of treating cancer and curing this disease that people just do NOT know about, yet they are the physical cures...
From what I am seeing many other people claim that certain disease can be cured through other means such as hypnosis...
Now are you automatically going to say that I'm wrong here? Or will you actually investigate I wonder....
A main point Im making is- I've seen that many scientists will completely refuse to even look at something if they have learnt to accept 'its immpossible'. The ones that do NOT do this are the real geniuses.
(1) Have you even read those "references". Biologista and I were referring to scientific articles published in peer reviewed scientific journals. Many of these dont even make references to such journals and none seem to cite specific articles. Some of them and your 10 points dont even refer to cancer
(2) In order fory our 10 points below to be correct. It would require a united effort of physicians, allied health professionals, scientists (including biochemists, molecular biologists, pathologists, pharmacologists and others) academic institutes, pharmaceutical companies and government officials. It is a huge and unrealistic assertion and belief to hold. I am a medical student and have met a huge range of scientists and scientists in different fields, some in oncology; not one have come close to having a view that cancer should not be cured for any reason.
(3) Yes a good diet and some micronutrients can have a role to play in preventing and temporarily slowing the progression of cancer, but they are not curative and there has been mixed evidence in the role of large quantities of vitamins. Plenty of people have taken high dose vitamins in the hope that it may cure or cause remission of their cancer without massive success.
(4) If there existed a simple cure for cancer as you are hypothesising, any economic or other costs would be hugely outweighed by the benefits of not having to pay for the current costs of care, medicines and the associated morbidity carried by cancer. Pharmaceutical companies dont have all their eggs in one basket; they research many diseases other than cancer and academic institutes do a lot of the groundwork developing targets that pharmaceutical companies then develop a drug for. You're argument there is fallacious.
(5)What is your level of understanding of cancer and what inconsistencies do you find with recent developments? You have also said there are simple answers out there for something scientists find to be deeply complex. What enlightenment have you had here and what exactly are you proposing as an alternative to either our understanding or our treatment of cancers? Is it genetic? Biochemical/metabolic? Have we got molecular pathways wrong? Or what exactly have we skipped over that's so glaringly obvious? I would ask you to be as specific as possible.I suggest anyone reading this thread to look clearly at what is been presented here.
Follow the 'white rabbit'- so to speak and make up your own minds.
There are cures for cancers and this is known.
Surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy all have roles in this treatment which Im sure you know. Many people who develop cancer survive the disease.
This is not secret information and mortality rates have been declining since the 50s.
However, there is no one, single, fits all cure for "cancer" as an entity itself and there is no active efforts amount the scientific community to suppress it.
If you have a problem with howscience works, then perhaps a science forum is not the best place for you to be bringing these ideas to the table. Standard procedure with any idea; any trial, experiment, test, hypothesis in science is to look for flaws, to rule out what does not work and to further test it. If your hypothesis cannot stand criticism then what is its validity.
A molecular understanding of cancers explains why one medicine will not cure all cancers. This is why we are calling this assertion to be so unlikely and most certainly not being covered up.
If I am guilty of going wrong here somewhere in my logic I still cannot see how yours would in turn be any better...
Anyhow... Please do leave this post on the site...
Someone may come along and see what I am attempting to do here
I think you may be more likely to find this someone in a different section.
DCA as a “cure” has reached the media, don’t think that we are trying to hide it.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10971
As far as I can see, DCA targets the mitochondria, In order to kill the cancer cells. This is the same end point as normal cytotoxic agents currently used which have been shown to be effective, passed through clinical trials and work.
As it stands – because DCA has a similar end point to current therapies and as of yet has not been shown to be any more effective at killing cells than say – cisplatin, which is definitely no “cure”.
Also – you mentioned adverse reactions and side effects, the majority of those are down to changes in genetic predispositions to say fast metabolism, low metabolism ect of the drugs, which we are getting closer to somewhat solving. (pharmcogenomics – google it! )
DCA peer review Ref: A Mitochondria-K+ Channel Axis Is Suppressed in Cancer and Its Normalization Promotes Apoptosis and Inhibits Cancer Growth
Sébastien Bonnet et al.
Cancer Cell Volume 11, Issue 1, January 2007, Pages 37-51
May 5th, 2009, 06:48 PM
Cancer cures are definitely being suppressed, and here is just a sample of some of the books that have been written on the subject. As you'll see, many of these books were written by MD's. http://www.altcancer.com/lysis.htm
There are several motives for this suppression and one that isn't often spoken about is population control. There are numerous people in powerful positions that have stated that the population must be drastically reduced, but they never explain how it should be done because they can't tell the dark truth - that one way or another they will be murdered! Research population control for yourself. Here are a few of these infamous quotes. http://jonesreport.com/article/09_08/05eugenics.html
Well I think my point has been fairly well proven here...
Scientists/Those studying science will AUTOMATICALLY throw the baby out with the bathwater in a LARGE portion of cases.
It really is alarming.
This post was orginially in the 'genuine' science section.
I did make a claim that cancer has a cure(s) that are been supressed
YET- The others viewpoints above is clear....
They too are MAKING CLAIMS- Yet seem to fail to see that
They claim that cancer cure(s) are "impossible" at present.....
THEN they do a u-turn and say 'oh... there are cure(s)'
Then go on to state that the main 'cures' they have in mind are chemo, surgery etc. etc. what!? THESE ARE NOT CURES.
This is a perfect example of the logic of some of these people who are either entering or have entered the science community.
Please- take the blinders off.
My original intention here was to point out and show just how those in the science community will completely disregard any evidence that doesnt fit their current paradigm.
Proving that cancer has many cure(s) was just going to be icing on the cake. Well in my opinion the icing is now on the cake too...
But is a scientist going to admit that? I really doubt so....
Why wasn't this topic just left in the main science section?
A bruised ego perhaps? A vested interest? Ignorance? Faliure to see that what was been stated by myself was MORE than revelant and deserved to be there?
THIS HAS BEEN A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF HOW PEOPLE WHO CONSIDER THEMSELVES SCIENCE 'AUTHORITIES' WILL AT A WHIM DISMISS ANYTHING THAT THEIR "MODERN DAY RELIGION" DISAGEES WITH.
Whats the difference between a 'religious fanatic' who states that they have no time for someone who dosent believe in some hindu god, for example- or that 'Jesus is the saviour' and calls them a 'devil-worshipper'?
Scientists do the exact same thing in their arrogance routinely. But now the religion is called "science" and their 'god' is greater than the 'gods' of religion...
They are just as bad and fail to see sadly.
When I say 'they' I mean the average scientist.
There are many who are more aware of whats going on and they do work hard to expose the truth of whats happening.
The main reason I hoped this would stay in the original science section was to help point out where some of the science community are making errors in their original patterns of thought and beliefs about science.
The above shows that the people who dont agree will put this in a section like pseudoscience to attempt to discredit.
The above sites AND THE LINKS AND RESOURCES in those sites have what those above were asking for- Did they bother to look? Obviously no.
Unless they can read at a supernatural rate beyond imagination they certainly did NOT.
So what was their response- Put it in the pseudoscience section and attempt to discredit.
That my friends is a bit of a cop-out...
THIS EXPERIMENT TO POINT OUT THE FAILURE OF 'SCIENCE AUTHORITIES' TO DISMISS EVIDENCE WITHOUT EVEN LOOKING AT IT IS NOW COMPLETE.
As for the others who may well continue to attack bits and pieces of my arguement
Go right ahead- But remember to address ALL the points otherwise your agruement is INCOMPLETE.
DONT THROW THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATHWATER
I can see where Merlin is coming from! I will be looking into few web site as refered and perhaps will have more to say then!
I would recommend a read through the research material (found at Pubmed and Google Scholar) as well as a read through a good book on evidence based medicine and the scientific method. Bad Science by Ben Goldacre is one excellent example. There are also informational charities involved in the debunking of scientific misinformation in the media and as presented by websites and the like. Sense about Science are well worth a look.
Although they will claim otherwise, websites such as the ones linked by Merlin and Rob have an agenda. They're backed by the alternative medicine industry. Whilst the conventional medicines industry is certainly big business with many crooks involved, the alternative industry is essentially unregulated and also takes in hundreds of millions of dollars a year. It is in their best interests to generate general scepticism towards conventional medicine and the scientific community in general. But here's the reality: any therapy that is shown to work using evidence is not "alternative" but simply "medicine" and a great many natural remedies are now amongst the tools available to conventional medics.
The thread was moved because we asked for evidence and you linked to a bunch of sites that were either quackery or irrelevant. You also decided to take off ona rant against the scientific community rather than focus on the issue at hand, which says to me that you came here having no intention of debating this matter. Your position was pre-formed and not open to discussion.
You specifically made the claim that a cancer cure (singular) has been suppressed. You have yet to provide evidence that shows this to be the case.
No, we claimed that a single cure for cancer is beyond us at this time. I stand by that.
No, we pointed out that there are effective treatments for some forms of cancer, but no single cure.
Chemo, radiotherapy and surgery do cure cancers, though the success rates are not 100%. We also have vaccines which protect against cervical cancer, though again the protection rate is not 100%. What would you define as a cure? As far as I'm aware, there is no treatment for any disease which works with a 100% success rate.
No, we'll display appropriate scepticism towards a new idea so that the ideas that we do accept are the ones best supported by the available evidence. The alternative to that is to simply accept people at their word, which is not how science or scepticism works at all.
But nobody is hiding the current treatments for cancer. They're well publicised.Proving that cancer has many cure(s) was just going to be icing on the cake. Well in my opinion the icing is now on the cake too...
I just did- but then that's been my position from the start.
There are many differences. Religions claim to know the truth without observation. Science knows only what it can observe. Religions accept information on the basis of authority, science does not. Religions have produced nothing functional based on their assumptions, science has produced every technological and medical advance in history. I could go on, but I suspect you're not interested.
Actually this section exists so that we can continue the discussion and hopefully help you to get a better feel for how science really works. If you feel hard done by, it is because we've treated you as we treat each other. When a scientist makes an assertion, he must provide evidence or he will not be believed. The bigger the assertion, the stronger the evidence needed to support his position.
Scientific authorities? There are no scientific authorities. There's no president of science, no central governing body. There are experts, to whom we will pay heed. But they, like everyone, like this thread right here, are all subject to scepticism. They must all provide evidence or be dismissed.
Let me ask you a direct question Merlin, what experience have you had with the scientific community? How many research papers have you read critically? How many conferences have you been to? Have you attended lectures? What about public debates?
What you see as closed mindedness is the scepticism that prevents us from perusing and believing the claims of anyone who comes along with a half-baked idea. Come to us with a crazy new idea and tons of evidence and we'll attack, but the difference is you'll survive and in time the community will accept you. You claim that science is dogmatic and that it shuts out new ideas. So how is science still progressing to this day? How are we developing new medicines, sending probes and people into space, developing new energy technologies, taller buildings, faster cars, commercial space flight, faster computers? If we are so very closed to new ideas and radical thinking, how is any of this actually happening?
May 6th, 2009, 07:05 AM
But there are websites and books like this all over the place. Mostly they contradict each other but they're certainly not be suppressed are they? MDs are as capable as anyone of just making stuff up without evidence. The difference being that their qualifications make people accept their word on authority. Science is not about authority.
Seems like a very scattershot way of achieving that aim. I mean, using a disease that kills indiscriminately? You'd think if that were really their plan that you wouldn't see quite so many politicians and big corporation CEOs dying of cancer like the rest of us slobs. A cure would also be a remarkably difficult thing to keep quiet given how many competing people are working on the problem.
May 6th, 2009, 10:10 AM
That's just pure evil genius! Let's use a disease to control population where 99% of the people who contract it are 50 yrs old or older and past their prime child bearing years.
May 6th, 2009, 10:42 AM
Yeah, kinda looks like it would make the problem (if there is one) far worse. I mean, the worlds resources would basically be funnelled right into the most reproductively active group... If population control is the goal of the shadowy overlords then surely sterilisation programs, not murder, are the way to go.That's just pure evil genius! Let's use a disease to control population where 99% of the people who contract it are 50 yrs old or older and past their prime child bearing years.
Companies are definitely not interested in finding a cheap cure for cancer. No profit in that.
May 6th, 2009, 12:24 PM
Or at least focus of the greatest cause for death at that age range: Accident. Instead of making cars safer, they would be ripping out those seat belts, airbags, anti-lock brakes etc.Yeah, kinda looks like it would make the problem (if there is one) far worse. I mean, the worlds resources would basically be funnelled right into the most reproductively active group... If population control is the goal of the shadowy overlords then surely sterilisation programs, not murder, are the way to go.That's just pure evil genius! Let's use a disease to control population where 99% of the people who contract it are 50 yrs old or older and past their prime child bearing years.
Only if they sell it cheaply. And "companies" are in competition with one another, so undercutting the others will be an incentive there too. Besides, cancer is so common that any cure is basically a license to print money. Beyond some fairly drastic genetic engineering it isn't a disease that's going to go away, cure or no cure. There'll always be new cases.
If the concept that the pharma companies don't want (or are hiding) simple, one-off cures for diseases actually held true, then surely they would not be selling us vaccines for polio and measles and the like. They certainly wouldn't be pushing vaccines for pneumococcal diseases when they could be selling us lots of antibiotics instead.
I'm sure there must be a conspiracy about that out there too. Apparently swine flu is all about population control as well. Apparently killing a few hundred people out of the 6.5 billion currently living is evidence of a vast, evil (and we must assume really poorly thought out and half-assed) plan.
Mainstream medicine makes much, much more money than anyone involved in alternative medicine, so if one group has a motive to lie, guess which one it is. This isn't to say that the typical nurse or doctor is lying. They are only going on what they were taught, which brings me back to the research of people like John Taylor Gatto.
The colleges (and grade schools) were taken over by big business in the early part of the twentieth century by people like Rockefeller and Carnegie. Did you know that those two men alone invested more money in education than the U.S. government did between 1900-1920? Does that pique your interest, anyone, anyone? It should! http://www.sntp.net/education/leipzig_connection_6.htm
Here are some more Gatto articles.
http://www.preservenet.com/theory/Gatto.html
Here is a little more worthless evidence (according to TheBiologista) that there are suppressed cancer treatments/cures.
http://www.cancer-coverup.com/fighters/aloe-cancer.htm
While I'm at it, I'll give you a link to a website that will show you just how corrupt the corporate/government world is. Spend some time reading about the experiences of Catherine Austin Fitts if you dare to know the truth. She was the Assistant Secretary of Housing under Bush senior and the lead FHA financial advisor in the Clinton administration. Plus, she worked on Wall Street for ten years at Dillon Read. The corruption she has uncovered is enormous. The financial crisis that is occuring right now is no accident, it was carefully planned.
http://solari.com/archive/databeast/
It could be either, to be fair. The mainstream have a motive to maintain the status quo, the alternative have a motive to overturn it replace the mainstream.
This of course assumes that the two are actually separate entities. But they really are not. If you check some of the "cancer cure" websites you're harping on about as being "alternative" you'll find that the products ultimately recommended are such things as plant extracts, multi-vitamins and fish oils. The companies which produce them are usually called pretty things like "Nature Made". Do a little digging and you'll find that these companies are invariably owned by the likes of GSK, AstraZeneca, Pfizer Wyeth... the mainstream multinational pharmaceuticals companies. "The alternative" is at least partially a fabrication of the companies selling mainstream drugs.
But many doctors are also directly involved in medical research. And even those aren't are not taught to accept information as dogma. They're taught to be scientists. To innovate, to hypothesise and test. It's not easy to indoctrinate even one person who works in that way, let alone millions. It's even harder to hoodwink research scientists, whose careers often depend on adversarial scepticism.
I have personally had research I intended to publish, published by another scientist on two separate occasions before I could submit it. That's in just a couple of years. This isn't because of espionage or plagiarism, but because there is so much research ongoing at all times and it is so competitive that in very busy fields dozens or hundreds of researchers may be following the very same line of enquiry that I am at any given time. If a research group ever does come up with a single, simple cure for cancer they would be fools not to publish this. Because if they don't, someone else will do it soon after and take all the credit, all the intellectual property rights and all the money.
Assuming this is true, how does that equal a conspiracy to cover up cancer cures? Since scientific research itself is not actually funded by grade schools and universities, but instead by corporations, charities and independent government bodies, how would general big business maintain a stranglehold on research output? The funding corporations are in competition with each other, governments are focused on voter-friendly research (cancer being a biggie) and the charities are independent of both and rather antagonistic towards both to boot. So given as I said before that there's so much cancer research ongoing constantly and given that it is funded by competing interests, how does any one group successfully suppress a money making piece of research?
If the medicinal properties of Aloe Vera are being ignored then how come a search in Pubmed brings up over 1400 research papers into the use of aloe vera? See for yourself. Go to Pubmed, search for Aloe Vera, it's all there plain to see. I have to say, the source you've provided is an odd one, or it must be very out of date.
It states; " Aloe vera has been demonstrated to enhance the immune system's response to cancer, promote the growth of new and healthy cells, and reduce the overall viral load within the body thereby revitalizing the body in its fight against the cancer."
An odd thing to say, since "viral load" is not relevant even to cancers initiated by viruses. But perhaps that is a typo. Their description of how the immune system deals with cancer is very strange too. They focus strongly on B cells and T helper cells but never mention the all important CTLs and NKs.
It also says: "But the FDA, and the major cancer research institutions have not conducted a single test of the efficacy of Aloe vera as a cancer treatment, nor have they even considered it as a complement to conventional therapy."
However, with just a quick search in Pubmed I found 23 clinical studies (that's work in humans, not in animals or in vitro) investigating the effects of Aloe with respect to various forms of cancer. Overall, the evidence is still fairly uncertain. But there's something interesting going on there, which is why people are actively researching it. And nobody is silencing them- their research is internationally published.
