Didn't see this posted

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57358994/calif-hs-student-devises-possible-cancer-cure/

Wait, wasn't this how the Will Smith version of I Am Legend started, with a cure for cancer?

Run! We're all doomed!

Most impressive padawan.

Pretty neat.

by her sophomore year she had talked her way into the lab at Stanford

by Junior year she was doing her own research




holy brains, that is beyond genius at such a young age

I cringed a bit when I saw "possible," but that's sounds quite plausible.

I hope to hear more about it, and her, later down the road.

This is probably the last we will hear of it. Sorry if I sound pessimistic, but my dad is in the hospital right now with 5 tumours and the doctors are not doing gak about it. They are already talking hospice. He went in with a melanoma growing behind his sternum (weird I know, I thought melanoma was skin cancer but that is what they said) and a few months later he had 5 tumours growing. He doesn't even have an IV in him and is dehydrated. Maybe it is my local health care system but I get the feeling they just gave up on him.

Lord Scythican wrote:This is probably the last we will hear of it. Sorry if I sound pessimistic, but my dad is in the hospital right now with 5 tumours and the doctors are not doing gak about it. They are already talking hospice. He went in with a melanoma growing behind his sternum (weird I know, I thought melanoma was skin cancer but that is what they said) and a few months later he had 5 tumours growing. He doesn't even have an IV in him and is dehydrated. Maybe it is my local health care system but I get the feeling they just gave up on him.

that sucks

but a negative never got anyone anywhere but despair

Lord Scythican wrote:This is probably the last we will hear of it. Sorry if I sound pessimistic, but my dad is in the hospital right now with 5 tumours and the doctors are not doing gak about it. They are already talking hospice. He went in with a melanoma growing behind his sternum (weird I know, I thought melanoma was skin cancer but that is what they said) and a few months later he had 5 tumours growing. He doesn't even have an IV in him and is dehydrated. Maybe it is my local health care system but I get the feeling they just gave up on him.

So sorry to hear about your father. My prayers are with you and your family.

Promising that sounds, it does, young skywalker!

Edit; Star wars reference has already been done. Oh well.

Sounds great, but I just thought it was funny how CBS's editors didn't notice that it says "shat" right in the middle of the article.

Its because shes Asian isnt it?


But seriously, thats pretty cool, hope something comes of it IE Zombie Apocalypse

i wonder what the world would be like with tumour B gone technology eradicating most cancers and improved statins eliminating heart disease, massive numbers of people above the pensions age and few people working.

Paradise?

Publish something revolutionary at a young age = never having to deal with doctoral advisers.

Not to be too much of a pessimist, this is a really great thing if it does work out, but I'm afraid of her going the route of other child prodigies, suicide.

I hope that everything works out though, and hopefully she'll keep on going and its a really simple concept that a kid would think of. Make something that can attach to tumor cells, put medicine in it, and then open it up to get the medicine into the cell. The really big thing is the fact that she was able to use her imagination and the science she learned in order to do this, this is why we need things that feed the imagination in school systems.

The only possible issue I could see with something like this is potentially damaging other systems with excess metals although its pretty easy to deal with excessive materials in the bloodstream.

halonachos wrote:Not to be too much of a pessimist, this is a really great thing if it does work out, but I'm afraid of her going the route of other child prodigies, suicide.

What usually induces suicide in child prodigies is the absence of socialization with peers due to being rushed through the educational system, as well as the absence of a large set of common experiences shared by most people in the US.

Being really smart is great and all, but imagine the life of 13 year old college student, and the difficulty he will have relating to others. This girl seems to have lead a pretty normal life, she's Saul Kripke, not Brandenn E. Bremmer.

Chemo kills you.Radio therapy kills you.The cancer doesn't "come back" after the therapy ... The treatment gives you a new cancer.

My dad had 3 melanomas on his arm, they cut out one but it came back. So my dad decided to cure it. And he did, he is now in perfect shape.

Bicarbonate of soda applied daily to the effected areas, was gone in a week.

