 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / October 2008Can You Trust Chemotherapy to Cure Your Cancer?
Can You Trust Chemotherapy to Cure Your Cancer? Wednesday, July 23, 2008 by: Andreas Moritz http://www.naturalnews.com/023689.html (NaturalNews) Former White House press secretary Tony Snow died in July 2008 at the age of 53, following a series of chemotherapy treatments for colon cancer. In 2005, Snow had his colon removed and underwent six months of chemotherapy after being diagnosed with colon cancer. Two years later (2007), Snow underwent surgery to remove a growth in his abdominal area, near the site of the original cancer. "This is a very treatable condition," said Dr. Allyson Ocean, a gastrointestinal oncologist at Weill Cornell Medical College. "Many patients, because of the therapies we have, are able to work and live full lives with quality while they're being treated. Anyone who looks at this as a death sentence is wrong." But of course we now know, Dr. Ocean was dead wrong. The media headlines proclaimed Snow died from colon cancer, although they knew he didn't have a colon anymore. Apparently, the malignant cancer had "returned" (from where?) and "spread" to the liver and elsewhere in his body. In actual fact, the colon surgery severely restricted his normal eliminative functions, thereby overburdening the liver and tissue fluids with toxic waste. The previous series of chemo-treatments inflamed and irreversibly damaged a large number of cells in his body, and also impaired his immune system -- a perfect recipe for growing new cancers. Now unable to heal the causes of the original cancer (in addition to the newly created ones), Snow's body developed new cancers in the liver and other parts of the body. The mainstream media, of course, still insist Snow died from colon cancer, thus perpetuating the myth that it is only the cancer that kills people, not the treatment. Nobody seems to raise the important point that it is extremely difficult for a cancer patient to actually heal from this condition while being subjected to the systemic poisons of chemotherapy and deadly radiation. If you are bitten by a poisonous snake and don't get an antidote for it, isn't it likely that your body becomes overwhelmed by the poison and, therefore, cannot function anymore? Before Tony Snow began his chemo-treatments for his second colon cancer, he still looked healthy and strong. But after a few weeks into his treatment, he started to develop a coarse voice, looked frail, turned gray and lost his hair. Did the cancer do all this to him? Certainly not. Cancer doesn't do such a thing, but chemical poisoning does. He actually looked more ill than someone who has been bitten by a poisonous snake. Does the mainstream media ever report about the overwhelming scientific evidence that shows chemotherapy has zero benefits in the five-year survival rate of colon cancer patients? Or how many oncologists stand up for their cancer patients and protect them against chemotherapy treatment which they very well know can cause them to die far more quickly than if they received no treatment at all? Can you trustingly place your life into their hands when you know that most of them would not even consider chemotherapy for themselves if they were diagnosed with cancer? What do they know that you don't? The news is spreading fast that in the United States physician-caused fatalities now exceed 750,000 each year. Perhaps, many doctors no longer trust in what they practice, for good reasons. "Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy... Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade. Yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors... Women with breast cancer are likely to die faster with chemo than without it." - Alan Levin, M.D. An investigation by the Department of Radiation Oncology, Northern Sydney Cancer Centre, Australia, into the contribution of chemotherapy to 5-year survival in 22 major adult malignancies, showed startling results: The overall contribution of curative and adjuvant cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adults was estimated to be 2.3% in Australia and 2.1% in the USA." [Royal North Shore Hospital Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2005 Jun;17(4):294.] The research covered data from the Cancer Registry in Australia and the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results in the USA for the year 1998. The current 5-year relative adult survival rate for cancer in Australia is over 60%, and no less than that in the USA. By comparison, a mere 2.3% contribution of chemotherapy to cancer survival does not justify the massive expense involved and the tremendous suffering patients experience because of severe, toxic side effects resulting from this treatment. With a meager success rate of 2.3%, selling chemotherapy as a medical treatment (instead of a scam), is one of the greatest fraudulent acts ever committed. The average chemotherapy earns the medical establishment a whopping $300,000 to $1,000,000 each year, and has so far earned those who promote this pseudo-medication (poison) over 1 trillion dollars. It's no surprise that the medical establishment tries to keep this scam alive for as long as possible. In 1990, the highly respected German epidemiologist, Dr. Ulrich Abel from the Tumor Clinic of the University of Heidelberg, conducted the most comprehensive investigation of every major clinical study on chemotherapy drugs ever done. Abel contacted 350 medical centers and asked them to send him anything they had ever published on chemotherapy. He also reviewed and analyzed thousands of scientific articles published in the most prestigious medical journals. It took Abel several years to collect and evaluate the data. Abel's epidemiological study, which was published on August 10, 1991 in The Lancet, should have alerted every doctor and cancer patient about the risks of one of the most common treatments used for cancer and other diseases. In his paper, Abel came to the conclusion that the overall success rate of chemotherapy was "appalling." According to this report, there was no scientific evidence available in any existing study to show that chemotherapy can "extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancers." Abel points out that chemotherapy rarely improves the quality of life. He describes chemotherapy as "a scientific wasteland" and states that even though there is no scientific evidence that chemotherapy works, neither doctor nor patient is willing to give up on it. The mainstream media has never reported on this hugely important study, which is hardly surprising, given the enormous vested interests of the groups that sponsor the media, that is, the pharmaceutical companies. A recent search turned up exactly zero reviews of Abel's work in American journals, even though it was published in 1990. I believe this is not because his work was unimportant -- but because it is irrefutable. The truth of the matter would be far too costly for the pharmaceutical industry to bear, thus making it unacceptable. If the mass media reported the truth that medical drugs, including chemotherapy drugs, are used to practically commit genocide in the U.S. and the world, their best sponsors (the pharmaceutical companies) would have to withdraw their misleading advertisements from the television media, radio stations, magazines, and newspapers. But neither group wants to go bankrupt. Many doctors go as far as prescribing chemotherapy drugs to patients for malignancies that are far too advanced for surgery, with the full knowledge that there are no benefits at all. Yet they claim chemotherapy to be an effective cancer treatment, and their unsuspecting patients believe that "effective" equals "cure." The doctors, of course, refer to the FDA's definition of an "effective" drug, one which achieves a 50% or more reduction in tumor size for 28 days. They neglect to tell their patients that there is no correlation whatsoever between shrinking