Hey, you're preaching to the converted when it comes to corruption. I live in a country that it dead in the water because of our government's handling of the economy in the last decade. The economists say we'll be the last to pull out of the recession. Not fun. Do I think the government did it on purpose? Kinda, through negligence and greed. Was it part of some grand plan? No. They're just greedy morons serving a populace too jaded to punish them at the polls. It's not a conspiracy or a grand plan or a new world order. It's just greedy, stupid people.
Big Pharma are bent too- just look at how they've hoodwinked you into thinking you're being "alternative". But even the scumbags that run the pharmaceuticals companies still come up with the goods. The antibiotics are cheap and they work. The steroids are cheap and they work. The vaccines work, and they're cheaper than getting drugged your whole life. The antivirals generally work, though that's one that could do with further research. Does everything they make work? No- but a lot of it does. We have evidence, and independent evidence that they work and how they work. Evidence by the bucket load. And it's all there for you to read, if you're interested. That's the great thing about science, you don't have to take my word for it at all.
It's odd to laetrile still out there. Last I heard of it was back when Steve McQueen headed to Mexico for laetrile treatments. He died. The drug was not found to be beneficial.
The one thing I've noticed about conspiracy's is that they are often based on the idea that what happens here in the US is all that counts. So Merlin let's suppose that NoodleHead pharmaceuticals has a cancer cure and suppresses it. What stops KomOnIWannaKurYah pharmaceuticals somewhere in the Pacific islands from having a cancer cure center that invites people to come to the island, get cured of cancer, spend a couple of weeks on our beaches drinking mai tais and go home feel swell?
All of the Americas with cancer skip out of the hospitals or hospice. They head to the beaches. Get cured. Come home with a bad burn and grow their hair back.
On the other hand there are plenty of snake oil salesmen starting back in the days of Lily The Pink that will sell you a cancer cure or a cure for the vapors claiming scientific sounding nonsense.
I know lots of people that died of cancer. Cancer is common. Anyone that had a cure would be richer than the computer geeks; would become one of the most famous people of all time; would probably end up restructuring the entire medicine because of the wide spectrum of cancers that afflict people.
:? I am a registered nurse also doing medical science at the moment. I have already read some of the links Merlin posted and ones similar to what Biologista mentioned. It is very controversial. From what I have been finding out through my own research into the science area and other areas, its rather alarming and confusing too!
It is very admirable what science has achieved. Unfortunately I've noticed that much of the scientific knowledge is filtered through the hands of supporters and those funding the research.
I wonder if the reason the pharmaceutical companies are getting involved in promoting/selling of vitamins is perhaps a marketing tactic. Maybe, its a subtle trick to gain trust. This has been done in the past.
Not saying todays modern science is corrupt all together however it is worth while looking at both sides of the story to make your own conclusion "with evidence".... Thorough research into both sides, the alternative and mainstream.
From what I gather there already is places people can go for alternative treatment and often successful.
This subject is very important to every individual as we all need to look after our health.
Its good to see people discussing this important matter. I look forward to future posts.
But they're not transparent about it, so it seems they'd rather people didn't associate the alternative medicines with the mainstream. Lose the distinction and you lose the alternative market you've created.
Medicine either works or it doesn't. If it works, it's not "alternative" any more. It's just medicine. Much of what underlies the core of alternative medicine relies solely on the concept that it is maverick and different. When you test things like homeopathy and acupuncture, you find that they basically work by placebo effect. Since placebo effect only really works for things like pain, mood and stress, the promotion of such treatments for cancer is quite grossly irresponsible.
If you're interested in a little research on the efficacy of various alternative (and mainstream) therapies then I'd highly recommend a look at the Cochrane Library. These guys basically do systematic reviews. They take all of the studies done on a given therapy, select the ones that use the very strictest methodology, and the statistically analyse the results to determine if they're really effective. The results are free in many countries I think and you can search for a very wide range of therapies. These guys are basically producing the most rigorous data on what works and what doesn't and they're a fully independent not-for-profit foundation, so no commercial interests or bias.From what I gather there already is places people can go for alternative treatment and often successful.
This subject is very important to every individual as we all need to look after our health.
Its good to see people discussing this important matter. I look forward to future posts.
No honestly, there is no profit margin for cheap cures.Only if they sell it cheaply. And "companies" are in competition with one another, so undercutting the others will be an incentive there too. Besides, cancer is so common that any cure is basically a license to print money. Beyond some fairly drastic genetic engineering it isn't a disease that's going to go away, cure or no cure. There'll always be new cases.
Please show me one example of how mainstream medicine has used aloe vera as a cancer treatment in the U.S. If you actually read the entire article, how can you justify the fact that it isn't being used on a large scale right now?
The organic foods/nutritional supplements industries are being bought out by larger food companies and pharmaceutical companies. This isn't because they've had a change of heart and now support organic food or supplements, they are taking over the industries to wipe them out. http://www.peacecouncil.net/pnl/03/7...teTakeover.htm
Anyone who has been shopping at health food stores knows that various forms of sugar are sneaking their way into more and more products. Five to ten years ago few products had sugar in them at health food stores. Sugar is very harmful to your health. http://www.ghchealth.com/refined-sug...on-of-all.html
The corruption of the schools is a global phenomenon. The best way to control a society is indoctrinate the youth right from the beginning. That's the real purpose of public education. Follow the articles I linked to and actually read them.
The financial crisis is a global financial takeover. It is being done by central banks, multinational corporations, corrupt politicians, etc. Read this brief article by Catherine Austin Fitts to see the game from her perspective. If you would spend some time reading on her website (as I recommended) you'd realize that your take on this issue is dead wrong. http://solari.com/blog/?p=2058
Try watching the documentary by Aaron Russo, "America: Freedom to Fascism", and then try to tell me there are no conspiracies. The title is a little misleading. Though the movie focuses mainly on the U.S., near the end of it you will see how it ties into the rest of the world. http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...80303867390173
Codex Alimentarius (a United Nations program) is yet another example of how international interests plan on controlling all food traded throughout the world, and eliminating alternative medicine (i.e. herbs, vitamins, suppplments, etc.) and REAL organic foods from the global marketplace. http://www.natural-health-informatio...mentarius.html
Did you know that the governments and corporations of the world plan on putting RFID (radio-frequency identification) microchips into all products sold, implanting them into all livestock, and eventually implanting them into all humans. These microchips will also contain lots of personal information about you too. If this sounds like the ultimate surveillance society and invasion of your privacy, that's because it is. These microchips are already being put into new U.S. passports, and the U.S. government is trying to put them into the livestock right now. http://www.farmandranchfreedom.org/content/what-is-nais
Here is another link about the RFID chips.
http://www.spychips.com/
I could continue posting more evidence and more links because I've researched these issues (and others) for years, but if you won't bother to read the articles in the links, what's the point? At some point it comes down to whether or not you really want to know the truth. If you want to remain ignorant and maintain your "programmed" (via education, mass media...) view of the world, then don't read my links. Your own personal rude awakening won't be too far down the road anyway. If you have the courage to know the truth, then start your education today.
You aren't seriously going to tell me that these people just have their own agendas too, and this information is all wrong, are you TheBiologista?
It may be the profit margin issue as suggested by Spurious, I know that's one reason why medicines for third world diseases tend not to get researched much. But the main reason right now would probably be that the few studies that have been done have been small scale and so we'll need more data before we can properly assess efficacy and safety. Although there have been a good few clinical trials looking at aloe and cancer, only a few have looked at oral administration for the direct treatment of cancer. And it should be stressed that from the preliminary data it doesn't look like aloe is an effective treatment alone. It will likely need to be used as an immunostimulant in conjunction with chemotherapy or radiotherapy.
Also there's another element to this- they've figured out what substances in the aloe have the immunostimulatory effect seen in the in vitro studies. These are acemannan and glycomannan. It looks like the research focus has shifted away from whole aloe vera to purified acemannan and glycomannan, which would be a lot more controllable. So to answer your question, they're working on it. But taking new therapeutics from identification stage to the clinic generally takes 10-15 years, with 8 of those years dedicated to human research. So it's not all that surprising that they're still working on it. The big pharmaceuticals companies may not be interested in funding this work, but they're certainly not blocking it, and you can be sure they'll happily sell the stuff once someone else has done the leg work, assuming they can buy the patents.
So, how come these companies (under the control of Pfizer and the like) have continued to exist? Most of these companies were either set up by big pharma or have been under their control for a great many years. They're not being put out of business.
Well I certainly agree that there's a lot of sugar in our food in general, but if that's part of some big plan then it's not a very good one.
Not interested in that stuff really. It's off topic and there are so many contradictory conspiracy theories out there that I'd rather just form my own views based on evidence rather than wade through a half dozen paranoid rants. You should read Jon Ronson's "Them". Illuminating (ho ho) stuff for the conspiracy theorist. Stick to the topic at hand in this thread, please.
Really? Even with some 10-15 million new cases to cure every year? Not saying you're wrong, but I'd have thought someone would want a piece of that, assuming a cure were possible. And if it were something cheap but patentable like a specific compound isolated from the aloe plant, I'd have thought they could justify a fairly nice markup.No honestly, there is no profit margin for cheap cures.Only if they sell it cheaply. And "companies" are in competition with one another, so undercutting the others will be an incentive there too. Besides, cancer is so common that any cure is basically a license to print money. Beyond some fairly drastic genetic engineering it isn't a disease that's going to go away, cure or no cure. There'll always be new cases.
I get that big pharma are terrible for avoiding research into medicines for developing countries, but that's because they can't pay rather than the profit margin being poor.
Biologista are you blocking my relies?
I submitted a huge post a few hours ago and it is NOT on the forum...
I made it sure it was submitted and I can see you are the moderator- So whats the deal here?
"Sugar is very harmful to your health. "
Be carefull what you say. My mom takes B supplement pills because she is afraid that carbohydrates will make her fat.
this is besides the fact but a cautionary warning (is there any other kind?
her B suppliment pills provide excessive amounts of some B vitamins, moderate amounts of others, and none of some.
if you know anything about B vitamins you should take them ALL together, and ALL in recommended ratios. The body sees them all as the same and will get rid of them all equally to make up for an excess of one. This causes deficiency even though your getting enough, because the cheaper, more popularized B vitamins come in quanties of 1000% dose, the more expensive, less popularized ones come in 300% doses and ones most people will probably never hear about aren't included... the trace amounts people may get in their diets are mostly flushed away due to the excess amounts of others
saying that sugars are bad is harmful to the health of those with big ears and little brains
there are different types of sugars, each useful and potentially harmful in their own way
tell a diabetic to abstain from sugar and see what happens
tell a vegetarian to abstain from sugar and see what happens
tell an athlete to abstain from sugar and see what happens
lactose is important for colon flora
your muscles NEED sugar to function properly, your body makes sugar out of starch... tell people sugar is bad and pretty soon you have a bunch of ketosis victims shaking about everywhere stinking up the place
EXCESS sugar is indeed bad, thanks for pointing out the obvious and eliminating the necessary context for it to be understood.
People like you defeat their own arguments before they even start.
Again I would like to ask why the post I spent much time typing out never made it onto the board here ?
I will not now waste my time typing it out for an hour all over again so I will give a summary.
I anyone goes back and looks a biologista statements you will see that in one and the sentence- He will state both truth and falsehood.
All in one sentence there will be a fact and a fiction mixed together to serve his agenda- Which indeed reflects the agenda of many in the scientific field.
This is either and conscious though more likely a unconsious psychological tactic he is using to gain support for his flawed arguement.
Those who know anything about psychological techniques for manipulation will see clearly what he is doing.
Which brings up another point- It is very dangerous thing for a scientific mind to think this way.
Scientists have a great influence on the whole of mankind whether or not they are aware of this is another point entirely.
Their decisions effect everyone including themselves in very profound ways.
No one here is denying science has come a long way.
Yet science is been stunted. Thats the point. Vested interests are holding it back.
So please do not twist what I saying here biologista.
The fact remains you cannot disprove there is a cancer cure(s).
Vested interests will stop the studies been conducted in the first place.
There isnt any money it showing people how to turn away from a materialist paradigm.
Regarding the money thing. Its irrelevent.
So the people here harping on about the profits for a cure(s)-Come on now, think outside your boxes. As if the discovery and the one who makes the discovery is going to lead to massive fame and riches more than the 'pc geeks' like Bill Gates.
In fact it could lead to a massive breakdown in the whole system of society/economics- Thus it IS supressed.
There are very similar things happening in other fields of science and research. Suppresssion of information is happening no matter what you think.
biologista- Maybe you and all interested should refer to the origianal post.
Its clear that you are an example of how the scientific community in general thinks. Yet your statements show poor logic.
Your twisting things here to support your outdated world-view.
Sadly people fear change. Big changes even more so.
This is another area I plan to expand onto in this forum. Its where Im headed that been the pychological area combined with common sense.Merlin wrote:
Hey all,
In the opinion of people on these boards
- Is there a CURE for cancer currently that is actively suppressed ?
I understand that this may sound ridiculous to many.
There are currently plently of well-educated people who do seem to think that- Yes there is a cure(s) and yes they are been supressed...
Any comments?
I might get banned but it does not matter, truth is number one.
You really cannot save someone with cancer. They have to want to live. They have knowledge about something, that makes their life not really the life that they want.
Have individuals gotten an operation, and been saved sure. However it was more then anything, their own decision and own motivation and positive thinking, that got it done.
If anyone cares to look you may also notice where I briefly mention that many hypnotists claim to be able to do a much better job of ridding cancer from the body than any chemo or surgery.
Yes you may get banned ! It seems my post systematically destroying biologista argument never made it to the forum for some bizarre reason. Perhaps this was a 'semi ban' of myself !
Merlin, I am not blocking your replies. I don't have that power as moderator. I can only delete posts after the event. I have not done that in this case.
Please quote exactly where I did this.
Merlin, if you can refute my actual argument- show that what I am saying is incorrect or flawed- then do so. Suggesting that I'm engaging in some sort of psychological manipulation doesn't advance your argument.
This is actually true to an extent and most scientists will certainly admit that- for example research into clean vehicles has been held up through lack of funding, as has research into effective treatments for malaria. In both cases the deficit is due to corporate disinterest or fear. However, their capacity to actively suppress either is fairly limited. Both fields still advanced, albeit slower than they would if corporate funding were secured. But what evidence is there that this is occurring with cancer research? The funding for that, be it corporate or from other sources is huge.
The solution to that of course is the sort of tactic Barak Obama is adopting- more state funding for science. Charities have a big part to play too- especially when it comes to cancer research.
But you're asking me to prove a negative. You can't disprove that I have an pet unicorn hidden somewhere. Does that mean you and everyone else should assume I have one if I make that claim? Not at all. If I assert something extraordinary then it is on me to provide evidence. If you make such an assertion, it's on you.
What does that mean?
Well if that is their logic then why have so many governments brought in the HPV vaccine for free? That vaccine massively reduces the rate of new cervical cancer cases.
I think you're right about that. But wrong about the specifics.
In what way did my original post display poor logic? What logical fallacies were present?
As an aside, your demand that that I prove the non-existence of a cure for cancer is a logical fallacy. A form of argument from incredulity, with the implication being that if I cannot conclusively show that the cure does not exist that it must therefore exist. You have also dismissed your burden of evidence despite the fact that you are proposing that we shift our position from the null hypothesis (that being that no suppression exists). The standard in logical argument is that the person proposing the change or making the extraordinary claim is required to provide evidence.
Instead of making that claim repeatedly, why not show us how I have twisted the truth with examples?
And they are also sceptical of change, because were we to be credulous of all proposed changes we would change so often as to make no actual progress. It is not closed minded to display scepticism of change, it is the very definition of open-mindedness. Consideration of change, but on the basis of evidence.
Ok, speaking as a mod on this. If you want to make an accusation against me, you can do so in Site Feedback or by sending a PM to one of the admins (SkinWalker or (In)Sanity). But I don't want to see any more of this sort of claim on this thread. We have avenues for complaints and I don't think either of us wants this thread to be derailed into a series of accusations and defences about my moderation. Agreed?
I do not think anything has been suppressed. There are ways of preventing cancer, but lots of people would rather continue living unhealthy life styles and/or out of sync with their body type.
If there are ways to prevent something why is a cure so important? I think more money should be put into studying prevention since it tends to return more, and prevention tends to be much less invasive than treatment.
(sorry about the ignorant generalizations of my earlier post)
I agree with you biologista we should stay on topic.
I am not accusing you of deleting the post, yet it is strange it isnt here... I will not waste my time typing out replies for them to not appear...
That been said here is my original post:
Hey all,
In the opinion of people on these boards
- Is there a CURE for cancer currently that is actively suppressed ?
I understand that this may sound ridiculous to many.
There are currently plently of well-educated people who do seem to think that- Yes there is a cure(s) and yes they are been supressed...
Any comments?
THEN..............
There are cures for cancers and this is known.- ROBBIE
Biologista memory failing- “You specifically made the claim that a cancer cure (singular) has been suppressed.”
This pretty much sums it up
Biologista:
Let me ask you a direct question Merlin, what experience have you had with the scientific community? How many research papers have you read critically? How many conferences have you been to? Have you attended lectures? What about public debates?
I have you know most of my family hold atleast one degree- Many of them in science.
So not only do I get to see the public talks or "shows" to the general people out there I get to see behind the scenes too
I read enough of the 'scientific' papers, seen conferences enough to know whats occurring.
Point is that is irrelevant and an attempt to discredit. People possess common sense- Well atleast some
If groupA is using natural means to cure cancer, meanwhile groupB are using chemo and surgery- A pattern emerges....