Cancer is caused by a certain fungus, bicarb kills all known fungi. And it killed cancer. Drug companies won't treat cancer because the drugs they already produce make them billions. It's terrible, but it's good business.

My 2 cents.

Lord Scythican wrote:This is probably the last we will hear of it. Sorry if I sound pessimistic, but my dad is in the hospital right now with 5 tumours and the doctors are not doing gak about it. They are already talking hospice. He went in with a melanoma growing behind his sternum (weird I know, I thought melanoma was skin cancer but that is what they said) and a few months later he had 5 tumours growing. He doesn't even have an IV in him and is dehydrated. Maybe it is my local health care system but I get the feeling they just gave up on him.

Sorry to hear about your dad. Melanoma is skin cancer...the problem is that it can get into your lymphatic system and spread around your body. Melanoma is a tough one, too. Chemo and radiation have been proven ineffective in treating it, so they don't use either. In fact, the first FDA-approved treatment for stage IV melanoma appeared just last year. There are some other options too.

Sent you a PM.

@Deadly Squirrel -- you're free to believe whatever you want. But no one should be taking any of your advice about cancer seriously unless they want to end up in a coffin.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:Chemo kills you.Radio therapy kills you.The cancer doesn't "come back" after the therapy ... The treatment gives you a new cancer.

My dad had 3 melanomas on his arm, they cut out one but it came back. So my dad decided to cure it. And he did, he is now in perfect shape.

Bicarbonate of soda applied daily to the effected areas, was gone in a week.

Cancer is caused by a certain fungus, bicarb kills all known fungi. And it killed cancer. Drug companies won't treat cancer because the drugs they already produce make them billions. It's terrible, but it's good business.

My 2 cents.

My dad just got off chemo after beating cancer afterr 3 years.
He lost 150 pounds and couldnt eat. It i miserable and miserable watching him go through it. If theres a cure and we arent funding it...I done say this often but would loose my faith in the world.

@ Dogma, as I said in my post, I hope everything goes alright.

@Deadly, while there are people claiming that there is a "growing body of evidence saying that candida is a cause for cancer" it could be simply that the candida infection that ends up killing some cancer patients takes advantage of the comprised immune system of the patient. Also here's a list of foods to avoid if you don't want cancer:

All cow´s milk products:
cheese, yoghurt, whey. And all cow´s milk derivatives which are everywhere in processed food.

Carrots

Yeast products:
alcohol, bread, Marmite, Oxo, Bovril, vinegars, mushrooms, processed and smoked fish and meats.

All sugar products:
honey, fructose, lactose, glucose, dextrose and sweeteners like Nutrisweet and Canderel.

Nearly all fruit:
overripe fruits are full of sugar and yeasts. Plus vegetables like courgettes, pumpkin, squash, marrow.

High sugar root vegetables:
carrots, parsnips, sweet potatoes, beetroots, (maximum 1 potato per day).

That's right, fruits give you cancer according to this guy as well as carrots.

on the 7th of Feb 2002 T. Simoncini injected SB on a 34 y. old male patient with an intestinal carcinoma (diagnosed as terminal by other oncologists)which perforated his intestine and died the day after. Moreover he treated 2 other women which died in the same year. On May 2006 he was convicted to 3 y. for manslaughter of the first patient and 16 months for having charged 7.500 EUR each to the other 2 patients. He brought to his defence about 20 of his patients claiming that their carcinomas have "disappeared" thanks to him. None of these patients were charged with false testimony.

hotsauceman1 wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:Chemo kills you.Radio therapy kills you.The cancer doesn't "come back" after the therapy ... The treatment gives you a new cancer.

My dad had 3 melanomas on his arm, they cut out one but it came back. So my dad decided to cure it. And he did, he is now in perfect shape.

Bicarbonate of soda applied daily to the effected areas, was gone in a week.

Cancer is caused by a certain fungus, bicarb kills all known fungi. And it killed cancer. Drug companies won't treat cancer because the drugs they already produce make them billions. It's terrible, but it's good business.

My 2 cents.