tumors for 28 days and curing the cancer or extending life. Temporary tumor shrinkage through chemotherapy has never been shown to cure cancer or to extend life. In other words, you can live with an untreated tumor for just as long as you would with one that has been shrunken or been eliminated by chemotherapy (or radiation). Chemotherapy has never been shown to have curative effects for cancer. By contrast, the body can still cure itself, which it actually tries to do by developing cancer. Cancer is more a healing response than it is a disease. The "disease" is the body's attempt to cure itself of an existing imbalance. And sometimes, this healing response continues even if a person is subjected to chemotherapy (and/or radiation). Unfortunately, as the previously mentioned research has demonstrated, the chances for a real cure are greatly reduced when patients are treated with chemotherapy drugs. The side effects of the treatment can be horrendous and heartbreaking for both patients and their loved ones, all in the name of trustworthy medical treatment. Although the drug treatment comes with the promise to improve the patient's quality of life, it is just common sense that a drug that makes them throw up and lose their hair, while wrecking their immune system, is doing the exact opposite. Chemo-therapy can give the patient life-threatening mouth sores. It attacks the immune system by destroying billions of immune cells (white blood cells). Its deadly poisons inflame every part of the body. The drugs can slough off the entire lining of their intestines. The most common side effect experienced among chemo patients is their complete lack of energy. The new additional drugs now given to many chemo patients may prevent the patient from noticing some of the side effects, but they hardly reduce the immensely destructive and suppressive effect of the chemotherapy itself. Remember, the reason chemotherapy can shrink some tumors is because it causes massive destruction in the body. If you have cancer, you may think that feeling tired is just part of the disease. This rarely is the case. Feeling unusually tired is more likely due to anemia, a common side effect of most chemotherapy drugs. Chemo drugs can dramatically decrease your red blood cell levels, and this reduces oxygen availability to the 60-100 trillion cells of your body. You can literally feel the energy being zapped from every cell of your body -- a physical death without dying. Chemo-caused fatigue has a negative impact on day-to-day activities in 89% of all patients. With no energy, there can be no joy and no hope, and all bodily functions become subdued. One long-term side effect is that these patients' bodies can no longer respond to nutritional or immune-strengthening approaches to cancerous tumors. All of this may explain why cancer patients who do not receive any treatment at all, have an up to four times higher remission rate than those who receive treatment. The sad thing is that chemotherapy does not cure 96% to 98% of all cancers anyway. Conclusive evidence (for the majority of cancers) that chemotherapy has any positive influence on survival or quality of life does not exist. To promote chemotherapy as a treatment for cancer is misleading, to say the least. By permanently damaging the body's immune system and other important parts, chemo-therapy has become a leading cause of treatment-caused diseases such as heart disease, liver disease, intestinal diseases, diseases of the immune system, infections, brain diseases, pain disorders, and rapid aging. Before committing themselves to being poisoned, cancer patients need to question their doctors and ask them to produce the research or evidence that shrinking a tumor actually translates to any increase in survival. If they tell you that chemotherapy is your best chance of surviving, you will know they are lying or are simply misinformed. As Abel's research clearly demonstrated, there is no such evidence anywhere to be found in the medical literature. Subjecting patients to chemotherapy robs them of a fair chance of finding or responding to a real cure and deserves criminal prosecution. Andreas Moritz's book, Cancer is not a Disease - It's a Survival Mechanism, explains the root causes of cancer and how to eliminate them for good. Available through (www.ener-chi.com) or (www.amazon.com) . About the author Andreas Moritz is a medical intuitive; a practitioner of Ayurveda, iridology, shiatsu, and vibrational medicine; a writer; and an artist. He is the author of The Amazing Liver and Gallbladder Flush, Timeless Secrets of Health and Rejuvenation, Lifting the Veil of Duality, Cancer Is Not a Disease, It's Time to Come Alive, Heart Disease No More, Diabetes No More, Simple Steps to Total Health, Diabetes -- No More, Ending the AIDS Myth and Heal Yourself with Sunlight. For more information, visit the author's website (www.ener-chi.com). Carole www.conspiracee.com www.cellsalts.net www.soiltheory.com > The mainstream media, of course, still insist Snow died from colon > cancer, thus perpetuating the myth that it is only the cancer that > kills people, not the treatment. Gee Carole, all sounds like a conspiracy to me! >> The mainstream media, of course, still insist Snow died from colon >> cancer, thus perpetuating the myth that it is only the cancer that >> kills people, not the treatment. > > Gee Carole, all sounds like a conspiracy to me! Bloody hell, its a conspiracy that chemo is useless but costs the earth. And when I say people should think for themselves and question authority, there are some who say they do. I say "pig's arse they do"! People fawn and grovel in front of experts and trust everything they say. Carole www.conspiracee.com In misc.health.alternative Carole <hubbca@iimetro.com.au> wrote: : And when I say people should think for themselves and question authority, : there are some who say they do. . . : People fawn and grovel in front of experts and trust everything they say. Has it ever occurred to you that a person might be able to think for himself and come to the conclusion that the experts are correct? Has it ever occurred to you that if you know nothing about a subject, the odds that thinking for yourself is going to lead you to any conclusion that is even close to be correct are very, very, very small? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." > In misc.health.alternative Carole <hubbca@iimetro.com.au> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > himself > and come to the conclusion that the experts are correct? When you've been taught what to think, and the rules to use to achieve an outcome, what is left for you to make an independent decision? > Has it ever > occurred to you that if you know nothing about a subject, the odds that > thinking for yourself is going to lead you to any conclusion that is even > close to be correct are very, very, very small? Does it ever occur to you that the people who know so little about a subject are those who have been taught corrupted science? And has it ever occurred to you that the pharmaceutical business with disease has hijacked medical science and suppress any cures that they can't make money out of? Carole www.cellsalts.net > ----- > Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il > Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel > Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University > ----- > "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." In misc.health.alternative Carole <hubbca@iimetro.com.au> wrote: :> Has it ever occurred to you that a person might be able to think for :> himself and come to the conclusion that the experts are correct? : When you've been taught what to think, and the rules to use to achieve an : outcome, what is left for you to make an independent decision? I wasn't taught *what* to think. I was taught *how* to think. There is a big difference. I have pointed out to you that demonstrating the fundamental flaws in the "cell salt" theory is not a matter of "thinking