If you see more poeple curing themselves in groupA then groupB -common sense tells you whats happening.
You don't need the 'sacred holy' medical journals to see what a 10 year old is capable of seeing.
These journals a 'third-party' evidence anyway.... Have you actually done every test to prove every conclusion you have read of in the "holy journals" according to Professor BoughtOut?
Biologista-please answer this-
If like you admit the pharma co.'s can be manipulated into corruption and can hinder research efforts etc. through the flow of where money does and doesnt go-
Can you see yet why research into the 'alternative' as you put it may never even begin in the first place?
Biologista:
Just because I said science blocks out new ideas does not mean it can automatically stop progression, does it?You claim that science is dogmatic and that it shuts out new ideas. So how is science still progressing to this day? How are we developing new medicines, sending probes and people into space, developing new energy technologies, taller buildings, faster cars, commercial space flight, faster computers? If we are so very closed to new ideas and radical thinking, how is any of this actually happening?
How is science progressing? Because the ones that think outside the box make it happen- The Geniuses make it happen- NOT THE AVERAGE SCIENTIST- Who tends to hold back science. They also are usually in it for the money and prestige i.e.- The wrong reasons.
Its a matter of speed. Science is NOT progressing fast enough.
Biologista:
Yes they are suppressed.But there are websites and books like this all over the place. Mostly they contradict each other but they're certainly not be suppressed are they?
Why?
Because regardless of how many scientists know this stuff- The average layman does NOT know. They turn to chemo and surgery.
Media suppression on knowledge is rampant.
**Just how partial?Do a little digging and you'll find that these companies are invariably owned by the likes of GSK, AstraZeneca, Pfizer Wyeth... the mainstream multinational pharmaceuticals companies. "The alternative" is **at least partially** a fabrication of the companies selling mainstream drugs.----
Anyway, these pharma co.s are in general fairly corrupted from what I've seen- what do you expect? They are in business- Dog eat dog world.
Regardless- Does the research break through to the light of day? Is the layman out there in a nursing home aware of his options?If the medicinal properties of Aloe Vera are being ignored then how come a search in Pubmed brings up over 1400 research papers into the use of aloe vera?
Yeh, not yours personally-That's the great thing about science, you don't have to take my word for it at all.
=======
======
So 1 man dies- Does that mean we should all now sign up for chemo?HOKIE
t's odd to laetrile still out there. Last I heard of it was back when Steve McQueen headed to Mexico for laetrile treatments. He died. The drug was not found to be beneficial.
Just may workspend a couple of weeks on our beaches drinking mai tais and go home feel swell
Hospitals are not very conductive towards healing.
=====
======
This is another topic in itself. A study of law, commerce and how vested interests use their influence.biologista:
So, how come these companies (under the control of Pfizer and the like) have continued to exist? Most of these companies were either set up by big pharma or have been under their control for a great many years. They're not being put out of business
NOTE: Biologista I am busy at present.. BUT- I have NOT forgotten your questions on page 3
I will address them very soon.
Ok here we go...
First off I admit I'm fairly new to using online forums so I have been having to go back into the earlier pages and copy and paste them into a word doc. to use the quotes... Very time consuming- Any help here appreciated.
Back to the matter at hand:
BIOLOGISTAMerlin wrote:
Again I would like to ask why the post I spent much time typing out never made it onto the board here ?
I will not now waste my time typing it out for an hour all over again so I will give a summary.
I anyone goes back and looks a biologista statements you will see that in one and the sentence- He will state both truth and falsehood.
All in one sentence there will be a fact and a fiction mixed together to serve his agenda- Which indeed reflects the agenda of many in the scientific field.
Yes I admit it could be considered a rant- Yet I WAS focused on the issue at hand AND I certainlt DO have an intention of debating the matter!Please quote exactly where I did this.
You also decided to take off ona rant against the scientific community rather than focus on the issue at hand, which says to me that you came here having no intention of debating this matter. Your position was pre-formed and not open to discussion.
What do you think I'm doing here! THERES EXAMPLE ONE- Your technique to discredit.
EXAMPLE TWO (2): I agree that my opinion was formed before entering the topic ****YET I AM CERTAINLY OPEN TO DISCUSSION***
What is this stuff!?
Clear for all to see now.
-----
NEXT
You specifically made the claim that a cancer cure (singular) has been suppressed. You have yet to provide evidence that shows this to be the case.
DID I REALLY? Mmmm. I invite EVERYONE here to go back to the original post!
----
NEXT
Merlin wrote:
Proving that cancer has many cure(s) was just going to be icing on the cake. Well in my opinion the icing is now on the cake too...
BioLogista:
So here we can see he side-stepped the original INTENTION I stated for this topic disregarding it and went on TO MIX THE WORDS:But nobody is hiding the current treatments for cancer. They're well publicised.
cure(s) AND "treatments"
Flawed logic.
But nobody is hiding the current treatments for cancer. They're well publicised.Merlin wrote:
Proving that cancer has many cure(s) was just going to be icing on the cake. Well in my opinion the icing is now on the cake too...
Merlin wrote:
biologista:But is a scientist going to admit that? I really doubt so....
I just did- but then that's been my position from the start.
THEN WHY PUT THIS IN THE PSEUDO section??????????????????????
MORE TO FOLLOW
Hey all,
In the opinion of people on these boards
- Is there a CURE for cancer currently that is actively suppressed ?
I understand that this may sound ridiculous to many.
There are currently plently of well-educated people who do seem to think that- Yes there is a cure(s) and yes they are been supressed...
Any comments?
Biologista:
“”You specifically made the claim that a cancer cure (singular) has been suppressed. You have yet to provide evidence that shows this to be the case. “”
DID I REALLY? Mmmm. I invite EVERYONE here to go back to the original post!
Biologista:
A little too much OVER-scepticism perhaps!What you see as closed mindedness is the scepticism that prevents us from perusing and believing the claims of anyone who comes along with a half-baked idea.
biologista
On the contrary- It indeed does! It shows how the average scientists are trained to think in certain patterns to the exclusion of any other way of perceiving things.
Suggesting that I'm engaging in some sort of psychological manipulation doesn't advance your argument.
SEE ORIGINAL INTENTION of this topic as stated.
In both cases the deficit is due to corporate disinterest or fear. However, their capacity to actively suppress either is fairly limited.
HOW SURE ARE YOU OF THIS?
Big assumption here.
biologista:
NO. It was merely a 'figure-of-speech' which you took out of context.But you're asking me to prove a negative. You can't disprove that I have an pet unicorn hidden somewhere. Does that mean you and everyone else should assume I have one if I make that claim?
biologista:Merlin wrote:
Vested interests will stop the studies been conducted in the first place.
There isnt any money in* showing people how to turn away from a materialist paradigm.
It means what it means: One thing leads to another...What does that mean?
First people hear, for example, there was suppression of an electric car. Then they SEE for themselves other corruptions all-around-them. Banking crooks. Pharma Cons. Scientists sold out to vested interests. Hypocritical poloticans etc. etc.
The result is a revelation "Wow- This world is going in the WRONG direction"
Of course we dont all want to go back to living in mud-huts.
ITS ABOUT STRIKING A BALANCE WITH NATURE
So people start seeing how they can have cure(s) to cancer BUT THATS JUST the beginning. They start to move beyond the rampant materialistic mindset many scientists are famous for and that has been thrown into general populace in a way similar to hypnotism. They dont realise!
*in changed from typo- "it".
Merlin wrote:
Regarding the money thing. Its irrelevent.
So the people here harping on about the profits for a cure(s)-Come on now, think outside your boxes. As if the discovery and the one who makes the discovery is going to lead to massive fame and riches more than the 'pc geeks' like Bill Gates.
In fact it could lead to a massive breakdown in the whole system of society/economics- Thus it IS supressed.
I wouldnt be so sure the HPV vaccine is all is cracked up to be. How would you know anyway? Its fairly new isnt it?biologista:
Well if that is their logic then why have so many governments brought in the HPV vaccine for free? That vaccine massively reduces the rate of new cervical cancer cases.
The government always has some sort of agenda. You should of worked that out by now.......
Merlin wrote:
There are very similar things happening in other fields of science and research. Suppresssion of information is happening no matter what you think.
biologista:
DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT I THINK THE SPECIFICS WERE?I think you're right about that. But wrong about the specifics.
biologista:
WRONG no dismissal- You havent done your homework clearlyYou have also dismissed your burden of evidence despite the fact that you are proposing that we shift our position from the null hypothesis (that being that no suppression exists).
biologista:
I AM DOING SO.. BUT IN A WAY YOU FAIL TO RECOGNISE.The standard in logical argument is that the person proposing the change or making the extraordinary claim is required to provide evidence.
Merlin; you are trying to be deceptive here. You deliberately misquoted me.
My full quote isHey all,
In the opinion of people on these boards
- Is there a CURE for cancer currently that is actively suppressed ?
I understand that this may sound ridiculous to many.
There are currently plently of well-educated people who do seem to think that- Yes there is a cure(s) and yes they are been supressed...
Any comments?
THEN..............
There are cures for cancers and this is known.- ROBBIE
Biologista memory failing- “You specifically made the claim that a cancer cure (singular) has been suppressed.”
This pretty much sums it up Smile
Everyone knows this; there are many people who are cured of cancer today; you should know this. Not everyone who develops cancer dies of the disease; many do not. This is nothing to do with the discussion you are having here.There are cures for cancers and this is known.
Surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy all have roles in this treatment which Im sure you know. Many people who develop cancer survive the disease.
This is not secret information and mortality rates have been declining since the 50s.
However, there is no one, single, fits all cure for "cancer" as an entity itself and there is no active efforts amount the scientific community to suppress it.
If you want to be taken seriously please do not misquote us here; that way we will never reach agreement.
What you are asking for is a cover up type operation for cancer treatments; i've explained my position on it some time ago; I will not reiterate but do not try to confuse people of my position on this.
I do not think that there is active suppression of discoveries of potential cancer treatments/cures.
I would suggest you read the first page of your posts and see how your position has changed between then and now.
I also suggest you resummarise or explain your position for the benefit of biologista among others who dont feel you have adequately explained certain details of your argument. There will be no real discussion if you keep telling people to reread.
I'm in work at the moment and generally busy today, so I'll just address this one point for now.
In life sciences we tend not to use the word "cure". Many treatments have the potential to cure a condition, but never do these have the 100% success rate implied by the word "cure". What the average man-on-the-street means by "cure" is what scientists will call a treatment, therapy, intervention (or many other words specific to what is involved in them and how effective they are). Cure is simply a term we don't use because technically (and we're always technical) there are no actual cures for any disease at all. That is to say no existing treatment cures people 100% of the time.So here we can see he side-stepped the original INTENTION I stated for this topic disregarding it and went on TO MIX THE WORDS:
cure(s) AND "treatments"
Flawed logic.
Even drugs like strong antibiotics and vaccines, which were hailed as miracle cures by the public in their day, are not referred to as cures for infection A or B by scientists, as the use of that word is misleading. Antibiotics and vaccines don't work 100% of the time. So this is not a logical fallacy, it's just me using the scientific terminology and you using the colloquial terminology.
So, to clarify my position:
1. Cancer refers to a family of diseases that share only one common trait: uncontrolled cell division. There is no genetic cause, infectious cause or any other cause that is common to all cancers. And so a single treatment (which you can call a cure if you wish) to cancer is beyond our current understanding of these diseases. It is as much beyond us as would be a universal, monovalent vaccine for all viruses. This does not rule out future development of either, but right now we do not possess the understanding to achieve this on a timescale of decades.
2. There are, however, a number of treatments (which you may call cures) for various individual cancers. These include vaccines, chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery. There's also antibody targeted therapies and other immune-system based therapies, though these are newer and still being brought in gradually as I understand it. Their success rates vary, but they often "cure" the condition.
3. These treatments, regardless of efficacy, social implication or cost, are not being suppressed by corporate or government interests. They're generally available to the public. If there were an interest in blocking treatment of cancer, it seems strange that even these treatments are available. It seems even stranger that governments implement screening programs to catch cancers as early as possible- thus enhancing the efficacy of the available treatments considerably. Neither behavior is consistent with an organized plan to suppress cancer treatment.
4. Research into better treatments is ongoing as evidenced by the scientific literature. Amongst these are a fair number of "natural" therapies which undermines the accusation that these are ignored by the mainstream. That argument is weak anyway, since some 30% or so of drugs prescribed in the mainstream are derived from natural sources such as plants and even more are derived from natural fungi or from microbes. The new therapies are not yet available as options to the man in the nursing home because they're still in the trials stage. To skip that safety and efficacy stage is very risky indeed. The reason we're so careful about trials these days is because failing to take those 10-15 years has in the past lead to terrible tragedies such as the thalidomide incident. The pharmaceuticals companies would probably rather not have to jump through expensive regulatory hoops so they can sell drugs, but that is enforced upon them by governments.
As a final point, you did indeed say "cure(s)" at one point in your opening post. But following on from your use of the singular "cure" in the thread title and the start of your post, I figured I'd address that point. And when I suggested that a single cure for cancer was not likely to be possible, you replied:
And so we continued to discuss the concept of "a cure" singular, until you suddenly started to claim that you'd never suggested such a thing were possible and that I was twisting your words.
The topic of this thread is whether a cancer cure or cures exist which are being suppressed in some manner. Your post has little to do with that topic and indeed appears to offer medical advice for those with cancer. Any further posts of that nature will be split or possibly deleted.
Pseudoscience is not intended to be a free-for-all or an evidence free zone, so I will not accept repeated claims made without the provision of good, primary sourced evidence. This especially applies to claims made which could potentially harm a person's health, or in this case potentially kill them.
This thread has turned into a melee of comments that really sound like someone's need to believe in a conspiracy - any conspiracy - rather than a particular conspiracy, which in this case concerns suppressed cancer cures.
So who is behind this suppression? It has to be those who stand to lose out if do not people die.Code:In fact it could lead to a massive breakdown in the whole system of society/economics- Thus it IS supressed.
1. Pharmaceuticals? No. They'll just sell the cure.
2. Grave diggers union? Possible.
3. Undertakers association? Likely.
4. Wig makers? I think we're getting close.
Those who stand to gain from distributing the cure.
1. Insurance companies. Yes. Think of the saving in benefits paid out.
2. Government. Yes. Again, think of the savings in benefits paid out.
3. Companies in general. Yes. Their benefits packages will cost less.
4. Conspiracy groups. Yes. They can claim victory.
The money thing isn't irrelevant. Nearly everyone in this country has a huge gain coming their way if cancer is so-called cured. Maybe grave diggers and wig makers lose out on reduced sales, but everyone else sees costs and prices go down.Regarding the money thing. Its irrelevent.
So the people here harping on about the profits for a cure(s)-Come on now, think outside your boxes. As if the discovery and the one who makes the discovery is going to lead to massive fame and riches more than the 'pc geeks' like Bill Gates.
http://www.cancer.gov/aboutnci/servi...e/CostOfCancer
In 2004 72 billion was spent on cancer with an estimated 120 billion in other costs associated with cancer for a total of 192 billion.
Very good point. 192 billion saved for the taxpayers with potential hundreds of millions available in profits for the cure makers.
IF the cure for cancer was faith, as some say is the cure for all diseases(most just don't have enough), a suppression is clear, the conspiracy of all ages using empiricism to downplay innate knowledge.
maybe
Sad thing is there is no way to try to prove it without loosing ones ability to do so, but theoretically one could accidentally prove it, but such a thing would be widely discredited except by those present.
There is also a huge monetary gain if we would reduce traffic accidents. More so even than for cancer.
It still isn't happening.
And the reason is very simple. Companies operate according to certain specific economic models. There can be some risk, but it isn't in the best interest of a company to discover a cheap and effective cure for cancer. There is just no profit margin in it.
What is profitable are long expensive treatments, preferably ones that need to be repeated regularly.
But by all means, go to a company and propose a cheap cure for cancer. It isn't very difficult to design a research program that could lead to one. Just keep in mind: cheap and high throughput, model system.
I wish you luck.
---
Bill Gates is just a big cunt. He actually made sure that several medications are now more expensive for third world countries. The motherfucker. If you want people like him to cure cancer you are in for a long wait.
So why do big pharmaceuticals companies make vaccines? You get a prime, a booster and that's it. As we've seen with smallpox and (nearly) polio, vaccination can actually make a given disease extinct, potentially eradicating the market for that vaccine. Even the hyopthetical cure for cancer would still leave us with some 10 million new cases to be cured per year because it's not based on a pathogen.
There is an effort to reduce traffic accidents:There is also a huge monetary gain if we would reduce traffic accidents.
1. regulation of cellphone usage
2. speed limits
3. restraints and air bags
4. collision testing
5. traffic lights
6. DUI enforcement
7. licensing drivers
8. annual car inspections
And where does it state that this isn't the case with a cancer cure?What is profitable are long expensive treatments, preferably ones that need to be repeated regularly.
Cancer isn't one disease. You would have to develop a cure for who knows how many forms of cancer.So why do big pharmaceuticals companies make vaccines? You get a prime, a booster and that's it. As we've seen with smallpox and (nearly) polio, vaccination can actually make a given disease extinct, potentially eradicating the market for that vaccine. Even the hyopthetical cure for cancer would still leave us with some 10 million new cases to be cured per year because it's not based on a pathogen.
I would guess that the first basic research to find a cheap combination of substances that have a negative effect on a cancer type would cost around a few million Euros with a high throughput method.
And probably none of those can be patented. It could well be that some of the substances are already patented.
So it would require a government to start up such a program. But science funding doesn't work like that. Scientists present research proposals and funding bodies decide if they like it or not. Moreover, researchers want to understand cancer, not cure it.