My dad just got off chemo after beating cancer afterr 3 years.
He lost 150 pounds and couldnt eat. It i miserable and miserable watching him go through it. If theres a cure and we arent funding it...I done say this often but would loose my faith in the world.

I lost my faith in this world long ago. It is a sad fact indeed that drug companies allow thousands to die for the sake of money.

Also, by turning your blood into an alkaline, the cancer will die. The modern diet of processed food, carbonated drinks and additives has rendered many people's blood acidic. Cancer thrives when the blood is acidic and dies in the presence of alkaline. Bicarb is alkaline, which is why it kills cancer.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:Chemo kills you.Radio therapy kills you.The cancer doesn't "come back" after the therapy ... The treatment gives you a new cancer.

My dad had 3 melanomas on his arm, they cut out one but it came back. So my dad decided to cure it. And he did, he is now in perfect shape.

Bicarbonate of soda applied daily to the effected areas, was gone in a week.

Cancer is caused by a certain fungus, bicarb kills all known fungi. And it killed cancer. Drug companies won't treat cancer because the drugs they already produce make them billions. It's terrible, but it's good business.

My 2 cents.

What?

In re: the original post:

"Cure" isn't really the right word. It's a new method of tumor treatment. That doesn't really stop metastasis, so it's not really a cure.

It's an awesome technique that will probably get adapted.

I know he's going to flame me for this, but you guys need to not listen to deadly squirrel. He's posting nonsense pseudoscience that could get you hurt.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:
Also, by turning your blood into an alkaline, the cancer will die.

Everyone has alkaline blood, acidic blood can kill you, as can overly alkaline blood.

Rented Tritium wrote:In re: the original post:

"Cure" isn't really the right word. It's a new method of tumor treatment. That doesn't really stop metastasis, so it's not really a cure.

It's an awesome technique that will probably get adapted.

I know he's going to flame me for this, but you guys need to not listen to deadly squirrel. He's posting nonsense pseudoscience that could get you hurt.

I don't flame.Chill, bro.

We just have different opinions. Mine based from personal experience and yours from mass media.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:In re: the original post:

"Cure" isn't really the right word. It's a new method of tumor treatment. That doesn't really stop metastasis, so it's not really a cure.

It's an awesome technique that will probably get adapted.

I know he's going to flame me for this, but you guys need to not listen to deadly squirrel. He's posting nonsense pseudoscience that could get you hurt.

I don't flame.Chill, bro.

We just have different opinions. Mine based from personal experience and yours from mass media.

Scientific Facts vs. Holistic Hoodoo, you mean?

dogma wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:
Also, by turning your blood into an alkaline, the cancer will die.

Everyone has alkaline blood, acidic blood can kill you, as can overly alkaline blood.

Yes, naturally you do have alkaline blood. But the modern diet turns it slightly acidic which, as you said, is very bad and why cancer is so prevalent these days. Hell, a 1/3 chance of getting cancer... It just sucks to say the least.

What, you don't think it's reasonable that every nurse, doctor, medical professional, hospital and pharma company worldwide knows that baking soda is a cure for cancer -- and apparently every different kind of cancer -- but they're keeping that to themselves?

Dreadwinter wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:In re: the original post:

"Cure" isn't really the right word. It's a new method of tumor treatment. That doesn't really stop metastasis, so it's not really a cure.

It's an awesome technique that will probably get adapted.

I know he's going to flame me for this, but you guys need to not listen to deadly squirrel. He's posting nonsense pseudoscience that could get you hurt.

I don't flame.Chill, bro.

We just have different opinions. Mine based from personal experience and yours from mass media.

Scientific Facts vs. Holistic Hoodoo, you mean?

When your father looks you in the eye and says "I might not make it" then cures himself, you will open your mind to my "Holistic Hoodoo"

DeadlySquirrel wrote:

dogma wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:
Also, by turning your blood into an alkaline, the cancer will die.

Everyone has alkaline blood, acidic blood can kill you, as can overly alkaline blood.

Yes, naturally you do have alkaline blood. But the modern diet turns it slightly acidic which, as you said, is very bad and why cancer is so prevalent these days. Hell, a 1/3 chance of getting cancer... It just sucks to say the least.