for oneself." It is a matter of *doing an experiment* the results of which are not open to dispute. :> Has it ever :> occurred to you that if you know nothing about a subject, the odds that :> thinking for yourself is going to lead you to any conclusion that is even :> close to be correct are very, very, very small? : Does it ever occur to you that the people who know so little about a subject : are those who have been taught corrupted science? You don't know *anything* about science, by your own admission. You have no way of knowing whether the science I have been taught is "corrupted" or not. Unlike you, I have actually gone into a lab and done experiments. If the atomic theory is wrong, and if classical physics is not a reasonable approximation for calculating the motions of bodies traveling at velocities that are low relative to the speed of light, then none of the results of the experiments that I did for my Ph. D. can be made to make any sense. If quantum mechanics is wrong, then none of results of the experiments I did for my postdoc (and in my lab at Bar-Ilan) make any sense. Unlike you, I know something about chemistry, and I can explain what happens when something burns. I know the difference between "oxidation" and "reduction" and that the oxidation states of elements as they are found within the body is not necessarily the same as those of elements as they are found in the remains of a body that has been burned. For example, the mechanism by which hemoglobin works is fairly well understood, and it depends on the iron atoms in the heme groups being in the reduced state. "Methemoglobin," which contains iron in the ferric state, cannot transport oxygen. : And has it ever occurred to you that the pharmaceutical business with : disease has hijacked medical science and suppress any cures that they can't : make money out of? How could they do that? How have they succeeded in suppressing, say, you? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." > In misc.health.alternative Carole <hubbca@iimetro.com.au> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > for oneself." It is a matter of *doing an experiment* the results of > which are not open to dispute. Richard, it is a well known fact that conventional science is based on use of pharmaceuticals. And it is also a well known fact that the first allopathic schools were heavily subsidised by Rockefeller donations. Sorry, scientific research is corrupted and the research isn't worth much. > :> Has it ever > :> occurred to you that if you know nothing about a subject, the odds that [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > no way of knowing whether the science I have been taught is "corrupted" > or not. I have my own experience plus the cellsalt theory and homeopathy have been around for 150. There has been 150 years of suppression of the true causes of disease. > Unlike you, I have actually gone into a lab and done experiments. If the > atomic theory is wrong, and if classical physics is not a reasonable [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > "Methemoglobin," > which contains iron in the ferric state, cannot transport oxygen. Good for you Richard and no doubt your experiments work on a certain level. However, the pharmaceutical business has absolutely no interest in curing anybody of anything. They are focused on making money. > : And has it ever occurred to you that the pharmaceutical business with > : disease has hijacked medical science and suppress any cures that they > can't > : make money out of? > > How could they do that? How have they succeeded in suppressing, say, you? Let me count the ways the pharmaceutical industry suppress their opposition. 1. They train doctors in "approved" schools and techniques 2. They use the mass media to rubbish alternatives including vitamins and minerals 3. They set up bureaucracies to promote their choices in alternative methods -- as long as it doesn't threaten their profits they'll give it the ok. 4. There are stories of how innovators like Reich and Rife were dealt with by the system so their techniques would be lost to history. 5. They get doctors to push their products using dinners and other promotional products. 6. They get their people on boards and other places of influence. 7. The public are coached in the importance of only listening to "experts" and "reliable sources".. Carole www.conspiracee.com > Richard, it is a well known fact It's always amused me that your "well known facts" are completely unsupported by evidence, and "known" ONLY by you! > I have my own experience plus the cellsalt theory and homeopathy have been > around for 150. Homeopathy has ALWAYS been bullshit. There's NO evidence to support ANYTHING but a "placebo effect" for it. NONE. >> Richard, it is a well known fact > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Homeopathy has ALWAYS been bullshit. There's NO evidence to > support ANYTHING but a "placebo effect" for it. NONE. No, homeopathy isn't bullshit. Pharmaceutical drugs are though and any alternative remedies that would cut into their marketshare are suppressed. > No, homeopathy isn't bullshit. No it's just water ! So, george, why won't you try it for a while? If it is only water you will be safe. If you do not at least try it, you have no place to bad mouth it. >> No, homeopathy isn't bullshit. > > No it's just water ! > So, george, why won't you try it for a while? If it is only water you will > be safe. If you do not at least try it, you have no place to bad mouth it. That has already been done. Homeopathetic sleeping pills have been gulped down by the dozen with no effect. It's water. If Homeopathetic worked all one would need to cure any ailment is to drink a cup of sea water. Well george, if you were "gulping" them down by the dozen, you were misguided. If you expected that more ( like drugs ) is better / stronger, you were misguided. It don't work like that george. What strength were they? Did you get them from a Homeopath? Did the Homeopath tell you to gulp down dozens? Your story looks like it is a little leaky. Like perhaps only a story and not anything truthful. >> So, george, why won't you try it for a while? If it is only water you >> will [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > If Homeopathetic worked all one would need to cure any ailment is to > drink a cup of sea water. >>> Richard, it is a well known fact >> It's always amused me that your "well known facts" are [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > No, homeopathy isn't bullshit. Yes. It is. Sam is wrong, again. >>>> Richard, it is a well known fact >>> It's always amused me that your "well known facts" are [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Yes. It is. So??? Even if it were only placebo effect, so? If people get better, feel better, have no weird side effects, and get well, what's the problem? It IS their health and money, not yours. I will bet that you have never even tried it. Take care of your own health problems and leave others to do theirs. >> Richard, it is a well known fact > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Homeopathy has ALWAYS been bullshit. There's NO evidence to > support ANYTHING but a "placebo effect" for it. NONE. In misc.health.alternative Carole <hubbca@iimetro.com.au> wrote: : Richard, it is a well known fact that conventional science is based on use : of pharmaceuticals. Well known to people like you whose connection to what the rest of us recognize as objective reality is weak. For the rest of us, simple chemistry experiments are possible without the use of pharmaceuticals. Do you think that the difference between hard water and soft water is a myth foisted on an unwilling public by the pharmaceutical industry? : Sorry, scientific research is corrupted and the research isn't worth much. If 200 years of chemistry research is corrupted, then how do *you* explain mass spectrometry or spectroscopy (the general subjects of my Ph.D. and postdoctoral research, respectively)? :> You