I would do it, but I still have a grant for my own research. Nobody would fund me though because I am not a bigshot: which means politically connected.
Spurious, look at my very first post on this thread. We're now talking purely in hypotheticals to counter the obvious nonsense being spouted by the conspiracy theorists. We're looking at the question in terms of some specific cancer treatment or some imaginary simple miracle cure. The second of these being what the conspiracy heads seem to be convinced is being hidden away by The Man.Cancer isn't one disease. You would have to develop a cure for who knows how many forms of cancer.So why do big pharmaceuticals companies make vaccines? You get a prime, a booster and that's it. As we've seen with smallpox and (nearly) polio, vaccination can actually make a given disease extinct, potentially eradicating the market for that vaccine. Even the hyopthetical cure for cancer would still leave us with some 10 million new cases to be cured per year because it's not based on a pathogen.
I'd have thought that novel substances isolated from plants could be patented, or the technique for doing the isolation could be if the substance itself cannot. Beside, patenting can work on many levels. Novel usage of specific substances already patented can itself be patented. You get diminishing returns for sure, but there's money to be had. Your first point on the cost of researching a catch-all cure I totally agree with, but cost is hardly the main problem with that concept.
A government or a non-profit NGO. Both of which do seem to be engaged in good cancer research, and not just of the bog standard characterisation style.
I wouldn't limit the analysis to novel substances. I would look for combination effects.
The studies on aloe that I've read take that approach, using it as an immunostimulant in conjunction with conventional chemo. If it pans out it might mean lower chemo doses, especially if they get a nice synergistic effect.
Maybe I will write a grant application. My current grant runs out in 1.5 years.
Write me into it. I need a job and I'm awesome at science.
Sorry, we only hire assholes.
I think I can get character references for that somewhere.
he he I can help out with referenceI think I can get character references for that somewhere.[/quote]
Robbie:
**I have read it many times. MY POSITION HAS NEVER CHANGED. You merely did NOT comprehend what was happening.I would suggest you read the first page of your posts and see how your position has changed between then and now.
I also suggest you resummarise or explain your position for the benefit of biologista among others who dont feel you have adequately explained certain details of your argument. There will be no real discussion if you keep telling people to reread
**My position was AND ALWAYS has been since I started posting on this topic that there are cure(s) that are been supressed---- and that I would NOT be suprised if there was ONE cure for cancer--- Although I am UNSURE if there is ONE cure, I know there are many supressed cure(s).
****I also stated that this particular post can be seen as an EXAMPLE of how the AVERAGE scientist THINKS generally. i.e. CLOSED-MINDED to anything "not acceptable". Science sadly has become a belief-system of sorts for many not unlike a dogmatic religion. Much knowledge is taken on "third-party" FAITH.
Not every scientist can do every test needed to see for himself what is occurring. That would take many lifetimes.
Robbie:
Well when someone writes something it should be read before coming out with a counter-arguement, agreed?There will be no real discussion if you keep telling people to reread
Lets not be lazy here.
Thats the point right there!Quote:
What is profitable are long expensive treatments, preferably ones that need to be repeated regularly.
Hokie:
And where does it state that this isn't the case with a cancer cure?
It IS the case with cancer. People dish out $1000's for 'treatments'.
What is the success rate of chemo?
What is the success rate of surgery?
Either way many more will die. The ones that dont are left with only one breast or end up glowing in the dark with toxic crap running through their bodies.
What biologista and I were arguing about for this point is that there are different treatments work for different cancers and there will not be any one drug that will cure all cancers; for example, something which may be effective for a colonic adenocarcinoma may not work for a glioblastoma.
Similarly; many of the expensive new drugs are genuinely very expensive to make; let alone to research and put through clinical trials. e.g. cetuximab and trastuzumab.
This is such that pharmaceutical companies are questioning whether to research them at all since their cost to healthcare systems prevents them from selling sufficient amounts.
Furthermore they cant be used repeatedly indefinitely; the cancer invariably becomes resistant to many of the biological agents making the patient refractory to their effects; this is in nobody's interest.
A reasonably cheap drug to make would satisfy both pharmaceutical companies and healthcare systems.
science is not faith based. We have the experiments to prove it.****I also stated that this particular post can be seen as an EXAMPLE of how the AVERAGE scientist THINKS generally. i.e. CLOSED-MINDED to anything "not acceptable". Science sadly has become a belief-system of sorts for many not unlike a dogmatic religion. Much knowledge is taken on "third-party" FAITH.
Not every scientist can do every test needed to see for himself what is occurring. That would take many lifetimes. Smile
Depends on the cancer type; breast carcinomas, depending on subtype, quite good. Small cell carcinoma of the lung, very bad.What is the success rate of chemo?
What is the success rate of surgery?
Surgery has excellent success rates generally though if caught early. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy are improving in massive strides.
No.Either way many more will die. The ones that dont are left with only one breast or end up glowing in the dark with toxic crap running through their bodies.
Sentinal node biopsy means many breast cancer surgeries dont require mastectomy.
I dont really think I need to explain the part about glowing in the dark; chemotherapeutic drugs are eliminated from the body.
No, you started out talking about cancer and then moved the goalposts once that was refuted. Then you started to act like you were making some grand point about scientists being closed minded.
Neglected, ignored or underfunded, yes. Suppressed no.
Now you're just confusing closed mindedness with scepticism. You yourself have decided that science has become dogmatic and refuse to consider the possibility that you've misunderstood how science works. There's a good YouTube video on this concept that is well worth watching.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
So, what's your point? That we have faith in the scientific literature? Of course it's impossible to reproduce all experiments for oneself. But what you're criticising is a system which insists on presentation of evidence, that values scepticism. There may be fraud or mistake, but we are always mindful of this. Even the primary papers are not taken as gospel. If they were, there would be many scientists who are now disgraced still publishing. If that is "faith", it is not faith in the same sense as it is applied to religious texts.Not every scientist can do every test needed to see for himself what is occurring. That would take many lifetimes.
Not quite. Mostly, insurance companies dish out the thousands. Or governments do. Either way, it's basically a payout from fixed fees or taxes. Which means the the existence or non-existence of cancer or treatments for it does not typically impact on the amount of money that the cancer victim is paying. I'm cynical enough to assume that if cancer were somehow obliterated tomorrow that we'd all still be paying pretty much the same taxes and insurance premiums.
Here it is again: **I have read it many times. MY POSITION HAS NEVER CHANGED. You merely did NOT comprehend what was happening.Merlin wrote:
**I have read it many times. MY POSITION HAS NEVER CHANGED. You merely did NOT comprehend what was happening.
No, you started out talking about cancer and then moved the goalposts once that was refuted. Then you started to act like you were making some grand point about scientists being closed minded.
The above would be forms of supression in my book.Merlin wrote:
**My position was AND ALWAYS has been since I started posting on this topic that there are cure(s) that are been supressed---- and that I would NOT be suprised if there was ONE cure for cancer--- Although I am UNSURE if there is ONE cure, I know there are many supressed cure(s).
Neglected, ignored or underfunded, yes. Suppressed no.
My point would be that there still is an aspect of science that is faith-based, yet many scientists would claim otherwise.Merlin wrote:
Not every scientist can do every test needed to see for himself what is occurring. That would take many lifetimes. Smile
So, what's your point? That we have faith in the scientific literature? Of course it's impossible to reproduce all experiments for oneself. But what you're criticising is a system which insists on presentation of evidence, that values scepticism. There may be fraud or mistake, but we are always mindful of this. Even the primary papers are not taken as gospel. If they were, there would be many scientists who are now disgraced still publishing. If that is "faith", it is not faith in the same sense as it is applied to religious texts.
Merlin wrote:
Not every scientist can do every test needed to see for himself what is occurring. That would take many lifetimes. Smile
So, what's your point? That we have faith in the scientific literature? Of course it's impossible to reproduce all experiments for oneself. But what you're criticising is a system which insists on presentation of evidence, that values scepticism. There may be fraud or mistake, but we are always mindful of this. Even the primary papers are not taken as gospel. If they were, there would be many scientists who are now disgraced still publishing. If that is "faith", it is not faith in the same sense as it is applied to religious texts.
I agree with you here. Its not the exact same as an old religious type faith- Yet it is still there.
For example- You obviously take 'on faith' what is presented in the journals of science like many do. Yet you couldnt possibly be 100% certain and KNOW that what they are presenting is fully accurate, therefore it is to a degree faith-based.
In general science will act as if it is all certain and proven on many topics. That is the impression that is given to the public... Yet its not true.
The point is that scientists can and do easily fall into the traps of OVER-skepticism and fail to even give a chance to look at something presented to them which may conflict with their own training/opinion.
Have you even looked into the sites and RESOURCES on those sites for another way of looking at the cancer problem?
I noticed you replies that is was rubbish after a few minutes of me posting that information. That clearly shows me you did NOT look at what was presented.
Merlin wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
What is profitable are long expensive treatments, preferably ones that need to be repeated regularly.
Thats the point right there!
It IS the case with cancer. People dish out $1000's for 'treatments'.
Not quite. Mostly, insurance companies dish out the thousands. Or governments do. Either way, it's basically a payout from fixed fees or taxes. Which means the the existence or non-existence of cancer or treatments for it does not typically impact on the amount of money that the cancer victim is paying. I'm cynical enough to assume that if cancer were somehow obliterated tomorrow that we'd all still be paying pretty much the same taxes and insurance premiums.
Well if you could grow and more natural, more effective, less dangerous cure and/or treatment in your own backyard- How would that be used for profits? How could that be patented?
Think about it.....
Which was what?
Is that book a dictionary? Suppression is active and knowing withholding of a thing, not ignorance or disinterest in it. Your concept of "suppression" seems as fluid as your concepts of dogma and faith.
That's not really what you were saying before. You were making out that science is dogmatic, not that there's some hand-wavey "aspect" of faith to the system. It's the same faith we place in all mundane things. A weak faith that can be overturned with evidence, that is never let lie entirely, that is questioned. That's nothing like religious, dogmatic faith.
To a degree. Like the faith you put in the guy who assembled the the seatbelts in your car or built your house. Have you crash tested your car recently? Burn tested your house? Does failing to do so make you dogmatic? And if the journal system is so dogmatic, then how is it that we catch fraudsters like Hwang Woo-Suk? We catch them because in science, all knowledge, all of it- no matter how significant it is nor how well-respected it's discoverer is- is subject to re-testing and confirmation.
Science doesn't act like anything. Scientists, people, act confident or cautious by parts. The story from the community as a whole is often quite another matter. Take the old cliche rolled out by climate change denialists "scientists were saying the world was cooling a few decades ago". Technically true, some scientists were saying that. But most were not, the consensus of the experts was actually in favour of global warming even then. But the cooling story captured the imagination of the the media, and so the public perceived "science" saying something that it really wasn't saying.
In this case the consensus was right (but they weren't at all as confident about it during the 70's because there was less evidence), but imagine they were wrong. Having claimed that science is dogmatic, are you suggesting there's some weakness in changing our most deeply-held convictions when the evidence compels us to?
"Science" can be wrong, of course, but ask yourself how many times the apparent position of science has been held by lone, media-friendly figures. Where what "science says" has been determined by a media focus on an issue with no consideration for reflecting the actual consensus of the experts. Look at Andrew Wakefield and the MMR scare. Science proven wrong? No. The media championing a lone figure with no support in the community.
People can do that, sure. It's not something unique to scientists and indeed I'd be surprised if it weren't much rarer in scientists for one simple reason. Science is not a job that pays well, unless you innovate. Unless open-minded, it's unlikely that a scientist can progress far in status or wealth. You're merely drawing the "over-sceptical" line around the ideas you consider true, because you'd rather assume that we simply haven't looked that the evidence at all, rather than that we've looked at it and discarded it because the evidence is weak.
You noticed what? You posted links exactly once, on May 5th at 10:52. My next post was some 17 hours later. And you preach to me about assumption? You've decided I'm "closed-minded" without even taking the time to get these very basic facts straight. As you'll note from my rather specific responses to Rob, I have read at least some of the posted sources. The ones I read made numerous statements like the ones you're making without backing any of them up. I might as well have been reading the bible. It was all confident authority and no supporting evidence. Assertions that there have been no human studies into the effects of aloe in cancer therapy when in fact there have. Your sources were more of the the same. Claims that mainstream medicine is inadequate or dangerous- somehow always being presented by the guy selling the alternative. Claims that vitamins (but always in pill form) cure this and that, based on tentative research from decades ago that has since been refuted, not suppressed.
I've read your sources, and I'll keep reading them. So far they've not supported your claims, so you can cut the "closed-minded" crap.
For starters, that would involve self-medication which is remarkably dangerous. Anything strong enough to treat cancer is strong enough to to cause serious harm if overdosed. Under dosing would be just as risky. These would both be very real risks as dose control of something grown in your garden would be next to impossible. The levels of active ingredient would be contingent on a huge number of factors such as soil conditions, water quality, care taken of plant , leaf size, method of preparation. How does a gardener assess his crop for the levels of his active ingredient? Shall we train them all to do ELISA assays?
So there'd be profit for anyone who can grow the stuff with a guaranteed dose level, or preferably purify the active ingredient and do heavy quality control on it. Like say some sort of medicines company with dedicated lab facilities and people who know what they're doing working in them. Of course, we'd need someone to keep an eye on them and make sure the quality is high, contaminants low and that the stuff does what it says. Like the FDA.
I'd like to congratulate TheBiologista on continuing to present novel and well formed counter-points consistently, for 5 pages. I would have worn out my pocket medical dictionary and lost motivation by now. Probably would have resorted to calling someone a poopie-head too.
Well thank you. Poopie-head would be a new one around these parts- generally the insults are a lot more personal! I wouldn't be sure whether I should moderate it or laugh my ass off :wink:
Have to agree; kudos to you!
I found this very interesting!
There is more to it, I have included the reference as a follow up if any one wants to know more. Ineteresting information.
"Dr. James Watson won a Nobel Prize for determining the shape of DNA. During the 1970's, he served two years on the National Cancer Advisory Board. In 1975, he was asked about the National Cancer Program. He declared, 'It's a bunch of shit.'
"In the early 1960's, two New York City doctors, one associated with the leading cancer center in America and the other the medical director of a Brooklyn hospital, decided to inject live cancer cells into 22 unknowing patients. When they were discovered, Dr. Chester M. Southam of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and Dr. E.E. Mandel of the Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital of Brooklyn were put on "probation" for a year. The three physicians who "blew the whistle" on Dr. Southam and Dr. Mandel were dismissed.
http://www.altcancer.com/lysis.htm
In a very interesting article on Cancer in the Vancouver Sun News paper, in May 2004, here in Van. BC, it said that ... with 1 in 3 women and 1 in 2 men currently dying from cancer each year, it is now estimated that dying from cancer will be the leading cause of death by the year 2020 . Adding more soy to our food supply will only increase the yearly cancer deaths, along with all of its unimaginable pain, suffering, and heartache. Since soy also causes cancer & cancer cells to grow, you can see no one is safe from the very many known, ignored, denied, harmful and sometimes deadly side-effects of eating soy. It is very easy to conclude that if soy is recommend to anyone, many for people will also be faced with cancer and a reoccurrence of cancer from eating soy. Recommend soy, a poison, to anyone and you will very likely be giving them an automatic death sentence, and participating in mass murder. Why do we say this ??. Dr. Samuel Epstein, MD, founder of the “Cancer Prevention Coalition” and Professor of Environmental and Occupational Medicine at the School of Public Health, University of Illinois Medical Center, says in the 2003 movie “The Corporation” ... http://www.thecorporation.com/ , and ... http://www.thecorporation.tv/about/ (Synopsis), that ... dying from chemical poisoning is really no different than if a gun was put to your head and someone else pulled the trigger. Chemical poisoning is just a little slower, that’s all ... Murder is still Murder. ... / 99
“... A sad plight in North America are the elderly. They are constantly told by their doctors, “well, you can expect to be ill at your age” thereby sapping {depleting} them continually of life force. Add to this the fact that we have been brainwashed into thinking that anyone of 70 years is old, {nothing could be further from the truth}, and then the fact that if they do get ill, their whole life savings goes immediately to the doctor, hospital and pharmaceutical companies; so that, even if they recover from this whole (-)negative attitude they have been put under, then all they have to look forward to is a meagre old age pension, where they can’t even afford the proper nutritious foods. As we are all only too aware, junk food, {and yes, also foods with toxic ingredients}, are cheap, but nutritious food is almost out of reach for all of us. I wonder if anyone will ever do something about this tragedy. After living in the east, I feel that our elderly are dying 30
years before their time, just because they have been told that it is expected ...”.
From ... “Killing Cancer, The Jason Winters Story”, © 1993, by Benjamin R. Smythe, Sir Jason Winters
After the 2nd World War, Canada and the U.S.A. were two countries that signed both the “Declaration of Helsinki” and the “Nuremberg Code “. These agreements state that countries and industry will not and can not use people as “Guinea Pigs” … A person can not be experimented on without the person(s) permission; they “must tell” the person(s) “in advance” about … “a reasonable chance of harm” … “A person has the right to be informed … to be given the opportunity to CHOOSE” … so that the person(s) is allowed the right to exercise their free will to participate or not. ( i.e.: Dr. Nancy Olivieri wins her legal battle with Apotex Pharmaceutical Company, 1998-2002, Children’s Hospital, Toronto, Ont.).
.