No, this is a lie. Acidic starts at 6.9, that will kill you dead. A human cannot survive with blood outside of a very small range on the alkaline side of 7

Bicarb doesn't kill cancer, it may kill fungus, but not cancer. When you biopsy a tumor or any sort of cancer you get to see what's in those cells and guess what, there's no fungus there. The fact that this quack is pushing sodium bicarbonate as a cure for cancer and has killed several people while "curing" them tells me that this is not a true thing.

Also, you do know that human blood operates within a certain spread of alkalinity vs acidity right? Human blood must remain between 7.35 and 7.45 in order to stay healthy, if you start injecting people with bases then you're going to kill them.

Rented Tritium wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:

dogma wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:
Also, by turning your blood into an alkaline, the cancer will die.

Everyone has alkaline blood, acidic blood can kill you, as can overly alkaline blood.

Yes, naturally you do have alkaline blood. But the modern diet turns it slightly acidic which, as you said, is very bad and why cancer is so prevalent these days. Hell, a 1/3 chance of getting cancer... It just sucks to say the least.

No, this is a lie. Acidic starts at 6.9, that will kill you dead. A human cannot survive with blood outside of a very small range on the alkaline side of 7

Wrong. Your blood can become acidic without killing you. It will be bad for your health, definitely i.e. allowing cancer to thrive.

Ie; your organs and cells begin to DIE!

DeadlySquirrel wrote:

Dreadwinter wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:In re: the original post:

"Cure" isn't really the right word. It's a new method of tumor treatment. That doesn't really stop metastasis, so it's not really a cure.

It's an awesome technique that will probably get adapted.

I know he's going to flame me for this, but you guys need to not listen to deadly squirrel. He's posting nonsense pseudoscience that could get you hurt.

I don't flame.Chill, bro.

We just have different opinions. Mine based from personal experience and yours from mass media.

Scientific Facts vs. Holistic Hoodoo, you mean?

When your father looks you in the eye and says "I might not make it" then cures himself, you will open your mind to my "Holistic Hoodoo"

Post hoc ergo propter hoc



Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:

dogma wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:
Also, by turning your blood into an alkaline, the cancer will die.

Everyone has alkaline blood, acidic blood can kill you, as can overly alkaline blood.

Yes, naturally you do have alkaline blood. But the modern diet turns it slightly acidic which, as you said, is very bad and why cancer is so prevalent these days. Hell, a 1/3 chance of getting cancer... It just sucks to say the least.

No, this is a lie. Acidic starts at 6.9, that will kill you dead. A human cannot survive with blood outside of a very small range on the alkaline side of 7

Wrong. Your blood can become acidic without killing you. It will be bad for your health, definitely i.e. allowing cancer to thrive.

No, seriously it can't. If your blood pH drops below 7.0, you are going to die very quickly. Are you positing that everyone who has cancer has blood pH of less than 7? Because that would be nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:Ie; your organs and cells begin to DIE!

You also get to force anyone in base to base contact to take an initiative test or take wounds.

The fungus being blamed is also natural to your body, so guess what, if you destroy it you're going to mess yourself over too. Candidiasis, the condition of candida infection occurs because of cancer treatments, its also common in HIV/AIDS patients. So if you want to tell us that fungus causes HIV/AIDS then fungus does not cause cancer. Your dad may have treated his candidiasis which persisted after the cancer treatments but he did not cure the cancer, if your dad was suffering from candidiasis then the symptoms he associated with "cancer" were from the fungal infection he got.

I would recommend that your dad get checked again, although I doubt he will after "curing" himself, just to make sure he's not ignoring another growing cancer.

Believe what you wanna believe. But just because I do not follow the general scientific consensus doesn't mean I am wrong.

As I have said several times in other threads here, any scientist who disagrees with the general consensus receives "the black spot" and is banned from publishing his work in major scientific magazines.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:
Yes, naturally you do have alkaline blood. But the modern diet turns it slightly acidic which, as you said, is very bad and why cancer is so prevalent these days. Hell, a 1/3 chance of getting cancer... It just sucks to say the least.