don't know *anything* about science, by your own admission. You have :> no way of knowing whether the science I have been taught is "corrupted" :> or not. : I have my own experience plus the cellsalt theory and homeopathy have been : around for 150. : There has been 150 years of suppression of the true causes of disease. You mean that disease is caused by evil spirits? That explanation has been around a lot longer than the cell salt theory. :> Unlike you, I have actually gone into a lab and done experiments. If the :> atomic theory is wrong, and if classical physics is not a reasonable [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] :> the experiments I did for my postdoc (and in my lab at Bar-Ilan) make :> any sense. :> Unlike you, I know something about chemistry, and I can explain what :> happens when something burns. I know the difference between "oxidation" [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] :> "Methemoglobin," which contains iron in the ferric state, cannot :> transport oxygen. : Good for you Richard and no doubt your experiments work on a certain level. You have no clue what I'm talking about, right? : However, the pharmaceutical business has absolutely no interest in curing : anybody of anything. : They are focused on making money. That may be (and to some extent almost certainly is) true, but that doesn't mean that the cell salt theory, which is absurd on the face of it, is true. :> How could they do that? How have they succeeded in suppressing, say, you? : : Let me count the ways the pharmaceutical industry suppress their opposition. And yet, given how easy it would be for them to shut you up -- permanently, if they are as omnipotent as you claim -- they haven't yet managed to be able to suppress you and your wonderful theory. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." ... > Sorry, scientific research is corrupted and the research isn't worth much. Oh dear, religion is a conspiracy *and* science is a conspiracy. Oh, I get it - everything's a conspiracy! >> :> Has it ever >> :> occurred to you ... > > In misc.health.alternative Carole <hub...@iimetro.com.au> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 89 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Carol: Have you actually thought through your arguement to its logical conclusions? Consider this, "pharmaceutical business " is ultimately people. It's companies made up of people, run by people and owned by people. If what you argue is true, that "pharmaceutical business" is purposely suppressing cures (or even keeping people sick) knowingly, then these people are denying themselves and everyone they care about these self same cures. You are telling me that *everyone* involved in the conspiracy is so concerned about the money that they would all sacrifice themselves and everyone they care about? If this were even slightly true and the truth came out (as it must since *you* claim to know it), then everyone involved would be open to lawsuits, not to mention criminal charges, heck even lynchings by the families of those who have suffered. Can everyone involved be such a cold hearted monster that they would risk themselves and everyone they care about? Risk their own terminal illnesses? Risk the loss of everything monetary? Risk prison? Makes no sense from a human motivational standpoint. Sorry Carol, your story just doesn't hold water. Of course the other test is to simply go and *try* some of these suppressed cures. After all they are available in books (hmmm... now who is making the money?) and perhaps on the web. Doesn't this seem a bit incredible? Perhaps I've been indoctrinated...indocrtinated to test ideas, try things, and go with what works. No real tests I've ever found shows the slightest validity to these other approaches. But you can fix that. Simply run some good, well documented tests. Since you aren't under their control, I'm sure the world will beat a path to your door when you prove your case. On the other hand, it's easier to just hide your head under a pillow and blame all the world's problems on unasalable fantasies. Dan (Woj...) > > "Richard Schultz" <schu...@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 132 lines] > > - Afficher le texte des messages précédents - You must not in fact trust the Quacks at all ! Indeed Dizzeazezzz are those vermins ' bread & butter and they live indeed upon people's misery & ignorance of the most elementary Cosmic Law ! The positive side of it all though is the fact that the DI ( Dizeaze Industry ) are dying from the very same dizeazez those c.nts are suppused to cure in others !! WELLDONE ! By the way amongst other things brain tumor and any cancer by the way can be alleviated in 2 hours flat & indeed cured in a few days ... with of course the allowance that the sick imbeciles ( anyone becoming sick is a definitive imbecile indeed ) modifies his way of life as a resutl. Of course such finding of mine _ and well experimented indeed _ will not be available to the Land Of Bastards australia, and hence to the rest of the World as a result. TOO MANY Mining & Political Crimimals are around to grab, use and run away without a thanks anything I would give them again ! With best regards Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud Australia Mining Pioneer Discoverer of Telfer Mine ( Australia largest Copper & Gold MIne) also Nifty (Cu) & Kintyre (U, Th) Mines all in the Great Sandy Desert Exploration Geologist & Offshore Consultant Mobile + 33 6 50 17 14 64 Office + 33 5 16 19 14 21 Founder of the True Geology ~ Ignorance is the Cosmic Sin, the One never Forgiven ~ for background info. http://www.tnet.com.au/~warrigal/grule.html http://users.indigo.net.au/don/tel/index.html http://users.indigo.net.au/don/tel/nac.html http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/turcaud.htm http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s28534.htm > In misc.health.alternative Carole <hub...@iimetro.com.au> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > thinking for yourself is going to lead you to any conclusion that is even > close to be correct are very, very, very small? The very same points have been made to you regarding acupuncture. If only you were capable of thinking rationally on the topic of acupuncture... > ----- > Richard Schultz schu...@mail.biu.ac.il > Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel > Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University > ----- > "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." In misc.health.alternative The One True Zhen Jue <Andrew_Kingoff@yahoo.com> wrote: :> In misc.health.alternative Carole <hub...@iimetro.com.au> wrote: :> : And when I say people should think for themselves and question authority, :> : there are some who say they do. . . :> : People fawn and grovel in front of experts and trust everything they say. :> Has it ever occurred to you that a person might be able to think for himself :> and come to the conclusion that the experts are correct? Has it ever :> occurred to you that if you know nothing about a subject, the odds that :> thinking for yourself is going to lead you to any conclusion that is even :> close to be correct are very, very, very small? : The very same points have been made to you regarding acupuncture. I have come to the conclusions that the experts -- i.e. those who know how to design an experiment properly and to report its results accurately -- are correct, and that there is no evidence for the efficacy of acupuncture beyond a placebo effect. : If only you were capable of thinking rationally on the topic of : acupuncture... The one who is incapable of rational thought, alas, is you. The proof is quite evident to anyone who is as not as blinded with rage against those who disagree with him as you are. One might start with your insistence on responding to posts that I write that have nothing to do with acupuncture and inserting another one of your patented rants. I have given you a long list of articles, and