In the case of soy, this research paper clearly documents scientifically that these international agreements have been knowingly and willfully violated for over 80 years by the “Participants,” which includes but is not limited to … the mainstream and the natural health food industries-(manufactures, sellers) … the soy industry and their industry scientists, Monsanto, DuPont, Dow, pharmaceutical industry … merchants-(vitamin companies, retail stores) … publicists-(almost all authors of books on nutrition, food writers) … US FDA … the advertising media and news media … USDA … the main stream medical system … Naturopaths … the Alternative Health Care System … bureaucrats, (in various positions of authority and regulatory authority), in almost all countries. Because of the “Participants” actions, the victims can charge them with “Criminal Homicide,” Criminal Gross Negligence, Deceit and Deception through Fraudulent Intent and Concealment of the many serious health hazards imposed onto the world population from putting soy in our food supply) . See pages 101 – 104
Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, 1990
http://www.trufax.org/reports/legal.html
Legal Definitions
While reading the following definitions, think of the topics ... Aspartame ... Food irradiation ... GMO food ... Vaccinations ... Soy ...
Canola ...Fluoride ... EMF hazards-(microwaves) ... Pesticides ... etc., etc., etc.
Belief Proof Quasi Crimes
Conflict of Interest Positive Proof Criminal Homicide
Conspiracy in Restraint of Trade Informed Consent Monopoly
Suppressio Veri, Espressio Falsi Convincing Proof Monopoly Power
Truth Those who control & manipulate others, Def. Monopolization
Fact Criminal Conspiracy Negligence
Fraud Color of Law Preponderance of evidence
Fraudulent Concealment Color of Office Willful Misconduct
Fraudulent Intend Criminal Grass Negligence Malicious Abuse of Legal Process
Deceit Criminal Behavior
Misrepresentation “Last Train From Gun Hill,” 1959, Kirk Douglas, Paramount Pictures
... / 101
- 101 -
Dangers of Dietary Isoflavones
at levels above those found in traditional diets
The Risks Of Abandoning “The Precautionary Principle”
by Soy Online Service … http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/
“Soy - Abundance Of Health Hazards” … http://www.mayanmajix.com/soy01.html
Leading Edge Research: Blacks Legal Definitions
See Also, Corporate Research Page
Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, 1990
Legal Definitions
http://www.trufax.org/reports/legal.html
Belief: A subjective condition that is a conviction of the truth of a proposition, induced into existence within the mind. (Note: that belief does not involve truth, but only the conviction of it).
Conflict of Interest: Term used in connection with public officials, fiduciaries and their relationship to matters of private interest or gain to them; a clash between public interest and the private pecuniary interest of the individual or individuals concerned; a conflict of interest arise when a person's personal or financial interest conflicts or appears to conflict with his official responsibility. 18 U.S.C.A. §203 et seq. Examples: An FDA official takes a job with a company producing a product over whom he has had regulatory influence; a company official takes a job at the FDA where he or she is in a position to rule over products created by his former employer or extensions of products or processes thereof.
Conspiracy in Restraint of Trade: All forms of illegal agreements which have as their object interference with free flow of commerce and trade.
Suppressio Veri, Expressio Falsi: Suppression of the truth is equivalent to expression or suggestion of what is false.
Truth: That which is conformable to the actual state of things. (Note: not subjective)
Fact: Reality of events or things the actual occurrence or existence of which is to be determined by evidence. An actual happening in time and space or a mental or physical event.
Fraud: An intentional perversion of the truth for the purpose of inducing anotherin reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing or to surrender a legal right; a false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words ot conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal inquiry; anything calculated to deceive, whether by a single act or combination, or by suppression of truth, or suggestion of what is false, whether it be by direct falsehood or innuendo, by speech or silence, word of mouth, or look or gesture; fraud comprises all acts, omissions, and concealments involving a branch of legal or equitable duty and resulting in damage to another.
Fraudulent Concealment: The hiding or suppression of a material fact or circumstance which the party is legally or morally bound to disclose, in order to prevent inquiry, escape investigation, or to mislead or hinder the acquisition of information disclosing a right of action.
Fraudulent Intent: Such intent exists where one, either with a view of benefitting oneself or misleading another into a course of action, makes a representation which one knows to be false or which one does not believe to be true.
Deceit: A fraudulent and deceptive misrepresentation, artifice, or device, used by one or more persons to deceive and trick another, who is ignorant of the true facts.
http://www.trufax.org/reports/legal.html .
Misrepresentation: Any manifestation by words or other conduct not in accordance with the facts; an untrue statement of fact; an incorrect or false representation which, if accepted, leads the mind to an apprehension of a condition other and different from that which exists.
Proof: The result or effect of evidence, the means by which a fact is proven.
Positive Proof: That which establishes the fact in question, as opposed to negative proof, which establishes the fact by showing that its opposite is not or cannot be true.
Informed Consent: A person's agreement to allow something to happen, based on full disclosure of the facts needed to make the decision intelligently; i.e., knowledge of risks involved, alternatives, etc.; the general priciple of law embodying the duty to disclose to another whatever risks might be incurred from a proposed course of treatment, so that a person, exercising ordinary care for his own welfare, and faced with a choice of undergoing the proposed treatment, or alternative treatment, or none at all, may intelligently exercise his judgment by reasonably balancing the probable or possible risks against the probable or possible benefits.
Convincing Proof: Such as is sufficient to establish the proposition beyond reasonable doubt in an unprejudiced mind. (Note: a mind is not unprejudiced where a belief already exists).
(Keep the following in mind relative to those entities who herein control and manipulate others):
Criminal Conspiracy: A combination or confederation between two or more persons, formed for the purpose of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act, or some act which is lawful in itself, but becomes unlawful when done by the concerted action of the conspirators, or for the purpose of using criminal or unlawful means to the commission of an act not in itself unlawful. A person is guilty of conspiracy if that person agrees to aid other persons in the planning or commission of such crime, or of an attempt or solicitation of such a crime. A conspiracy may be a continuing one; actors may drop out, and others drop in; the details of operation may change from time to time; the members need not know each other or the part played by others; a member need not know all the details of the plan or the operation; he must, however, know the purpose of the conspiracy and agree to become a party to a plan to effectuate that purpose. A chain-conspiracy is characterized by different activities carried on with the same subject of conspiracy in chain-like manner that each conspirator in chain-like manner performs a separate function which serves in the accomplishment of the overall conspiracy. A civil conspiracy is a concert or combination to defraud or cause other injury to person or property, which results in damage to the person or property. Conspiracy in restraint of trade describes all forms of illegal agreements such as boycotts, price-fixing, etc., which have as their object interference with the free flow of commerce and trade. One cannot agree or conspire with another who does not agree or conspire with him.
Color of Law: Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of law, and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with authority of State. Misuse of power by an official because the person is an official. Unlawful acts under color of law would not have occurred but for the fact that the person committing them was an official then, and there exercising power outside the bounds of lawful authority.
Color of Office: Pretense of official right to do an act made by one has no such right confered by any authority.
http://www.trufax.org/reports/legal.html .
... / 103
- 103 -
Dangers of Dietary Isoflavones
at levels above those found in traditional diets
The Risks Of Abandoning “The Precautionary Principle”
by Soy Online Service … http://www.soyonlineservice.co.nz/
“Soy - Abundance Of Health Hazards” … http://www.mayanmajix.com/soy01.html
Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, 1990
Legal Definitions
http://www.trufax.org/reports/legal.html
Cont.
Criminal Gross Negligence: Negligence that is accompanied by acts of commission, or omission of a wanton or willful nature, showing a reckless or indifferent disregard of the rights of others, under circumstances reasonably calculated to produce injury, or which make it probable that injury will be occassioned, and the offender knows or is charged with knowledge of the probable results of his acts.
Criminal Behavior: Conduct which causes any social harm which is defined and made punishable by law, presuming the law exists which covers the action.
Quasi Crimes: All offenses not crimes or misdemeanors, but that are in the nature of crimes; a class of offenses against the public which have not been declared crimes, but wrongs against the general or local public which should be punished by penalties.
Criminal Homicide: Criminal homicide constitutes murder when it is committed purposely or knowingly, or committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.
Malicious Abuse of Legal Process: Perversion of court process to accomplish some end which the process was not designed to accomplish, and does not arise from the regular use of process, even with ulterior motives. Intent is to secure ends other than those intended by law through willfull application of court process.
Monopoly: A privilege or peculiar advantage vested in one or more persons or companies, consisting in the exclusive right (or power) to carry on a particular business or trade, manufacture a particular article, or control the sale of the whole supply of a particular commodity. A form of market structure in which one or only a few firms dominate the total sales of a product or service; the two main elements of the Sherman Antitrust Act are: possession of monopoly power and willful acquisition or maintenance of that power, as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.
Monopoly Power: That which must exist to establish a violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. The power to fix prices, to exclude competitors, or to control the market in the geographical area in question.
Monopolization: It is monopolization for persons to combine or conspire to acquire or maintain power to exclude competitors from any part of trade or commerce, provided they also have such power that they are able, as group, to exclude actual or potential competition, and provided they have intent and purpose to exercise that power.
Negligence: Omission which a reasonable person, guided by ordinary considerations which ordinarily regulate human affairs, would do, or the doing of something which a reasonable and prudent person would not do; conduct which falls below the standard established by law for the protection of others from unreasonable risk of harm.
Preponderance of evidence: Evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing that the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; it may not be determined by the number of witnesses, but by the greater weight of all evidence, the opportunity for knowledge, information possessed.
Willful Misconduct: Conduct committed with an intentional or reckless disregard for the safety of others, or with an intentional disregard of a duty necessary to the safety of another's property.
http://www.trufax.org/reports/legal.html
:-D
angelicous, pasting large blocks of text from websites without contextualising the relevance to the discussion at hand is not really helpful. Aside from the dubious copyright issues, it tells us nothing of the point you're making. If you must quote from websites, make your point and then quote the supporting section. It also makes for a much stronger argument if you can quote hard data rather than the opinions of various scientists or other people. Opinions don't really constitute evidence, regardless of who they come from.
mmmmmmmmm the information i pasted is indeed relevant to the topic, there is so much information, thought be better to do that plus i have mention the reference's as where the articles can be read.
I don't have time at the moment to basically re-word other scientist opinion's when it can be done easier way. "copyright", yeh understand where you coming from but this is not an essay or presentation etc etc, just adding in bits of information which I found interesting to the topic.
I have yet to conclude in regard to this matter. This topic is rather very important to me and to any individual out on the street. As I read through in this area, I found this interesting informations and thought people on the forum will be interested.
It is not "opinion", it is evidence based, well researched information coming from recognised Scientists and Proferssors.Opinions don't really constitute evidence, regardless of who they come from.
Ok then, the truth.
It's gibberish.
Not an argument.
Write a coherent paragraph. Number the references. Add the references to the end, in quote form if you want to.
You don't write down arguments for your own convenience. You write down arguments for the convenience of others.
If you put up a post with just (what seems) random quotes in it you basically say to everybody else:
FUCK YOU!
And that isn't going to convince anyone.
And whether you think it is good enough is irrelevant.
do you have a reference for that quote ?
My apologies.do you have a reference for that quote ?
Correction
The author forgot to mention the references to his previous statement in this thread. Here is the correction:
Fuck you! [1, 2]
references:
1. Wikipedia entry. Retrieved 18 may 2009. available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuck_You_(Lily_Allen_song)
2. Lyrics. Retrieved 18 may 2009. available at: http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/l/l.../fuck_you.html
Then provide the evidence itself rather than the opinions based on the evidence. Trace it back to the research paper(s) they're referring to.
Oi, stopit. You're right, but stopit. Potty mouth monkey.
May 19th, 2009, 10:52 AM
While I was answering this post, I was disconnected and lost my previous critique.
YES. There is a better cancer curve in Texas. His name is Dr . Burzynski.
Cosmo[/b]
May 20th, 2009, 09:38 AM
Can you direct us to some evidence demonstrating the efficacy of Stanisław Burzyński cancer therapies compared to the current standard cancer therapies? As I understand it, his "cure" has been undergoing trials for some 30 years without producing data which satisfies the FDA.While I was answering this post, I was disconnected and lost my previous critique.
YES. There is a better cancer curve in Texas. His name is Dr . Burzynski.
Cosmo[/b]
May be just start with the evidence given previously!Can you direct us to some evidence demonstrating the efficacy of Stanisław Burzyński cancer therapies compared to the current standard cancer therapies? As I understand it, his "cure" has been undergoing trials for some 30 years without producing data which satisfies the FDA.
Also I did not say "FUCK YOU", to any one, not my problem if some of you took it that way.
Seriously, EVIDENCE>>>>>>>>Read what has been posted earlier, lots of evidence there...no joke. Either take it or leave it! Don't let ego take over your intelligence.
If you want to be in a main stream little pond....yeh, be that way. If you want to broaden your intelligence, it might be a challenge for everyone but you will only understand it if you try. It's frastrating to know that everything is there yet people are so ignorant/blind and programmed by main stream media to the knowledge.
Admirable that Science has come a such long way but sadens me when i see that, that same knowledge are being distracted by main stream media and many other. Leading to a direction where knowledge are suppressed and "controlled".
Good Luck to you all in finding the REAL truth!
Funny... Im yet to see this happen here. Perhaps your viewing this topic through a distorted lens.I'd like to congratulate TheBiologista on continuing to present novel and well formed counter-points consistently, for 5 pages. I would have worn out my pocket medical dictionary and lost motivation by now. Probably would have resorted to calling someone a poopie-head too.
Fact remains biologista continues to show poor logic and extreme BLACK or WHITE thinking patterns.
None of my solid points have been countered, in fact they have ALL been side-stepped!
Stop been lazy and re-read! I'm not going to continually re-hash over everything.
What is this crap?Can you direct us to some evidence demonstrating the efficacy of Stanisław Burzyński cancer therapies compared to the current standard cancer therapies? As I understand it, his "cure" has been undergoing trials for some 30 years without producing data which satisfies the FDA.
Boo hoo the FDA isnt satisfied. Oh no- Better ignore it completely 'my authority' wont allow otherwise!
Ha!
To the poster who sent me a private msg - I will say- you, like your friends have MISINTERPRETED what Im saying here.
Science is great. Its given us vast amounts of knowledge of how things work. Its given us technology to post on these forums.
The problem is when scienTISTS get too cocky and arrogant. Then the ones who actually are more humble, who are genuine and truely brilliant are let down. Why?
Because in every group theres always fools who will ruin the good that has been achieved.
biologista- I can see that at present you are a lost cause... You cannot see past your indoctrination into science.
" There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. " or should we say in this case your limited perspective.
Hopefully you will come to see the truth of the matter. There are far more effective treatments than chemo, surgery, etc. etc. AND there ARE cure(s) for disease like cancer AND others- Yet they ARE SUPRESSED.
Perhaps you should 'follow the white rabbit' so to speak and discover for yourself whats happening.
As I stated- This post has been an experiement into the workings of the average scientists mind. The discoveries have shown how some scientists can actually HOLD-BACK the progress of science due to an OVER-skeptical nature.
biologista- If you are so hung up on the idea theres big money to be made, then look over what has been presented and find your pot-of-gold at the end of the rainbow. You will find the big bucks dont exist.
You know I received an email form a medical scientist the other day. What he said shocked me for a moment ... He said- "Dont bother trying to prove the existence of cure(s) and such to those type of people. Natural selection will WEED THEM OUT. Then we wont have to worry about them interferring any longer."
"All truth passes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Secondly, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
I'm just utterly overjoyed by the fact that you will never get too cocky and arrogant.
The way you dismiss arguments with a flick of the hand is just impressive. just wish scientists were like that.
You know, read some crap and just say: you are a brobdingnagian moron.
Instead we have to provide facts and such: what a drag.
Well, you are a brobdingnagian one.
Ironically, the fact that you've used "or" instead of "and" is a remarkable display of poor logic.
That's a remarkably dishonest claim to make. I've taken the time to pick out and refute each of your points individually. Please quote for me the points that you have made that I have "side-stepped" and I'll certainly refute them directly.
I'm sure you would prefer to assume that people are disagreeing with you because they have not read or do not understand your sources. However you need to be open to the possibility that they disagree with you because your sources do not support your position.
Hardly, I knew nothing about Burzyński until the poster mentioned him so I did some reading. I now know quite a fair bit about antineoplaston therapy, the data that has been generate in support of it and the weaknesses in that data. I know that various forms of the therapy are at phase II trials, but that they've yet to show efficacy at phase III. So I have certainly not ignored his work.
And yes "boo-hoo" they haven't demonstrated that this stuff works, because showing that a cancer therapy does what it's meant to is a pretty important pre-requisite for selling it to people whose lives are at risk.
What you can do when scientists, like any people, get cocky, arrogant or generally ignorant of the truth is show them evidence. Perhaps they won't accept it, but their peers or competitors will. And if it is convincing then they are made to look foolish and closed minded. In this case I think you've confused "cocky and arrogant" with "tired of reading you repeat the same arguments with no recognition at all of having been refuted".
Again, I'm sure you would prefer to assume that my objections are due to dogma, indoctrination and closed mindedness but really it's just that you have not convinced me. It's not an impossible task. I've changed my mind on many things over the years, but I would consider it a weakness to do so on the basis of what you've shown us here. And that is basically your word, backed up by the word of several other people with websites in turn backed up with nothing at all.
Do you even know what you're talking about? "Chemotherapy" describes dozens if not hundreds of different treatments. If we ever found a magic bullet treatment for some cancer, be it natural or synthetic, there's a good chance it'd be some intravenously administered compound. Which would fall under the blanket term of chemotherapy.
Even Burzyński's experimental therapy, which is given by injection, would be classed as "chemotherapy".
Yeah I went down the rabbit hole and it went about 4 feet before looping back on itself. Now I'm expected to keep running in circles agreeing with you? Give me a break. Or some evidence.
What was your control group? What were you measuring and how did you analyse the results? When the subject of your test is something you have little understanding of, how do you go about discerning "over-sceptical" from "sceptical". It really seems to me that you're in no position to make any such call.