As has been said, if your blood becomes acidic (pH 6.99) you will die.

And it isn't that fungus you mentioned. Many think it is a normally harmless virus infected by a fungus...

DeadlySquirrel wrote:Believe what you wanna believe. But just because I do not follow the general scientific consensus doesn't mean I am wrong.

It means there is a very low probability of being right, especially when you can very easily pH test your own blood.

Of course, I suppose you likely believe you're one of the rare people with alkaline blood.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:And it isn't that fungus you mentioned. Many think it is a normally harmless virus infected by a fungus...

Viruses infected by fungus? How can something larger than a virus infect a virus? That's like saying you have an aircraft carrier inside of your VW Beetle.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:
When your father looks you in the eye and says "I might not make it" then cures himself, you will open your mind to my "Holistic Hoodoo"

I imagine that your father made a habit of breathing when he was with cancer, surely that must have been the cure.

Correlation is not causation.

dogma wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:Believe what you wanna believe. But just because I do not follow the general scientific consensus doesn't mean I am wrong.

It means there is a very low probability of being right, especially when you can very easily pH test your own blood.

Of course, I suppose you likely believe you're one of the rare people with alkaline blood.

Wrong. I know I am acidic, but I'm cutting down on the gak food and I am taking supplements to combat it.

EDIT and I meant fungus infected with a virus. My mistake.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:

dogma wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:Believe what you wanna believe. But just because I do not follow the general scientific consensus doesn't mean I am wrong.

It means there is a very low probability of being right, especially when you can very easily pH test your own blood.

Of course, I suppose you likely believe you're one of the rare people with alkaline blood.

Wrong. I know I am acidic, but I'm cutting down on the gak food and I am taking supplements to combat it.

You should be heading to the hospital right now, then, because your organs are failing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:EDIT and I meant fungus infected with a virus. My mistake.

DeadlySquirrel wrote: Many think it is a normally harmless virus infected by a fungus...

That's not possible due to the mechanics of scale.

Rented Tritium wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:

dogma wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:Believe what you wanna believe. But just because I do not follow the general scientific consensus doesn't mean I am wrong.

It means there is a very low probability of being right, especially when you can very easily pH test your own blood.

Of course, I suppose you likely believe you're one of the rare people with alkaline blood.

Wrong. I know I am acidic, but I'm cutting down on the gak food and I am taking supplements to combat it.

You should be heading to the hospital right now, then, because your organs are failing.

Nope. I have been through all sorts of tests, they thought I had kidney failure though. That sucked. SO they diagnosed me with chronic fatigue syndrome. YAY.

If its a fungus infected by a virus, then that means it all boils down to it being a virus's fault.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:
Wrong. I know I am acidic, but I'm cutting down on the gak food and I am taking supplements to combat it.

Who told you that your blood is acidic?

Or you know, we could actually accept the scientific consensus that cancer is caused by genetic damage from various sources such as cellular aging and carcinogens.

Is it possible for me to post in Off-Topic without you all derailing the thread into personal attacks on my beliefs?

On topic, as previously mentioned, the woman has found a treatment for cancer. I doubt it is cured 100%

DeadlySquirrel wrote:
Nope. I have been through all sorts of tests, they thought I had kidney failure though. That sucked. SO they diagnosed me with chronic fatigue syndrome. YAY.

I think what you mean is that your blood is too acidic, that you suffer from acidosis, which often results from kidney problems, not that your blood is actually acidic.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:Believe what you wanna believe. But just because I do not follow the general scientific consensus doesn't mean I am wrong.

As I have said several times in other threads here, any scientist who disagrees with the general consensus receives "the black spot" and is banned from publishing his work in major scientific magazines.

As are idiots also. A basic knowledge of biology will tell you the difference between the two.

dogma wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:
Wrong. I know I am acidic, but I'm cutting down on the gak food and I am taking supplements to combat it.

Who told you that your blood is acidic?

Maybe he cut himself and mushrooms instantly sprouted from it?