expressed a willingness to discuss with you what you think the problems with the articles are that their evidence against the efficacy of acupuncture can be dismissed. Not only have you failed to accept that offer -- you have refused in principle even to *read* the articles in question, not even the one that you claim (incorrectly) supports your position, and not even the one written by a professor of complementary medicine. I have offered to discuss with you the statistical problems with reports of clinical trials of acupuncture, and why Peter Moran's statements that negative results should probably be given more weight than positive ones are to be taken seriously. Not only have you refused to enter such a discussion, you have refused to acknowledge my offer. I have asked you for your comments on an article that I found that presented a conjecture about the origin of the belief in meridians, and asked you to comment. You certainly refused to comment, and I am sure refused to read the article as well. Now I suppose it is possible (likely, even) that just as you have an idiosyncratic definition of "lie," you have an idiosyncratic definition of "rationality" that does not match that with which most of the rest of us (except for your CJ/Jan Drew cheering squad) are familiar. But it seems to me that trying to understand why so many well-performed studies fail to find effects beyond placebo is a *rational* approach; that trying to understand the statistical problems inherent in clinical trials is a *rational* approach; that trying to make sense of the observation that the positive results most highly touted are those for cases in which there is no objective means of determining whether or not the treatment worked. Your mileage may vary (and apparently does), but I find your impassioned defense of rationality hard to reconcile with your apparent admission that the principles upon which acupuncture is based are fictitious (or metaphorical if you prefer a less pejorative term). ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean. Do you have to salt your truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?" > In misc.health.alternative The One True Zhen Jue <Andrew_Kingoff@yahoo.com> wrote: > :> In misc.health.alternative Carole <hub...@iimetro.com.au> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > correct, and that there is no evidence for the efficacy of acupuncture > beyond a placebo effect. Acupuncture helped my dog tremendously, making him able to move much better right away after the first treatment, and regain the weight he had lost, all the while dying of cancer. When he died, he was 72 pounds. He had dropped to 61 before starting the treatments. He had great difficulty turning around, and had to do it like a semi trying to back up into a tight space. On the way home from the first treatment, he got up and made a 360 turn, and plopped back down. He hated the first couple of treatments, but towards the end, was thrilled to get them. He would fall asleep almost as soon as the first needle went in. It didn't save him, but it did make his last months a lot more comfortable. The only negative was the cost involved. I don't think the old guy knew what "placebo" meant.  SignatureBDK BDK Klan leader? kOOk Magnet! NJJ CLUB #1 Shillmaster >> In misc.health.alternative The One True Zhen Jue >> <Andrew_Kingoff@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > I don't think the old guy knew what "placebo" meant. And I have used cellsalts on my dog to fix up some of his minor health problems which included smelly ears, bad breath and licking of his feet which made them go raw, which incidentally was a condition which I saw a TV vet recommended cortisone for which he said would shorten a dog's life but what was the alternative? Carole www.cellsalts.net > And I have used cellsalts on my dog to fix up some of his minor health > problems which included smelly ears, You SMELL your dog's ears? You've got bigger problems than I thought... >> And I have used cellsalts on my dog to fix up some of his minor health >> problems which included smelly ears, > > You SMELL your dog's ears? You've got bigger problems than > I thought... Smelly ears in a dog are a sign of infection. > Smelly ears in a dog are a sign of infection. Only of an ear infection. Maybe you could wash the dirt out of your own ears with some of that homeopathetic crap you're peddling >> Smelly ears in a dog are a sign of infection. > > Only of an ear infection. > Maybe you could wash the dirt out of your own ears with some of that > homeopathetic crap you're peddling > george, where and when did you get a degree in Veterinary Medicine?" Are you claiming that Carole is a bitch ? Or like all kooks you didn't read what was written > >> Smelly ears in a dog are a sign of infection. > > > Only of an ear infection. > > Maybe you could wash the dirt out of your own ears with some of that > > homeopathetic crap you're peddling I read for content. You have not posted anything with content. Please do. And stop telling people what their dog should smell like till you have some valid info. >> george, where and when did you get a degree in Veterinary Medicine?" > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> > Maybe you could wash the dirt out of your own ears with some of that >> > homeopathetic crap you're peddling > > And I have used cellsalts on my dog to fix up some of his minor health > > problems which included smelly ears, > > You SMELL your dog's ears? You've got bigger problems than > I thought... Well, not to take Carole's side, if you have a dog that has ear problems, it's the easiest thing to do, the smell proceeds any visible symptoms by a few days, so you can start treating them before it gets rolling. SignatureBDK BDK Klan leader? kOOk Magnet! NJJ CLUB #1 Shillmaster >> And I have used cellsalts on my dog to fix up some of his minor health >> problems which included smelly ears, > >Sammy's ignorance removed. > > In misc.health.alternative The One True Zhen Jue <Andrew_Kingoff@yahoo.com> wrote: > > :> In misc.health.alternative Carole <hub...@iimetro.com.au> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > I don't think the old guy knew what "placebo" meant. there empirical experience flies in the face of your usual "skepticism" (brainwashing). try applying this mode of thinking to other questions, dude. Signature"Chaque enfant est le nôtre." Devise de l'UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund) > > > In misc.health.alternative The One True Zhen Jue <Andrew_Kingoff@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > :> In misc.health.alternative Carole <hub...@iimetro.com.au> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > flies in the face of your usual "skepticism" (brainwashing). > try applying this mode of thinking to other questions, dude. LOL, I knew you would pop up with something. SignatureBDK BDK Klan leader? kOOk Magnet! NJJ CLUB #1 Shillmaster In misc.health.alternative quintal <quintal@francom.esoterisme> wrote: : empirical experience : flies in the face of your usual "skepticism" (brainwashing). : try applying this mode of thinking to other questions, dude. I have presented a fairly large number of studies that provide empirical evidence that acupuncture does not work by an effect other than a placebo. What do those studies do to *your* beliefs? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." > acupuncture Is not the subject, hypocrite. In misc.health.alternative Jan Drew <jdrew1374@sbcglobal.net> wrote: :> acupuncture : Is not the subject, hypocrite. Why don't you complain to the person who introduced acupuncture into the thread? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "It is terrible to die of thirst in the ocean. Do you have to salt your truth so heavily that it does not even quench thirst any more?" > In misc.health.alternative The One True Zhen Jue > <Andrew_Kingoff@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > correct, and that there is no evidence for the efficacy of acupuncture > beyond a placebo effect. Turn it up Richard. Chemo is all about marginal shrinking of tumours for a period and nothing to do with curing cancer. > : If only you were capable of thinking rationally on the topic of > : acupuncture... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > acupuncture > and inserting another one of your patented rants. Have you done my silica test or my athletes foot test? No! > I have given you a long list of articles, and expressed a willingness to > discuss with you what you think the problems with the articles are that [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > certainly refused to comment, and I am sure refused to read the article > as well. I wouldn't read anything you recommend because there's no evidence you think outside the conventional system that you've been trained to follow. You're more interested in support the current system than looking for truth -- you have so much invested in your conventional career to question it would threaten your chosen career. Carole www.conspiracee.com www.cellsalts.net >snip> | Turn it up Richard. Chemo is all about marginal shrinking of tumours for a | period and nothing to do with curing cancer. Yet you choose to believe the crap from Turcaud : ? 6. (Le Turd speak)I can cure : Aids - within hours Cancer - (in 5 days flat) ("immediate relief within an hour) Tetanus - (in 1 second) Drug addiction - (off the hook within minutes - cure in a month) Rheumatism/Arthritis/Heart and Brain attacks/Tumours - immediately I can stabilise, and sometimes cure ; Diabetes/Pott/Parkinsons/Multiple Sclerosis's/Alzheimer. 6a. "Anyway, coming back to Down syndrome children, knowing the causes, it is easy then to apply proper cure and bring such children back to normality." 7. "When you hear of someone dying of such easy to cure Disease, please have a thought for Sir Turcaud !. | I wouldn't read anything you recommend because there's no evidence you think | outside the conventional system that you've been trained to follow. | You're more interested in support the current system than looking for | truth -- you have so much invested in your conventional career to question | it would threaten your chosen career. You won't find "truth" from any of your conspiracy sites. >>snip> > | Turn it up Richard. Chemo is all about marginal shrinking of tumours for [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > 7. "When you hear of someone dying of such easy to cure Disease, > please have a thought for Sir Turcaud !. I think there are a whole heap of suppressed cures out there. Do you know for sure that turcaud can't do what he says? One thing we know for sure is that the pharmaceutical companies say asthma is incurable -- I used to have asthma. They have no idea about the causes of disease -- so if they don't understand the cause how can they cure it? I can get rid of athlete's foot by taking (orally) bicarb and cream of tartar, plus calcium supplements. Now this isn't a topical solution to kill the virus, it is a nutritional solution. > | I wouldn't read anything you recommend because there's no evidence you > think [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > You won't find "truth" from any of your conspiracy sites. And you won't find any truth from "experts", "reliable sources" and establishment spin. Carole www.conspiracee.com | >>snip> | > | Turn it up Richard. Chemo is all about marginal shrinking of tumours for [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] | I think there are a whole heap of suppressed cures out there. | Do you know for sure that turcaud can't do what he says? I wish I was as sure of winning Lotto | And you won't find any truth from "experts", "reliable sources" and | establishment spin. What happened to that "open mind" you keep insisting you have ? >>>snip> >> | Turn it up Richard. Chemo is all about marginal shrinking of tumours [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > And you won't find any truth from "experts", "reliable sources" and > establishment spin. Your position requires that for decades and longer, thousands and thousands and thousands of physicians, health workers, and scientists - basically everyone - would much rather watch their friends, loved ones, children, even themselves, die agonizing deaths after long periods of suffering rather than take advantage of the "cures" you say exist. And none of them has ever changed their mind about whatever kept them from just using these cures. Can you explain what it is that makes *all of them* choose extreme pain and suffering and death? Is it money? -pk > Carole > www.conspiracee.com Snip off topic rant. > People fawn and grovel in front of experts and trust everything they > say. More so in Asia. I have friends in Thailand who would not dare to question authority, or doctors, or dentists, or teachers, etc. > >> The mainstream media, of course, still insist Snow died from colon > >> cancer, thus perpetuating the myth that it is only the cancer that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I say "pig's arse they do"! > People fawn and grovel in front of experts and trust everything they say. So nobody's cancer has ever been reduced through chemotherapy? Nobody who has ever tried your "treatment," whatever it is, has then had their cancer worsen? On Jul 24, 4:21 am, "Carole" <hub...@iimetro.com.au> wrote: > "Polly the Parrot" <flatulantdi...@deadspam.com> wrote in > messagenews:20080724174146.6134e62a@linux-k6os.site... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I say "pig's arse they do"! > People fawn and grovel in front of experts and trust everything they say. Disneygeek > So nobody's cancer has ever been reduced through chemotherapy? Nobody who has ever tried your "treatment," whatever it is, has then had their cancer worsen? Carole > Do you know how much cancer treatments cost? Some new drugs are $10,000 per month. It is an enormously lucrative industry. What I read is that chemo reduces tumours in the short term but when it comes to overall cure, is very ineffective. I'm not sure of the statistics of who died from what, or who were cured of what. But I have heard the statistics aren't accurate. There are different ways they fudge the facts. You can't depend on the statistics. Carole www.conspiracee.com > On Jul 24, 4:21 am, "Carole" <hub...@iimetro.com.au> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > they fudge the facts. > You can't depend on the statistics. Yeah, well, 12.34% of all statistics are made up. Seriously, so you don't know how well your treatment works vs. chemotherapy, but you're willing to insist that chemo is a fraud and yours works? > Gee Carole, all sounds like a conspiracy to me! moron http://www.whale.to/a/cancer_c.html > Can You Trust Chemotherapy to Cure Your Cancer? > Wednesday, July 23, 2008 by: Andreas Moritzhttp://www.naturalnews.com/023689.html <snip bullshit> I suppose you haven't realized that the cancer _will_ kill you if not treated and that the traeatment _may_ kill the cancer? Or is that way to simple to pierce that thick skull of yours? Harry K In misc.health.alternative harry k <turnkey4099@hotmail.com> wrote: : <snip bullshit> : Or is that way t[o]o simple to pierce that thick skull of yours? Keep in mind that according to her theory, sulfate is an essential cell salt. Apparently, all of the sulfate has precipitated out onto the surface of her skull, so yes, it is too simple to pierce her skull. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience" Richard, you need to go back to your test tubes and leave real medicine and real people alone. > In misc.health.alternative harry k <turnkey4099@hotmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > ----- > "an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience" > In misc.health.alternative harry k <turnkey4099@hotmail.com> wrote: > > : <snip bullshit> > > : Or is that way t[o]o simple to pierce that thick skull of yours? > Keep in mind that according to her theory, sulfate is an essential cell > salt. Apparently, all of the sulfate has precipitated out onto the > surface > of her skull, so yes, it is too simple to pierce her skull. Cellsalts work. The problem with your schooling is that it doesn't explain much about nutrition. I hear that a doctor gets about 3 hours tuition of nutrition during his course of 4 years. Cellsalts were discovered 150 years ago by Dr Schuessler. there are 12 cellsalts and 3 that involve sulphur -- calcium sulphate, sodium sulphate and potassium sulphate. Carole www.cellsalts.net In misc.health.alternative Carole <hubbca@iimetro.com.au> wrote: : Cellsalts were discovered 150 years ago by Dr Schuessler. : there are 12 cellsalts and 3 that involve sulphur -- calcium sulphate, : sodium sulphate and potassium sulphate. One of which is essentially insoluble in water. How does your cell salt theory explain the observation that in the body, sulfur is found pretty much only in reduced form, and not as sulfate? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." > How does your cell salt theory explain the observation that in the body, > sulfur is found pretty much only in reduced form, and not as sulfate? To Carole, "reduced" just means a deficiency. | The brighter the stupid burns, the more | | chance that someone will see the light. | +- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> -+ > <snip bullshit> > > I suppose you haven't realized that the cancer _will_ kill you if not > treated and that the traeatment _may_ kill the cancer? Or is that way > to simple to pierce that thick skull of yours? Judging from 'Caroles' pronouncements upon the joys of National Socialism I'd say that her knowledge of medicine and treatments can be placed together in a large metal container for disposal at the nearest tip ! On Jul 24, 12:40 am, "Carole" <hub...@iimetro.com.au> wrote: > Can You Trust Chemotherapy to Cure Your Cancer? > Wednesday, July 23, 2008 by: Andreas > Moritzhttp://www.naturalnews.com/023689.html <snip bullshit> > I suppose you haven't realized that the cancer _will_ kill you if not > treated and that the traeatment _may_ kill the cancer? Or is that way > to simple to pierce that thick skull of yours? > > Harry K See Richard? This is a typical person who trusts experts and listens faithfully to anybody who can put out a few scientific sounding phrases. You impress them with your "education". I would suggest to this person Harry K that he begins to think for himself and not listen too much to "experts" and "reliable sources". We all know the old saying, "an ounce of bullshit beats a pound of brains" -- they use bullshit to baffle people. Yes, modern medicine has come a long way in treating emergency conditions and sewing back limbs, curing epilepsy and a few other things, but they should question any treatment that relies on long-term use of pharmaceuticals. Carole www.conspiracee.com www.cellsalts.net www.soiltheory.com >> Can You Trust Chemotherapy to Cure Your Cancer? >> Wednesday, July 23, 2008 by: Andreas Moritzhttp://www.naturalnews.com/023689.html [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > treated and that the traeatment _may_ kill the cancer? Or is that way > to simple to pierce that thick skull of yours? Carole doesn't have any problem with "simple." It's logic that seems to be a problem. | The brighter the stupid burns, the more | | chance that someone will see the light. | +- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> -+ > Can You Trust Chemotherapy to Cure Your Cancer? > Wednesday, July 23, 2008 by: Andreas Moritzhttp://www.naturalnews.com/023689.html This is a very interesting article reported by Mike Adams from Dr Moritz. One must consider which side of the coin they are on. Are you on the scientific/mechanistic side or on the side of the coin which looks at cancer from the vitalistic/humanistic viewpoint? The allopaths ( scientific/mechanistic) proponents are incapable of thinking outside of their mental boxes due to indoctrination, brainwashing, and legal reasons. Should they ever admit that their knowledge of cancer is suspect and their treatments worthless, they would lose all their godliness. Better to toe the official line, take all the ill gotten gains, and die in luxury rather than tell the truth. For those who view cancer from the vitalistic/humanistic viewpoint, cancer is a normal body defense mechanism and not some condition whereby the body must be tortured and poisoned. We have known the facts about cancer since the 1930s if not earlier. In 1934, Warburg received the Nobel Prize for his studies on cellular respiration. He showed that normal cells could be converted to cancer cells by reducing the oxygen content provided to the cells and additionally rendering the medium acidic. Conversely, he could then convert these cancer cells to normal healthy cells by restoring the oxygen and rendering the medium alkaline again. Any successful viatalistic/humanistic treatments of cancer must accomplish this feat or be doomed to failure. It should be readily understood then why the allopath fails so miserably. The allopath never corrects the underlying problem with the “soil” from which the cancer has grown, but the allopath does add to the toxic load of the tissues. DrCee You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons. In misc.health.alternative drceephd@insightbb.com wrote: : Should they ever admit that their knowledge of cancer is suspect and : their treatments worthless, they would lose all their godliness. Do Martians suffer from cancer? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- ". . . for while he was not dumber than an ox, he was not any smarter." -- James Thurber, _My Life and Hard Times_ > In misc.health.alternative drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > ". . . for while he was not dumber than an ox, he was not any smarter." > -- James Thurber, _My Life and Hard Times_ No. We hung all the lying deceitful allopaths centurys ago and closed their schools of deceit, propaganda, indoctrination, and brainwashing. We also outlawed all the animal sacrifice that they promoted and engaged in. DrCee You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons. In misc.health.alternative drceephd@insightbb.com wrote: :> : Should they ever admit that their knowledge of cancer is suspect and :> : their treatments worthless, they would lose all their godliness. ? :> Do Martians suffer from cancer? : No. Then how could your medical training possibly have included instruction on the causes of cancer? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." > In misc.health.alternative drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > ----- > "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." Uhh...Schlutz, I just said we have no cancer. Ergo, we know the cause of cancer and know how to avoid it. We also know how to correct the cancerous condition for those uneducated idiots who engage in the enducement of cancer. DrCee You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons. In misc.health.alternative drceephd@insightbb.com wrote: :> :> : Should they ever admit that their knowledge of cancer is suspect and :> :> : their treatments worthless, they would lose all their godliness. ? :> :> Do Martians suffer from cancer? :> : No. :> Then how could your medical training possibly have included instruction :> on the causes of cancer? : I just said we have no cancer. Ergo, we know the cause of cancer and : know how to avoid it. The second sentence does not follow from the first. There is a difference between being able to cure a condition and never suffering from it. You have claimed that the Martians do not suffer from cancer, not that they know how to cure it -- if they never suffered from it, there is no reason for them to need to know how to cure it, and even less for them to feel the need to teach the cure in their medical schools. You are also confusing matters further in another way. Previously, you claimed to have studied at a Martian medical school. Now you are claiming to *be* a Martian. Is this latter claim to be believed as well? I find it interesting that when the people who think that you have something worthwhile to say mysteriously shut up as soon as they are queried about whether or not they believe your claim to have studied at a Martian medical school. So what about it, folks? Do you guys believe that "Dr." Cee was telling the truth when he said that his advanced degrees are from an institution located on Mars? ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- ". . . for while he was not dumber than an ox, he was not any smarter." -- James Thurber, _My Life and Hard Times_ > The second sentence does not follow from the first. There is a difference > between being able to cure a condition and never suffering from it. You > have claimed that the Martians do not suffer from cancer, not that they > know how to cure it -- if they never suffered from it, there is no reason > for them to need to know how to cure it, and even less for them to feel the > need to teach the cure in their medical schools. You misunderstand Chuckles. To him, cancer *is* the cure. (He specifically told us so elsewhere in this thread.) | The brighter the stupid burns, the more | | chance that someone will see the light. | +- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> -+ > You misunderstand Chuckles. To him, cancer *is* the cure. > (He specifically told us so elsewhere in this thread.) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > | chance that someone will see the light. | > +- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> -+ Two errors here. One, I have never said cancer is a cure. What I have said is that normal cancer ( not the induced variety ) is a body defense mechanism, and as such can be reversed without drugs and radiation. Two, you need to cease insulting scientists by calling medicine a science. The study of chemistry and physics is scientific but the practice of medicine is un-scientific. Calling medicine scientific is an insult to all scientists in the world. DrCee You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons. : Two, you need to cease insulting scientists by calling medicine a : science. The study of chemistry and physics is scientific but the : practice of medicine is un-scientific. Calling medicine scientific is : an insult to all scientists in the world. Well, I am a scientist, and I for one am not insulted. I suppose that you must be referring to your home world of Uranus or the world of Mars on which you received your education. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." >> You misunderstand Chuckles. To him, cancer *is* the cure. >> (He specifically told us so elsewhere in this thread.) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > normal cancer ( not the induced variety ) is a body defense mechanism, > and as such can be reversed without drugs and radiation. Either way, per you it's a Good Thing that the "innate intelligence" does for the good of the person. > Two, you need to cease insulting scientists by calling medicine a > science. The study of chemistry and physics is scientific but the > practice of medicine is un-scientific. Calling medicine scientific is > an insult to all scientists in the world. Science is as science does. Medicine follows the scientific method, with the canonical steps of observation, hypothesis, experimental tests, formalization, and iteration. (Not that one would expect you to have learned that in your Martian primary schools.) You, on the other hand, have stated that your "science" does not and cannot formulate falsifiable propositions with predictive power (such as, how to cause smallpox.) Thus your pronouncements regarding what is, and is not, scientific are idiosyncratic and not particularly interesting to anyone but yourself. | The brighter the stupid burns, the more | | chance that someone will see the light. | +- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> -+ : (Not that one would expect : you to have learned that in your Martian primary schools.) Keep up with the program! He got his *post-baccalaureate* education on Mars. His primary school was located on the planet Uranus. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad." > Keep up with the program! He got his *post-baccalaureate* education on > Mars. His primary school was located on the planet Uranus. You think he meant the *planet*? I always thought that his\ "education from uranus" was just his lousy spelling. | The brighter the stupid burns, the more | | chance that someone will see the light. | +- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> -+ <repeated blather snipped> On Jul 25, 9:41 am, "D. C. Sessions" <d...@lumbercartel.com> wrote: > You misunderstand Chuckles. To him, cancer *is* the cure. > (He specifically told us so elsewhere in this thread.) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > | chance that someone will see the light. | > +- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> -+ C>Two errors here. C>One, I have never said cancer is a cure. What I have said is that normal cancer ( not the induced variety ) is a body defense mechanism, and as such can be reversed without drugs and radiation. PM Have you thought about this or looked at all the evidence? How can such a local process (one focus, and one type of cell at a time, often in one type of tissue) be a bodily defense to anything? What about all the transmissible and implantable cancers and the cancers that continue to be cancerous in tissue culture? The body also has specialized cells for defensive processes whereas cancer affects every type of cell within the body. PM That's for starters -- everything points to cancer involving irreversible changes in the genetic make-up of the cell, such that cancer cells cannot be made to revert to normal even when grown outside of the body or in another body. Many of the actual gene abnormalities and some of their functions have been identified. It is likely that we will learn to control some of the cancerous behavior of the cancer cell, such as invasiveness and ability to form metastases, by manipulating gene activity but actually curing cancer will probably always involve destroying it or inducing it to destroy itself. C>Two, you need to cease insulting scientists by calling medicine a science. The study of chemistry and physics is scientific but the practice of medicine is un-scientific. Calling medicine scientific is an insult to all scientists in the world. PM Even the ancient Romans observed that malaria was associated with low lying, damp places and could be prevented by draining swamps. They thought the disease was due to miasms, but this was still primitive "science" --observation, deduction, testing out. PM > In misc.health.alternative drceephd@insightbb.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > ". . . for while he was not dumber than an ox, he was not any smarter." > -- James Thurber, _My Life and Hard Times_ good. now who is behind this parody of medicine? > Can You Trust Chemotherapy to Cure Your Cancer? > Wednesday, July 23, 2008 by: Andreas Moritz [quoted text clipped - 207 lines] > www.cellsalts.net > www.soiltheory.com SignatureThis obsession with security was the real force behind the furor over the Dreyfus case in France during the last century. A Jew named Captain Dreyfus had managed to penetrate the formerly all gentile French High Command. Soon afterwards, he was charged with selling French military secrets to the highest bidder. Although it was an open and shut case, as usual, the Jews launched a frantic international campaign to free him. It seemed odd that so much noise was raised over the fate of one French officer, but the theory of the biological parasite explains the mystery. The parasite had penetrated one of the last bastions of the gentile host. Now he knew all the military secrets, and he was also in a position to inform his people if the army should become |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message