The natural medicines industry is worth billions of dollars per year worldwide, and that's all based on relatively vague and tame claims like "anitoxidants are good". If the proponents of natural medicine were able to legally say "cures lung cancer", do you reckon that would increase or decrease those billions? I really don't buy the notion that the big bucks don't exist.
But let's say that you're right. There's no money in curing cancer with cheap remedies. Let's say, despite the stacks of research papers to the contrary, that corporations aren't funding cancer cures. What about governments? Cancer costs governments a lot of money in health care. Death by heart attack, stroke and the like is relatively cheap because it generally happens and you're dead. More often than not, there's no care expenses, no ICU equipment. Cancer is a slow killer. Your patients stick around suffering, using up nurse time, beds and medical equipment, and making your healthcare system look ineffective. Surely, if there were a way to save that money and time, it would be of interest to a government?
Even the grotesquely capitalistic US government puts money aside for unprofitable medical research. Read up on the FDA's and EMEA's Orphan Drugs programmes. Guess whose recieved funding from that? Why it's our friend Stanisław Burzyński! The FDA sure are ignoring him in expensive fashion...
And what about those charities? All those NGO's specifically founded to raise money for cancer research? What's their motive for ignoring potential cures?
Natural selection doesn't work that way. If I'm selected against, I don't get to have kids or don't have as many as some other guy. How's that going to help you promote your position?
I love this one. From the guy who accuses me of poor logic, a giant logical fallacy. Truth passes through these stages, but just because you are at step one or two doesn't mean you've got the truth on your side. Because here's the clincher; most bullshit passes through at least one of those stages as well.
To put it another way:
TheBiologista - Cancer patient pay out big time. Both my parents were victims so I know (not a sympathy grab) the amount of moeny put out is quite worth while I would think to the collectors (pay or die). The nurses will work their scheduled shifts, not a lot of moeny is lost. And what the patients pay for poisons their body to kill cancer, pretty much guarenteeing more cancer down the line.
Most patents are not in hospital, due to, like you said, the length of the ilness. Many people are not hospitalized until it becomes very bad, where they decide to be nursed in home. A hospital bed will literally be put in their place of preference, and that's where they will die, using no hospital space and an hour a week from a nurse.
Whether or not all forms of cancer could be cured is questionable, but I do think there are natural cures that are supressed... We all know drugs rarely cure anything, they commonly cover up symptoms and often make matters worse. This appears to be a money grab to me, and possibly a form of population control, like tobacco. But without the millions of people dieing from drugs, not being cured of something that could be cured (possibly) and toxins sold BY the government, the world might be, by now, quite over populated. It could all be a way of preserving human kind. You can't really blame them for not saying so. At least they leave population control optional by those who decide to intoxicate themselves. Peoples opinions on whether or not the govt. is doing wrong seems to be very abscured, though.
I understand a lot of people will consider me crazy for what I said, and based from what I've seen in this thread and others, please provide your opposition instead of flaming. It takes a lot of quality away from people actually capable of sharing ideas.
I don't know why everything has to turn into a flame topic.
Doesn't the funding go to the people supposedly hiding the cures?And what about those charities? All those NGO's specifically founded to raise money for cancer research? What's their motive for ignoring potential cures?
Surely you are aware of the term "Black or white thinking" used in psychology?Merlin wrote:
Quote:
I'd like to congratulate TheBiologista on continuing to present novel and well formed counter-points consistently, for 5 pages. I would have worn out my pocket medical dictionary and lost motivation by now. Probably would have resorted to calling someone a poopie-head too.
Funny... Im yet to see this happen here. Perhaps your viewing this topic through a distorted lens.
Fact remains biologista continues to show poor logic and extreme BLACK or WHITE thinking patterns.
.Ironically, the fact that you've used "or" instead of "and" is a remarkable display of poor logic
I am sorry for not included the "qoute"" marks to make this more apparent, I thought you would comphrend.
Biologista- The points you have side-stepped are the "money" point, the supression point etc.
I never mentioned anything about a "Burzynski" you may be confusing me with someone else...Merlin wrote:
Hopefully you will come to see the truth of the matter. There are far more effective treatments than chemo, surgery, etc. etc. AND there ARE cure(s) for disease like cancer AND others- Yet they ARE SUPRESSED.
Do you even know what you're talking about? "Chemotherapy" describes dozens if not hundreds of different treatments. If we ever found a magic bullet treatment for some cancer, be it natural or synthetic, there's a good chance it'd be some intravenously administered compound. Which would fall under the blanket term of chemotherapy.
Even Burzyński's experimental therapy, which is given by injection, would be classed as "chemotherapy".
I think you missed the point...Merlin wrote:
You know I received an email form a medical scientist the other day. What he said shocked me for a moment ... He said- "Dont bother trying to prove the existence of cure(s) and such to those type of people. Natural selection will WEED THEM OUT. Then we wont have to worry about them interferring any longer."
Natural selection doesn't work that way. If I'm selected against, I don't get to have kids or don't have as many as some other guy. How's that going to help you promote your position?
Firstly it was obviously kinda a joke, yet also serious. Thats why I was shocked.
I think he was referring to the fact that over-skeptical people and those holding back progress will eventually die away due to refusing treatments that work more effectively, been left behind, making poor decisions etc.
No, the "clincher" is that people are taking responsibility for there own health and ALREADY know the truth of what I'm saying- They have PROVEN it and you are been left behind sadly.Merlin wrote:
"All truth passes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Secondly, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
I love this one. From the guy who accuses me of poor logic, a giant logical fallacy. Truth passes through these stages, but just because you are at step one or two doesn't mean you've got the truth on your side. Because here's the clincher; most bullshit passes through at least one of those stages as well.
Are you implying you are similar to Bozo the Clown biologista?To put it another way:
Carl Sagan wrote:
...the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Haha- Good one monkey!Well, you are a brobdingnagian one.
Here's some links for you to investigate in the meantime:
http://www.curenaturalicancro.com/ NEW
http://www.laetrile.com.au/ Still to be PROPERLY refuted.
http://www.laetrile.com.au/copy.asp?sect=q2&page=drs
http://www.huldaclarkzappers.com/ Another of interest
http://www.whale.to/m/binzel2.html Whole book of reading here.
http://worldwithoutcancer.org.uk/
http://www.thebeautifultruthmovie.com/ Movie about cancer cures and others been supressed....
http://www.gerson.org/
http://www.drday.com/tumor.htm#rumors
http://www.sirjasonwinters.com/
"There is not one, but many cures for cancer. But they are all being systematically suppressed by the ACS, the NCI, and the major oncology centers. They have too much of an interest in the status quo."
Dr. Robert Atkins, MD
So why dont you know about this?
There's literally HUNDREDS of more links out there... You could spend months researching and only scratch the surface...
And yes many of them link to the 'journals' your interested in and if they dont they will clearly state why they dont- Its usually due to some sort of corruption, legal-issue etc.
What I'm found thus far-
Cures for serious diseases (cancer, heart-disease etc.) exist yet are SUPRESSED.
FDA is NOT reliable due to vested interests...
The average person doesnt trust the 'medical authority' much anymore... Surely you have all heard the stories of people taking responsibility for their own health and refusing 'traditional' methods, yes?
There is only big money for the Pharma Co. and other ORGS the way they exist NOW currently- Change is resisted. "Status Quo".
biologista I also noticed you pressing a point on the HPV vaccine a few pages back... Are you even aware of the controversy surrounding HPV and vaccines in general?
http://brainblogger.com/2008/06/30/v...o-edged-sword/
Through reading the above it becomes quite apparent that not only do many in the medical/scientific field disagree with vaccination, the average person no longer trusts what those in 'authority' think regarding health.
Read the comments on the page above..
Good point.Quote:
And what about those charities? All those NGO's specifically founded to raise money for cancer research? What's their motive for ignoring potential cures?
Doesn't the funding go to the people supposedly hiding the cures?
Anyone care to refute?
I dont think your stance about the money stuff is really very strong biologista...
Yet it IS an important point.
Of course people who may sell a natural cure here and there- They make a little money... How else will it reach the one purchasing that particular treatment or cure ?
Our world is based on commerce- Thus money is needed for such.
This is another Topic in itself- The Corruption of the economic system- which does in fact tie into our current topic.
See google video doco: "Money as debt"
Read book: "Web of DEBT"
http://www.moneyasdebt.net/
So the big bucks theory is not really going to stick...
Yet it comes down to PATENTS.
You cannot PATENT something that you can grow, for example, very easily can you?
Theres much to get through above... I would suggest some time researching before replying...
I'm aware of the term "black and white thinking", which implies that a person has difficulty with finding compromise positions between emotional states, moral positions, logical positions and so-on. In other words, polarised thinking. "Black or white thinking" is meaningless so far as I know.
I've addressed both points multiple times. You disagree, so there's little more to be said on the matter.
You didn't bring him up, someone else did. I responded to that person that his work had failed to secure FDA approval and you decided to mock that point by suggesting that FDA approval was authoritarian and pointless. I merely used him as an example to illustrate that even some rather fringe ideas in cancer therapy are neither being suppressed nor ignored.
That's part of the way that scientific revolution occur, sure. But unless a significant number of people are also convinced by evidence, it is insufficient alone. It has been a feature of most scientific revolutions that a strong following for a new idea has been adopted long before the resistant generation of scientists has died out.
I know you are what am I etc. Seriously, can we not do the schoolyard crap?No, the "clincher" is that people are taking responsibility for there own health and ALREADY know the truth of what I'm saying- They have PROVEN it and you are been left behind sadly.Merlin wrote:
"All truth passes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Secondly, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
I love this one. From the guy who accuses me of poor logic, a giant logical fallacy. Truth passes through these stages, but just because you are at step one or two doesn't mean you've got the truth on your side. Because here's the clincher; most bullshit passes through at least one of those stages as well.
Are you implying you are similar to Bozo the Clown biologista?To put it another way:
Carl Sagan wrote:
...the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
I'll read some of these but if the first couple are garbage I'm not wasting my time with the rest. You don't seem to be good at picking out good sources. And to be honest, what you really need to do is make a point and then support that point with a reference, rather than just throwing us lists of links.
"There is not one, but many cures for cancer. But they are all being systematically suppressed by the ACS, the NCI, and the major oncology centers. They have too much of an interest in the status quo."
Dr. Robert Atkins, MD[/quote]
Again, scientific opinions and science are not the same thing. What data supports the position of the late Dr. Atkins?
What sort of legal issue can possibly prevent a link or citation of an academic journal?
You've yet to show evidence that any effective therapy has been knowingly and actively suppressed. It's certainly not at all impossible that this has happened, but all you're doing right now is stating it as fact and expecting us to swallow it.
Reliable in what sense? I'd be more concerned that the FDA will tend to authorise certain drugs due to interests in big pharma than I would about them rejecting anything unduly. Besides, the FDA can hardly reject a drug if it never goes to clinical trials, and sadly most alternative therapies are never subjected to said trials.
Yes I have, and whilst I disagree with the manner in which many GPs and consultants deal with the public (which has tended to be authoritarian in the past), I'm not convinced that the concept of "alternative medicine" makes any sense. There is medicine that has been shown to work, and there is the unknown. Calling the unknown "alternative" does not mean that it works. The disillusionment of the public in mainstream medicine is a complex issue partially based on that old attitude held by doctors and scientists, partially on medicines apparent inability to deal with the modern big killer diseases and also a lot to do with a credulous media who have dumbed down science and made pseudo-science credible to sell newspapers.
Absolute rubbish. The natural medicines industry is worth billions of dollars per year worldwide. If they can make that much on the basis of minimal or totally absent evidence of efficacy, imagine what they could make if they were legally able to put "cures lung cancer" on their packing or advertising.
I'm aware of it. It's mostly garbage, particularly the MMR scare and related questions regarding brain damage.
Well, if you read the web pages of the few people making such claims of course you'll come away with the impression that there's a scientific controversy, but really there is not. The vast majority of scientists support vaccination. There's no evidence to support the contention that vaccines cause harm beyond the side effects characterised to date.
There is a public controversy, but that's not much of an indicator of the truth, is it? For example, 99.999% of scientists accept the theory of evolution whilst in the US, only 50% of the public accepts the theory. So these two things are not well connected at all. In the case of vaccination, the scare stories are maintained by the news media, because that is an easy to understand science story which sells.
Who are you claiming is hiding the cures? NGO's don't pay pharmaceuticals companies to do their research, if that's what you're thinking. Neither do governments. I'm a scientist working on government money. I work in a state-funded lab based in a university. So no, that money does not go to the people hiding the cures unless all 3 million life scientists are in on the conspiracy.
Honestly, this discussion is not worth that much time to me. You've connected the dots to get exactly the picture you want to see and I really doubt there's anything I can write that would cause you to doubt it.
Black and white, black OR white. Doesnt really matter.Merlin wrote:
Surely you are aware of the term "Black or white thinking" used in psychology?
I am sorry for not included the "qoute"" marks to make this more apparent, I thought you would comphrend.
I'm aware of the term "black and white thinking", which implies that a person has difficulty with finding compromise positions between emotional states, moral positions, logical positions and so-on. In other words, polarised thinking. "Black or white thinking" is meaningless so far as I know.
Again, scientific opinions and science are not the same thing. What data supports the position of the late Dr. Atkins?[/quote]I'll read some of these but if the first couple are garbage I'm not wasting my time with the rest. You don't seem to be good at picking out good sources. And to be honest, what you really need to do is make a point and then support that point with a reference, rather than just throwing us lists of links.
"There is not one, but many cures for cancer. But they are all being systematically suppressed by the ACS, the NCI, and the major oncology centers. They have too much of an interest in the status quo."
Dr. Robert Atkins, MD
biologista, I understand you may want to be just fed a whole bunch of references, journal cit. etc. I have provided you with more than enough info to find what you want yourself. I'm busy too, like I'm sure you are. I honestly dont care all that much whether you believe me or not. Its really no big deal.
In regards to your last couple of sentences. Yes science and scientific opinions are NOT the same, I agree. Yet it must make you wonder why Dr. Atkins and others are saying sych things, yes?
The very fact that Dr. Atkins and others have said very similar things is enough to warrant an investigation into the matter, yes?
You are a scientist are you not?
If your fellow scientists came to you and told you what they discovered related to a field you are obviously interested in, why wouldnt you look and atleast hear them out?
Ok, now I'm aware your now finally willing to look into the matter so I will drop that.
It is very difficult to talk to you about the matter when you have been refusing to look over the information I have presented. The answers you seek will be found in the links I gave you- Simply look and see.Merlin wrote:
There's literally HUNDREDS of more links out there... You could spend months researching and only scratch the surface...
And yes many of them link to the 'journals' your interested in and if they dont they will clearly state why they dont- Its usually due to some sort of corruption, legal-issue etc.
What sort of legal issue can possibly prevent a link or citation of an academic journal?
biologista the evidence is right in front of you... I admit you may need to follow through to the resource sections etc. in some of those links I gave to find the specific info you personally are interested in- Yet dont complain to me about providing no evidence. Its there, look and see.Merlin wrote:
What I'm found thus far-
Cures for serious diseases (cancer, heart-disease etc.) exist yet are SUPRESSED.
You've yet to show evidence that any effective therapy has been knowingly and actively suppressed. It's certainly not at all impossible that this has happened, but all you're doing right now is stating it as fact and expecting us to swallow it.
Mos tof the questions you just asked will be answered through looking at the links listed... I wish I could spend more time on this but sadly I cannot.
I agree its easy to become one-sided. Yet can you see how you are doing this to? picking the other-side of the camp?Well, if you read the web pages of the few people making such claims of course you'll come away with the impression that there's a scientific controversy, but really there is not. The vast majority of scientists support vaccination. There's no evidence to support the contention that vaccines cause harm beyond the side effects characterised to date.
There is a public controversy, but that's not much of an indicator of the truth, is it? For example, 99.999% of scientists accept the theory of evolution whilst in the US, only 50% of the public accepts the theory. So these two things are not well connected at all. In the case of vaccination, the scare stories are maintained by the news media, because that is an easy to understand science story which sells.
Here is something of interest from:
http://brainblogger.com/2008/06/30/v...o-edged-sword/
""Sayer Ji
July 01, 2008 | Permalink
Vaccination is not safe, nor effective. Science demonstrates the veracity of this statement, over and over again. Statistics show that vaccination has not lead to a dramatic reduction in say, measles, or polio - but that preceding the advent of vaccines for these conditions, levels had dropped precipitously thanks to better hygiene and water purification. To the contrary, measles is now a growing threat because vaccination disables the innate mechanism by which measles is permanently eliminated from the body, transforming what would be an acute disease into a chronic one.
And to the critics of anecdotal evidence - the death or permanent disabling of a child (lets say, your child), when followed by an obvious, singular cause: vaccination, can not be dismissed because the tragedy did not occur within the context of a large, double-blind clinical trial. Claiming that drawing a connection between life-altering negative side effects and vaccination is “unscientific” obviates the lack of commonsense involved in believing that injecting disease entities into healthy bodies to defend that body from disease is a sound medical practice. Are there no naturopaths left in the world? Allopathic medicine (toximolecular) began with this selfsame presupposition: that treating the body with sublethal dosages of toxic substances is a sane practice. What nonsense! It is Big Pharma, and not “Good Science” that many of you unwittingly defend with your misplaced criticisms.
tia
July 01, 2008 | Permalink
Yes, take a big breath, indeed. First, the “bad science websites” include the archives of JAMA, NEJM, Lancet, CDC, FDA and Medscape. Still no sign of a double-blind, placebo study for vaccines…..EVER. (The academicians claim that would be “unethical”, despite thousands of parents who would willingly volunteer their children for the placebo group.)