Also, Acidosis, which is when your blood is at a pH below 7.35.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acidosis

Get some real knowledge here, but I think it may say something about the British Medical System if an actual doctor told him that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0W7Jbc_Vhw

Relevant

halonachos wrote:
Get some real knowledge here, but I think it may say something about the British Medical System if an actual doctor told him that.

He may have misspoke, or DeadleySquirrel may have misunderstood.

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:
Get some real knowledge here, but I think it may say something about the British Medical System if an actual doctor told him that.

He may have misspoke, or DeadleySquirrel may have misunderstood.

I pray to God or whatever higher power you may hold dear that that is true.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:Is it possible for me to post in Off-Topic without you all derailing the thread into personal attacks on my beliefs?

A personal attack is saying that you are stupid for believing those things. Nobody here is doing that.

Arguing with your beliefs which you shared of your own accord is not a personal attack, it is debate

SlaveToDorkness wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:Believe what you wanna believe. But just because I do not follow the general scientific consensus doesn't mean I am wrong.

As I have said several times in other threads here, any scientist who disagrees with the general consensus receives "the black spot" and is banned from publishing his work in major scientific magazines.

As are idiots also. A basic knowledge of biology will tell you the difference between the two.

The UN's weather monitor is programmed to ALWAYS prove global warming is real, no matter what figures are put in it. It's a con to get taxes. Any scientist who says otherwise is quickly silenced. It's the same with cancer, any scientist who proves he can cure cancer with anything other than already prescribed treatments or shows that the prescribed treatments do more harm than good is quickly silenced.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:

SlaveToDorkness wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:Believe what you wanna believe. But just because I do not follow the general scientific consensus doesn't mean I am wrong.

As I have said several times in other threads here, any scientist who disagrees with the general consensus receives "the black spot" and is banned from publishing his work in major scientific magazines.

As are idiots also. A basic knowledge of biology will tell you the difference between the two.

The UN's weather monitor is programmed to ALWAYS prove global warming is real, no matter what figures are put in it. It's a con to get taxes. Any scientist who says otherwise is quickly silenced. It's the same with cancer, any scientist who proves he can cure cancer with anything other than already prescribed treatments or shows that the prescribed treatments do more harm than good is quickly silenced.

I understand how it may look like that. Scientists say those things and then they get blackballed.

The thing is, the reason this keeps happening is that the only scientists who do things like that are actually bad scientists and are getting blackballed for being bad scientists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let's make a scenario, let's say 3 people are standing around looking at the blue sky and talking about how it is blue. Someone else comes up and says "it's purple, I have all this data" but the data comes from flawed methodology and the person has allowed a little bit of crazy to color the work.

When the 3 blueskyers stop letting the purpleskyer talk at their conventions, did they blackball him for speaking the truth or did they blackball him for repeatedly pushing a disproven assertion?

That is basically what is happening here. Those blackballed scientists are actually horrible at science and are trying to get things published that have little to no scientific merit or proper methodology.

No, they get the black spot because they're right. There is no global warming. Even Al Gore came out and said it was a lie. It is the same with cancer.

It happened with the TB outbreak over here before pasteurisation. The government knew exactly what was causing the TB (milk) but didn't take action and allowed many to die unnecessarily because of the money they made from the milk.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:No, they get the black spot because they're right. There is no global warming. Even Al Gore came out and said it was a lie. It is the same with cancer.

It happened with the TB outbreak over here before pasteurisation. The government knew exactly what was causing the TB (milk) but didn't take action and allowed many to die unnecessarily because of the money they made from the milk.

Citation needed

actually Citations

Plural

As in, you need to bring a lot of them

Get a truck, fill it with citations, dump them here in front of me.

DeadlySquirrel, are you a poe?

I can't tell.

But honestly, let's face it. Nothing is going to dissuade you from this position.

Your position is that the entire scientific community except for 4 or 5 doctors on the internet are working together to hide the truth about a variety of things for monetary reasons which, when divided amongst all of the people who would need to be involved, cannot possibly be worth it.