Second, do your own homework on the amount of mercury in vaccines, still. Despite the tired journalistic phrase “it’s been removed”, it has not. Thimerisol is still used in the manufacturing process, and if you ask the CDC how much is still there, they defer to the FDA. The FDA (who should know, right?) defer to the manufacturer. The manufacturer(s) refuse to answer the question. Go ahead, ask. But you won’t get an answer. What IS noteworthy is that they have never been ‘required’ to remove the toxic matter, and although they have lowered the amounts, reluctantly, the old stocks with full mercury content stayed on the shelves for several years afterward. That might explain the continuing rise in neurological dysfunction afterward. “scientists”?
Third, call it a greed-based conspiracy if you like, and bear this in mind: An anonymous study conducted by Van Breda revealed that fewer than 30% of practicing pediatricians adhere to the CDC’s recommended vaccine schedule when it comes to their OWN children. Apparently, ordinary parents aren’t ’smart enough’ to decide if their children should be injected ad nauseum, but there’s some degree of genius required to inoculate OTHER people’s children. And whether vaccine manufacturers adhere to the schedule when it comes to their own children, I don’t know….and neither do you. Surely you don’t think they’d make that information public, considering the harassment that parents who don’t ‘comply’ face nowadays. ""
Ok now, I am not an expert in the "vaccination" area, yet I find it alarming of what many scientists are saying regarding the damage they cause.
biologista- there are many more scientists than you are aware of stating similar things to the above, many.
I think your mis-judging how small the group is that agree with the above opinion.
Even if 70%+ disagree- That doesnt automatically dismiss the whole matter as 'rubbish'. This is what I've been trying to point out about the mind-set scientists can get stuck into.
You haven't cause me to doubt so much as further investigate the specifics. I've enjoyed communicating here with you believe it or not. Your an intelligent fellow and I wish you well in your research. If I have helped to open the eyes of anyone reading this topic even slightly, I will consider this all successful.Honestly, this discussion is not worth that much time to me. You've connected the dots to get exactly the picture you want to see and I really doubt there's anything I can write that would cause you to doubt it.
No shit sherlock.the mind-set scientists can get stuck into.
"scientists with a set mind can get stuck."
Do you have any more open doors to kick in?
Because they have books to sell? And in some cases they have shares or even controlling interests in various natural medicine and naturopathy companies. In this case, Atkins Nutritionals Inc. This does not mean that said scientists (though not all such people are really qualified) are wrong- but it certainly means they have a conflict of interest when delivering health advice. You'd be sceptical of health advice from the CEO of Pfizer, so why not show the same scepticism towards the guys selling you the cure for cancer that hasn't yet been tested?In regards to your last couple of sentences. Yes science and scientific opinions are NOT the same, I agree. Yet it must make you wonder why Dr. Atkins and others are saying sych things, yes?
What makes you think we haven't? Of course scientists sit up and take notice when an MD or PhD makes such claims. And then they look at the evidence- because it's not enough for a person to simply make a claim, regardless of the letters after their name. Your problem is that you take dismissal of the claims to mean that we haven't considered given the evidence a fair hearing.You are a scientist are you not?
If your fellow scientists came to you and told you what they discovered related to a field you are obviously interested in, why wouldnt you look and atleast hear them out?
Right, one example so. I have read the laetrile/B17 website at least three times and it is no more convincing now than it was before. There is no data offered in support of the use of laetrile as a cancer therapy, aside from testimonials. A rule of thumb for you Merlin, be very sceptical of any website which offers only testimonials as evidence. You could have 100 testimonials on a website, but if they represent the successes out of 1 million failures, then what good are they? They could be nothing more than random chance at that rate.It is very difficult to talk to you about the matter when you have been refusing to look over the information I have presented. The answers you seek will be found in the links I gave you- Simply look and see.
The website even contains the disclaimer: "The information on this website was researched from several books which are listed below and can also be found on the internet. It also is based on some personal experiences but is in no way intended to be a claim for a cure for cancer." It goes on to cite several books on the matter, which once again all link back to various websites that also happen to be selling more books, pills and special food. And then finishes up with "A qualified medical practitioner should always be consulted in the matter of treatment decisions for any cancer." A website very much concerned about liability.
Again, none of this means that laetrile doesn't work, but we should be sceptical when evidence is not provided and when the claim is being upheld by people selling us the alleged cure. B17 can be easily obtained by almost anyone, and these companies have glossy websites and make good money. So can they really not provide us with a randomised controlled trial to demonstrate that their cure works?
Apparently not. There seems to be no such trials in existence. There are many smaller and more poorly-designed studies, which are reviewed here:
http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab005476.html
The conclusion being that the existing data is unclear and that trials would need to be done. You can read that and the raw data and studies it is based on for free, which is a nice contrast to the books I have to apparently read that will prove to me that laetrile works. Books based on the same data, or at least part of it.
I've read both sides extensively. Anyone who has knows this debate to be rubbish.I agree its easy to become one-sided. Yet can you see how you are doing this to? picking the other-side of the camp?
This is not the thread for a discussion about vaccination. Please start a new thread if you wish to debate that issue. And if you're going to give us sources, a blog is dubious, but an anonymous comment on a blog? What I will say is that the above blurb reveals its source and its bias with one word. "Allopathy". This is the word used by homoeopaths to describe basically the entirety of modern medicine. Your anonymous source who cites no data and provides no sources is a homoeopath or someone linked to their industry.Here is something of interest from:
http://brainblogger.com/2008/06/30/v...o-edged-sword/
""Sayer Ji
July 01, 2008 | Permalink
Vaccination is not safe, nor effective. Science demonstrates the veracity of this statement, over and over again. Statistics show that vaccination has not lead to a dramatic reduction in say, measles, or polio - but that preceding the advent of vaccines for these conditions, levels had dropped precipitously thanks to better hygiene and water purification. To the contrary, measles is now a growing threat because vaccination disables the innate mechanism by which measles is permanently eliminated from the body, transforming what would be an acute disease into a chronic one.
And to the critics of anecdotal evidence - the death or permanent disabling of a child (lets say, your child), when followed by an obvious, singular cause: vaccination, can not be dismissed because the tragedy did not occur within the context of a large, double-blind clinical trial. Claiming that drawing a connection between life-altering negative side effects and vaccination is “unscientific” obviates the lack of commonsense involved in believing that injecting disease entities into healthy bodies to defend that body from disease is a sound medical practice. Are there no naturopaths left in the world? Allopathic medicine (toximolecular) began with this selfsame presupposition: that treating the body with sublethal dosages of toxic substances is a sane practice. What nonsense! It is Big Pharma, and not “Good Science” that many of you unwittingly defend with your misplaced criticisms.
tia
July 01, 2008 | Permalink
Yes, take a big breath, indeed. First, the “bad science websites” include the archives of JAMA, NEJM, Lancet, CDC, FDA and Medscape. Still no sign of a double-blind, placebo study for vaccines…..EVER. (The academicians claim that would be “unethical”, despite thousands of parents who would willingly volunteer their children for the placebo group.)
Second, do your own homework on the amount of mercury in vaccines, still. Despite the tired journalistic phrase “it’s been removed”, it has not. Thimerisol is still used in the manufacturing process, and if you ask the CDC how much is still there, they defer to the FDA. The FDA (who should know, right?) defer to the manufacturer. The manufacturer(s) refuse to answer the question. Go ahead, ask. But you won’t get an answer. What IS noteworthy is that they have never been ‘required’ to remove the toxic matter, and although they have lowered the amounts, reluctantly, the old stocks with full mercury content stayed on the shelves for several years afterward. That might explain the continuing rise in neurological dysfunction afterward. “scientists”?
Third, call it a greed-based conspiracy if you like, and bear this in mind: An anonymous study conducted by Van Breda revealed that fewer than 30% of practicing pediatricians adhere to the CDC’s recommended vaccine schedule when it comes to their OWN children. Apparently, ordinary parents aren’t ’smart enough’ to decide if their children should be injected ad nauseum, but there’s some degree of genius required to inoculate OTHER people’s children. And whether vaccine manufacturers adhere to the schedule when it comes to their own children, I don’t know….and neither do you. Surely you don’t think they’d make that information public, considering the harassment that parents who don’t ‘comply’ face nowadays. ""
Ok now, I am not an expert in the "vaccination" area, yet I find it alarming of what many scientists are saying regarding the damage they cause.
biologista- there are many more scientists than you are aware of stating similar things to the above, many.
I think your mis-judging how small the group is that agree with the above opinion.
Even if 70%+ disagree- That doesnt automatically dismiss the whole matter as 'rubbish'. This is what I've been trying to point out about the mind-set scientists can get stuck into.
The claim about the statistics of vaccination is a blatant and outright lie. The reductions in incidence of of smallpox, polio, measles, mumps, rubella and many other diseases can be directly correlated with introduction of those vaccines. And what is more, resurgence of those diseases (including increased fatalities) directly follows the drop-off in vaccine administration resulting from the scare stories spread about vaccination.
Take this data on polio rates:
Reported rates per 100,000 persons of poliomyelitis and of death from poliomyetitis, United States, 1932 to 1989. (IPV = inactivated polio vaccine; OPV = oral polio vaccine.)
How does that match up with what your source says? Once again, you're giving great credence to whomever will agree with you- in this case a completely anonymous and unsupported comment on a blog- whilst being so sceptical about mainstream science that you didn't even do a basic fact check. Can you seriously claim to be "open minded", to be willing to change your position when you will immediately believe an unsourced anonymous opinion?
As to your suggestions regarding the extent of scientific support for vaccination, 70% sounds very low to me. I'd be extremely surprised if support were lower than 95%, but you may certainly go ahead and surprise me with a source on that if you wish.
It getting interesting now
Your precious PUBMED on the very frist link in my last post:
http://www.curenaturalicancro.com/bi...etastases.html
Bicarbonate Increases Tumor pH and Inhibits Spontaneous Metastases
Published Online First on March 10, 2009
Research by:
Arizona Cancer Center, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona
Department of Pharmacology, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan
H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, Florida
Ian F. Robey, Brenda K. Baggett, Nathaniel D. Kirkpatrick, Denise J. Roe, Julie Dosescu, Bonnie F. Sloane, Arig Ibrahim Hashim, David L. Morse, Natarajan Raghunand, Robert A. Gatenby, and Robert J. Gillies
Abstract
The external pH of solid tumors is acidic as a consequence of increased metabolism of glucose and poor perfusion. Acid pH has been shown to stimulate tumor cell invasion and metastasis in vitro and in cells before tail vein injection in vivo. The present study investigates whether inhibition of this tumor acidity will reduce the incidence of in vivo metastases.
They show that oral NaHCO3 selectively increased the pH of tumors and reduced the formation of spontaneous metastases in mouse models of metastatic breast cancer. This treatment regimen was shown to significantly increase the extracellular pH, but not the intracellular pH, of tumors by 31P magnetic resonance spectroscopy and the export of acid from growing tumors by fluorescence microscopy of tumors grown in window chambers.
NaHCO3 therapy also reduced the rate of lymph node involvement, yet did not affect the levels of circulating tumor cells, suggesting that reduced organ metastases were not due to increased intravasation.
In contrast, NaHCO3 therapy significantly reduced the formation of hepatic metastases following intrasplenic injection, suggesting that it did inhibit extravasation and colonization. In tail vein injections of alternative cancer models, bicarbonate had mixed results, inhibiting the formation of metastases from PC3M prostate cancer cells, but not those of B16 melanoma. Although the mechanism of this therapy is not known with certainty, low pH was shown to increase the release of active cathepsin B, an important matrix remodeling protease.
Source: Cancer Res 2009;69(6):2260–8 | PMID: 19276390 [PubMed - in process]
================================================== ==
An opinion here. Yes IT IS an opinion... Yet people ask the opinions of professional every day:
http://www.curenaturalicancro.com/op...simoncini.html
================================================== ==
Doses of sodium bicarbonate at 5%, as indicated in the Simoncini treatment are innocuous. In fact they have been used without any problems for over 30 years in a multitude of other deseases such as:
* Severe diabetic ketoacidosis (1)
* Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (2)
* Pregnancy (3)
* Hemodialysis (4)
* Peritoneal dialysis. (5)
* Pharmacological toxicosis. (6)
* Hepatopathy. (7)
* Vascular surgery operations (8)
1. Gamba, G., “Bicarbonate therapy in severe diabetic ketoacidosis. A double blind, randomized, placebo controlled trial.” (Rev Invest Clin 1991 Jul-Sep;43(3):234-8). Miyares Gomez A. in “Diabetic ketoacidosis in childhood: the first day of treatment (An Esp Pediatr 1989 Apr;30(4):279-83).
2. Levy, M.M., “An evidence-based evaluation of the use of sodium bicarbonate during cardiopulmonary resuscitation” (Crit Care Clin 1998 Jul;14(3):457-83). Vukmir, R.B., Sodium bicarbonate in cardiac arrest: a reappraisal (Am J Emerg Med 1996 Mar;14(2):192-206). Bar-Joseph, G., “Clinical use of sodium bicarbonate during cardiopulmonary resuscitation--is it used sensibly?” (Resuscitation 2002 Jul;54(1):47-55).
3. Zhang. L.,“Perhydrit and sodium bicarbonate improve maternal gases and acid-base status during the second stage of labor” Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Xiangya Hospital, Hunan Medical University, Changsha 410008. Maeda, Y., “Perioperative administration of bicarbonated solution to a patient with mitochondrial encephalomyopathy” (Masui 2001 Mar;50(3):299-303).
4. Avdic. E., “Bicarbonate versus acetate hemodialysis: effects on the acid-base status” (Med Arh 2001;55(4):231-3).
5. Feriani, M., “Randomized long-term evaluation of bicarbonate-buffered CAPD solution.” (Kidney Int 1998 Nov;54(5):1731-8).
6. Vrijlandt, P.J., “Sodium bicarbonate infusion for intoxication with tricyclic antidepressives: recommended inspite of lack of scientific evidence” Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2001 Sep 1;145(35):1686-9). Knudsen, K., “Epinephrine and sodium bicarbonate independently and additively increase survival in experimental amitriptyline poisoning.” (Crit Care Med 1997 Apr;25(4):669-74).
7. Silomon, M., “Effect of sodium bicarbonate infusion on hepatocyte Ca2+ overload during resuscitation from hemorrhagic shock.” (Resuscitation 1998 Apr;37(1):27-32). Mariano, F., “Insufficient correction of blood bicarbonate levels in biguanide lactic acidosis treated with CVVH and bicarbonate replacement fluids” (Minerva Urol Nefrol 1997 Sep;49(3):133-6).
8. Dement'eva, I.I., “Calculation of the dose of sodium bicarbonate in the treatment of metabolic acidosis in surgery with and deep hypothermic circulatory arrest” (Anesteziol Reanimatol 1997 Sep-Oct;(5):42-4).
http://www.curenaturalicancro.com/sa...carbonate.html
================================================== ==
An important paper has been published in the journal Clinical Oncology. This meta-analysis, entitled "The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy to 5-year Survival in Adult Malignancies" set out to accurately quantify and assess the actual benefit conferred by chemotherapy in the treatment of adults with the commonest types of cancer. Although the paper has attracted some attention in Australia, the native country of the paper's authors, it has been greeted with complete silence on this side of the world.
All three of the paper's authors are oncologists. Lead author Associate Professor Graeme Morgan is a radiation oncologist at Royal North Shore Hospital in Sydney; Professor Robyn Ward is a medical oncologist at University of New South Wales/St. Vincent's Hospital. The third author, Dr. Michael Barton, is a radiation oncologist and a member of the Collaboration for Cancer Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Liverpool Health Service, Sydney. Prof. Ward is also a member of the Therapeutic Goods Authority of the Australian Federal Department of Health and Aging, the official body that advises the Australian government on the suitability and efficacy of drugs to be listed on the national Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule (PBS) – roughly the equivalent of the US Food and Drug Administration.
Their meticulous study was based on an analysis of the results of all the randomized, controlled clinical trials (RCTs) performed in Australia and the US that reported a statistically significant increase in 5-year survival due to the use of chemotherapy in adult malignancies. Survival data were drawn from the Australian cancer registries and the US National Cancer Institute's Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) registry spanning the period January 1990 until January 2004.
Wherever data were uncertain, the authors deliberately erred on the side of over-estimating the benefit of chemotherapy. Even so, the study concluded that overall, chemotherapy contributes just over 2 percent to improved survival in cancer patients.
Yet despite the mounting evidence of chemotherapy's lack of effectiveness in prolonging survival, oncologists continue to present chemotherapy as a rational and promising approach to cancer treatment.
"Some practitioners still remain optimistic that cytotoxic chemotherapy will significantly improve cancer survival," the authors wrote in their introduction. "However, despite the use of new and expensive single and combination drugs to improve response rates...there has been little impact from the use of newer regimens" (Morgan 2005).
The Australian authors continued: "...in lung cancer, the median survival has increased by only 2 months [during the past 20 years, ed.] and an overall survival benefit of less than 5 percent has been achieved in the adjuvant treatment of breast, colon and head and neck cancers."
The results of the study are summarized in two tables, reproduced below. Table 1 shows the results for Australian patients; Table 2 shows the results for US patients. The authors point out that the similarity of the figures for Australia and the US make it very likely that the recorded benefit of 2.5 percent or less would be mirrored in other developed countries also.
(NB: We apologize for the poor image quality of these tables. The blanks in the columns represent zero, i.e. no direct benefit can be attributed to chemotherapy; no patients in that category achieved an increased 5-year survival due to chemotherapy.)
HERES THE LINK: http://www.curenaturalicancro.com/on...motherapy.html
================================================== ==
http://www.curenaturalicancro.com/2-...use-chemo.html
The great lack of trust is evident even amongst doctors. Polls and questionnaires show that three doctors out of four (75 per cent) would refuse any chemotherapy because of its ineffectiveness against the disease and its devastating effects on the entire human organism. This is what many doctors and scientists have to say about chemotherapy:
“The majority of the cancer patients in this country die because of chemotherapy, which does not cure breast, colon or lung cancer. This has been documented for over a decade and nevertheless doctors still utilize chemotherapy to fight these tumors.” (Allen Levin, MD, UCSF, “The Healing of Cancer”, Marcus Books, 1990).
“If I were to contract cancer, I would never turn to a certain standard for the therapy of this disease. Cancer patients who stay away from these centers have some chance to make it.” (Prof. Gorge Mathe, “Scientific Medicine Stymied”, Medicines Nouvelles, Paris, 1989)
“Dr. Hardin Jones, lecturer at the University of California, after having analyzed for many decades statistics on cancer survival, has come to this conclusion: ‘… when not treated, the patients do not get worse or they even get better’. The unsettling conclusions of Dr. Jones have never been refuted”. (Walter Last, “The Ecologist”, Vol. 28, no. 2, March-April 1998)
“Many oncologists recommend chemotherapy for almost any type of cancer, with a faith that is unshaken by the almost constant failures”.(Albert Braverman, MD, “Medical Oncology in the 90s”, Lancet, 1991, Vol. 337, p. 901)
“Our most efficacious regimens are loaded with risks, side effects and practical problems; and after all the patients we have treated have paid the toll, only a miniscule percentage of them is paid off with an ephemeral period of tumoral regression and generally a partial one” (Edward G. Griffin “World Without Cancer”, American Media Publications, 1996)
“After all, and for the overwhelming majority of the cases, there is no proof whatsoever that chemotherapy prolongs survival expectations. And this is the great lie about this therapy, that there is a correlation between the reduction of cancer and the extension of the life of the patient”. (Philip Day, “Cancer: Why we’re still dying to know the truth”, Credence Publications, 2000)
“Several full-time scientists at the McGill Cancer Center sent to 118 doctors, all experts on lung cancer, a questionnaire to determine the level of trust they had in the therapies they were applying; they were asked to imagine that they themselves had contracted the disease and which of the six current experimental therapies they would choose. 79 doctors answered, 64 of them said that they would not consent to undergo any treatment containing cis-platinum – one of the common chemotherapy drugs they used – while 58 out of 79 believed that all the experimental therapies above were not accepted because of the ineffectiveness and the elevated level of toxicity of chemotherapy.” (Philip Day, “Cancer: Why we’re still dying to know the truth”, Credence Publications, 2000)
“Doctor Ulrich Able, a German epidemiologist of the Heidelberg Mannheim Tumor Clinic, has exhaustively analyzed and reviewed all the main studies and clinical experiments ever performed on chemotherapy .... Able discovered that the comprehensive world rate of positive outcomes because of chemotherapy was frightening, because, simply, nowhere was scientific evidence available demonstrating that chemotherapy is able to ‘prolong in any appreciable way the life of patients affected by the most common type of organ cancer.’ Able highlights that rarely can chemotherapy improve the quality of life, and he describes it as a scientific squalor while maintaining that at least 80 per cent of chemotherapy administered in the world is worthless. Even if there is no scientific proof whatsoever that chemotherapy works, neither doctors nor patients are prepared to give it up (Lancet, Aug. 10, 1991). None of the main media has ever mentioned this exhaustive study: it has been completely buried” (Tim O’Shea, “Chemotherapy – An Unproven Procedure”)
“According to medical associations, the notorious and dangerous side effects of drugs have become the fourth main cause of death after infarction, cancer, and apoplexy” ( Journal of the American Medical Association, April 15, 1998)
================================================== ==
I find it a little suspect that you dodged all this...
I was ALL contained in the first link I gave you previously
So perhaps you should start from the beginning biologista and others...
Instead of picking out bits and pieces to support your own arguements.
Anyone can take things out of context to support anything. But thats not scientific now is it?
More to follow... In the meantime, perhaps you should start from the beginning and do your homework.
Some more 'food-for-thought':
G. Edward Griffin marshals the evidence that cancer is a deficiency disease – like scurvy or pellagra – aggravated by the lack of an essential food compound in modern man's diet. That substance is vitamin B17. In its purified form developed for cancer therapy, it is known as Laetrile.
This story is not approved by orthodox medicine. The FDA, the AMA, and The American Cancer Society have labeled it fraud and quackery. Yet the evidence is clear that here, at last, is the final answer to the cancer riddle.
Why has orthodox medicine waged war against this non-drug approach? The author contends that the answer is to be found, not in science, but in politics – and is based upon the hidden economic and power agenda of those who dominate the medical establishment.
With billions of dollars spent each year on research, with other billions taken in on the sale of cancer-related drugs, and with fund-raising at an all-time high, there are now more people making a living from cancer than dying from it. If the solution should be found in a simple vitamin, this gigantic industry could be wiped out over night. The result is that the politics of cancer therapy is more complicated than the science.
================================================== ==
The FDA has made the purchase of laetrile supplements effectively impossible, even though it is a perfectly natural and safe supplement. In order for a doctor to use laetrile supplements, they or their patient must "confess" to the FDA that the doctor is using laetrile in their practice. In other words, laetrile supplements are effectively illegal because no doctor wants to admit they are using laetrile. Thus, if you illegally buy laetrile supplements, how do you insure you are buying it from a highly trusted source? This seems like an oxymoron.
Having said that, there are sources of laetrile pills. However, most people take laetrile in the form of apricot kernels. In the middle of a peach or apricot is a hard shell. If you break open the hard shell with a "nut cracker," pliers or hammer, you will find a small seed/kernel in the middle that looks like an almond. However, it is much softer than an almond and certainly does not taste like an almond. It is this seed that is rich in natural laetrile.
If you search for "apricot kernels" (use the quotes) on Google you will be able to find a lot of vendors of apricot kernels. Be advised, however, that apricot kernel sites cannot legally make any claims about laetrile being used to treat cancer.
Most experts will recommend a daily dose of apricot kernels from between 24 kernels a day up to 40 kernels a day, spread throughout the day. For a person in remission, 16 apricot kernals a day should be used as a minimum.
Because I do not like any form of dehydration, especially if artificial heat is applied (it can affect the bioavailability of the laetrile molecule), I like apricot kernels sold still in the shell. Yes, it is extra work to break open the shell for each kernel, but you KNOW the kernel has not been dehydrated. The vendor "Our Father's Farm" will, on special request, sell apricot kernels still in the shell (see the link below).
Other things rich in laetrile are millet grain and buckwheat grain. Breads made with these grains, however, generally do not contain a high percentage of millet or buckwheat or else they would be too hard.
Also, the seeds of berry plants, such as red raspberries and black raspberries are rich in laetrile. Red raspberries also have a second cancer killer in their seeds: Ellagic Acid, a phenolic. About four dozen foods have Ellagic Acid, but Red Raspberries have the highest concentration. Strawberries also have Ellagic Acid.
This means that when you buy berry jelly, make sure you buy preserves that have the seeds. Basically, the seeds of any fruit, except citrus fruits, have laetrile. My wife eats apples from the bottom up, meaning she eats the seeds and always has. This is a good habit to get into - I picked up the habit years ago.
Of course, apricot kernels are the best source of laetrile. Those who do not yet have cancer might want to plant a few apricot or peach trees in their back yard for a long term source of laetrile. The kernels can be frozen while still in the shell.
The Dr. Philip Binzel list of foods that contain laetrile include: apricot kernels, peach kernels, grape seeds, blackberries, blueberries, strawberries, bean sprouts, lima beans and macadamia nuts (to name but a few).
If you live outside of the U.S. and are able to obtain laetrile pills, it is important to take them with natural water on an empty stomach and to not eat or drink anything for one hour after taking the pills.
The FDA claims that laetrile is toxic. This is an absolute lie. Read the first chapter of Alive and Well (which is online and is linked to below) to see how absurd the FDA claim is.
Perhaps because common sense tells me that if its something natural like a fruit extract or something that is contained in many people's daily diet- It wont kill me.You'd be sceptical of health advice from the CEO of Pfizer, so why not show the same scepticism towards the guys selling you the cure for cancer that hasn't yet been tested?
At worst it could simply NOT work or give a slight stomch-ache.
On the other hand- Pfizer and their so-called 'tested treatments' are on-going- only treating symptoms, cost more, they have dubious research, vested interests in maintaining a multi- BILLION dollar Pharma empire, have paid out MILLIONS upon MILLIONS of dollars in compensation for doing more harm than good... I could go on and on.... But I think you get the point.
Yes, all good in showing some skepticism for BOTH sides. Including the traditional medical estab. which often gets away with murder.
http://worldwithoutcancer.org.uk/research.html
--Laetrile, B17 research.
================================================== ==
THE LAETRILE "QUACKS"(?)
by G. Edward Griffin
(Book World without Cancer - Chapter 8 )
The names, professional standings, medical achievements, and clinical findings of some of the more prominent doctors who endorse Laetrile; the beneficial side-effects produced by its use; a suggested anti-cancer diet; and a brief description of vitamin B15.
“Laetrile is goddamned quackery!” Such was the pronouncement of Helene Brown, president of the American Cancer Society of California. (1) As early as 1974, there were at least twenty-six published papers written by well-known physicians who had used Laetrile in the treatment of their own patients and who have concluded (2) that Laetrile is both safe and effective in the treatment of cancer. In addition, there are the voluminous private records of physi-cians who have used it clinically but have never published their findings except in letters to their colleagues or in public lectures or interviews. The American Cancer Society and other spokesmen. for orthodox medicine would have us believe that only quacks and crackpots have endorsed this conclusion. But the doctors who conducted these experiments and those who share their conclusions are not quacks. Here are just a few of the names:
1. “The Pain Exploiters; The Victimizing of Desperate Cancer Patients,” Today’s Health, Nov., 1973, p. 28.
2. A complete list of these papers is contained in The Laetriles/Nitrilosides, op. cit., pp. 84, 85.
In West Germany there is Hans Nieper, M.D., former Director of the Department of Medicine at the Silbersee Hospital in Hanover. He is a pioneer in the medical use of cobalt and is credited with developing the anti-cancer drug, cyclophosphamide. He is the originator of the concept of “electrolyte carriers” in the prevention of cardiac necrosis. He was formerly the head of the Aschaffenburg Hospital Laboratory for chemical circulatory research. He is listed in Who’s Who in World Science and has been the Director of the German Society for Medical Tumor Treatment. He is one of the world’s most famous and respected cancer specialists. During a visit to the United States in 1972, Dr. Nieper told news reporters:
After more than twenty years of such specialized work, I have found the nontoxic Nitrilosides—that is, Laetrile—far superior to any other known cancer treatment or preventative. In my opinion it is the only existing possibility for the ultimate control of cancer.
In Canada there is N.R. Bouziane, M.D., former Director of Research Laboratories at St. Jeanne d’Arc Hospital in Montreal and a member of the hospital’s tumor board in charge of chemotherapy. He graduated magna cum laude in medicine from the University of Montreal. He also received a doctorate in science from the University of Montreal and St. Joseph’s Univer-sity, an affiliate of Oxford University in New Brunswick. He was a Fellow in chemistry and a Fellow in hematology, and certified in clinical bacteriology, hematology and biochemistry from the college. He also was Dean of the American Association of Bio-Analysts.
After the first series of tests with Laetrile shortly after it was introduced, Dr. Bouziane reported:
We always have a diagnosis based on histology [microscopic analysis of the tissue]. We have never undertaken a case without histological proof of cancer.... In our investigation, some terminal cases were so hopeless that they did not even receive what we consider the basic dose of thirty grams. Most cases, however, became ambulatory and some have in this short time resumed their normal activities on a maintenance dose.(1)
1. “The Laetrile Story,” op. cit. p. 3. Also Cancer News Journal, Jan./Apr., 1971, p. 20.
In the Philippines there is Manuel Navarro, M.D., former Professor of Medicine and Surgery at the University of Santo Tomas in Manila; an Associate Member of the National Research Council of the Philippines; a Fellow of the Philippine College of Physicians, the Philippine Society of Endocrinology and Metabolism; and a member of the Philippine Medical Association, the Philippine Cancer Society, and many other medical groups. He has been recognized internationally as a cancer researcher and has over one-hundred major scientific papers to his credit, some of which have been read before the International Cancer Congress. In 1971 Dr. Navarro wrote:
I ... have specialized in oncology [the study of tumors] for the past eighteen years. For the same number of years I have been using Laetrile—amygdalin in the treatment of my cancer patients. During this eighteen year period I have treated a total of over five hundred patients with Laetrile—amygdalin by various routes of administra-tion, including the oral and the I.V. The majority of my patients receiving Laetrile—amygdalin have been in a terminal state when treatment with this material commenced. It is my carefully considered clinical judgment, as a practicing oncologist and researcher in this field, that I have obtained most significant and encouraging results with the use of Laetrile—amygdalin in the treatment of terminal cancer patients, and that these results are comparable or superior to the results I have obtained with the use of the more toxic standard cytotoxic agents.
1. Letter from Dr. Navarro to Mr. Andrew McNaughton, The McNaughton Foundation, dated January 8, 1971, published in the Cancer News Journal, Jan/April, 1971. pp. 19. 20.
In Mexico there is Ernesto Contreras, M.D., who, for over three decades, has operated the Good Samaritan Cancer Clinic (now called the Oasis Hospital) in Tijuana. He is one of Mexico’s most distinguished medical figures. He received postgraduate training at Harvard’s Children’s Hospital in Boston. He has served as Professor of Histology and Pathology at the Mexican Army Medical School and as the chief pathologist at the Army Hospital in Mexico City. Dr. Contreras was introduced to Laetrile in 1963 by a terminal cancer patient from the United States who brought it to his. attention and urged him to treat her with it. The woman recovered, and Dr. Contreras began extensive investigation of its properties and use. Since that time he has treated many thousands of cancer patients, most of whom are American citizens who have been denied the freedom to use Laetrile in their own country Dr. Contreras has summarized his experiences with vitamin therapy as follows:
The palliative action [improving the comfort and well-being of the patient] is in about 60% of the cases. Frequently, enough to be significant, I see arrest of the disease or even regression in some 15% (1) of the very advanced cases.
REMAINDER OF ARTICLE + MORE EVIDENCE HERE: http://worldwithoutcancer.org.uk/quacks.html
http://worldwithoutcancer.org.uk/hoax.html
================================================== ==
* "A person is 'cured' of their cancer if the number of cancer cells in their body is less than, or equal to, the number of cancer cells in the average person. It is also hoped that their immune system is able to kill newly developing cancer cells (every person has newly developing cancer cells)."
The definition of "cure" that orthodox medicine uses is this: A cancer patient is "cured" if they live 5 years from the date of their diagnosis of cancer.
================================================== ==
An Australian study suggests that the benefits of chemotherapy have been over-sold. Norman Swan talks to Associate Professor Graeme Morgan who's a radiotherapist at Royal North Shore Hospital in Sydney and to Professor Michael Boyer who's Head of Medical Oncology at the Sydney Cancer Centre, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital.
http://www.laetrile.com.au/otherpages/chemo1.htm
================================================== ==
http://www.laetrile.com.au/otherpage...idecassava.htm
INTERSTING ARTICLE WARRANTS MORE INVESTIGATION
================================================== ==
Queens, New York - Jason Vale, a 35 year old, who was terminal with cancer, and went on to become the Arm Wrestling World Champion, is facing another difficult opponent -- the Federal Drug Administration. Jason turned to alternative healing when he came down with cancer for the third time -- and successfully cured his cancer by prayer and eating apricot seeds. The seeds of these fruits contain Vitamin B17, which has been found to have an amazing success in the healing of all types of cancers, as well as in preventing cancer.
Top physicians Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura and Dr. John Richardson stood firmly behind their findings that Vitamin B17 stops cancer, although they were shamelessly persecuted by the FDA and the AMA because the Vitamin B17 found in apricot seeds cannot be patented. This simple natural cure for cancer would cut into the mega profits of the multinational Cancer Industry. Apricot seeds, which sell for about $15 a pound, could easily compete with the highly dangerous and toxic chemotherapy and radiation used in standard cancer treatments. With global spending on conventional cancer treatments running into the hundreds of billions dollars annually, any news of a successful anti-cancer treatment extracted from the simple apricot seed would do serious damage to the wealth of the mighty Cancer Inc.
http://www.credence.org/doctors.html
REMAINDING ARTICLE: http://www.armwrestling.com/Jason03.html
================================================== ==
http://www.laetrile.com.au/copy.asp?sect=q2&page=drs
READ THIS LINK ABOVE
================================================== ==
biologista- I find it of great concern that you and you fellow friends are showing this degree of skepticism. Yes, I would call it OVER-skepticism and for good reason.
I also find it amazing you constantly want every little thing spelt out for- As if you if your just waiting to pounce and proclaim everything bullshit. All the information is there for you to find. THERE IS INDEED POLITICS INVOLVED which brings with it legal issues too.
The fact that one of the websites mentioned earlier has a 'legal disclaimer' is hardly an arguement!
Are you aware MOST websites do have legal-disclaimers ?
Even if they are unrelated to health issues??
Your arguements here seem quite silly.
I'll have a look around- I wouldnt be suprised if this forum has one.
You've mentioned multiple times in your earlier posts that corruption does indeed occur.. What makes you believe the cancer research field is any different?
What protects cancer research so well that it is now- untouchable from corruption?
| « A Brilliant IDEA | Does a smaller light speed in a medium rule out the wave the » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