And let me tell you something, I am the one in this thread MOST LIKELY to agree with you on something like this. I think the Kennedy assassination involved more people than just Oswald. I believe he was killed by people who may or may not have been with an intelligence agency at the time and I think your position is unreasonable and illogical.

That should cause you to look inward.

Rented Tritium wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:No, they get the black spot because they're right. There is no global warming. Even Al Gore came out and said it was a lie. It is the same with cancer.

It happened with the TB outbreak over here before pasteurisation. The government knew exactly what was causing the TB (milk) but didn't take action and allowed many to die unnecessarily because of the money they made from the milk.

Citation needed

actually Citations

Plural

As in, you need to bring a lot of them

Get a truck, fill it with citations, dump them here in front of me.

Working on it... I know it's here somewhere...

Who's poe btw?

Edgar Allan Poe?

Rented Tritium wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:No, they get the black spot because they're right. There is no global warming. Even Al Gore came out and said it was a lie. It is the same with cancer.

It happened with the TB outbreak over here before pasteurisation. The government knew exactly what was causing the TB (milk) but didn't take action and allowed many to die unnecessarily because of the money they made from the milk.

Citation needed

actually Citations

Plural

As in, you need to bring a lot of them

Get a truck, fill it with citations, dump them here in front of me.

Do you really want to see his citations?

It will probably be some undergrad's paper from Glenn Beck University or Alex Jones.

Coolyo294 wrote:Edgar Allan Poe?

Oh, the writer

No, I am not a 19th Century Writer.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:
The UN's weather monitor is programmed to ALWAYS prove global warming is real, no matter what figures are put in it. It's a con to get taxes.

Monitoring climate conditions is about collecting data, not analyzing it.

Also, the UN doesn't collect taxes.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:
Any scientist who says otherwise is quickly silenced.

I mean, if a scientist told me that monitoring the weather was about anything other than data collection, I would probably not take his opinion seriously.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:
It's the same with cancer, any scientist who proves he can cure cancer with anything other than already prescribed treatments or shows that the prescribed treatments do more harm than good is quickly silenced.

The only people I've seen claim that cancer has been, or can easily be, cured are people who aren't scientists, and many are trying to sell you something.

Piston Honda wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:No, they get the black spot because they're right. There is no global warming. Even Al Gore came out and said it was a lie. It is the same with cancer.

It happened with the TB outbreak over here before pasteurisation. The government knew exactly what was causing the TB (milk) but didn't take action and allowed many to die unnecessarily because of the money they made from the milk.

Citation needed

actually Citations

Plural

As in, you need to bring a lot of them

Get a truck, fill it with citations, dump them here in front of me.

Do you really want to see his citations?

It will probably be some undergrad's paper from Glenn Beck University or Alex Jones.

This is true, when I last pulled out my citations you all dismissed them instantly.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:No, they get the black spot because they're right. There is no global warming. Even Al Gore came out and said it was a lie. It is the same with cancer.

It happened with the TB outbreak over here before pasteurisation. The government knew exactly what was causing the TB (milk) but didn't take action and allowed many to die unnecessarily because of the money they made from the milk.

I wanted to use a gif here, but... I realized I wanted to slap myself more.

You mention the UN and global warming. Did you know that if you divided the entire UN budget between the scientists who believe global warming is happening, each one would roughly double their salary.

That's the entire UN budget to get there. I'm being quite charitable.

So you think that literally every climate scientist is so devoid of integrity that they'd sell out and keep a complete secret, insulting the name of science itself, for a pay raise. If we use the amount that actually deals with global warming, that's like 500 bucks per scientist. That's not going to buy silence.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:
This is true, when I last pulled out my citations you all dismissed them instantly.

I'm mostly interested in the citation for Al Gore publicly stating that global warming is a lie.

Rented Tritium wrote:You mention the UN and global warming. Did you know that if you divided the entire UN budget between the scientists who believe global warming is happening, each one would roughly double their salary.

That's the entire UN budget to get there. I'm being quite charitable.

So you think that literally every climate scientist is so devoid of integrity that they'd sell out and keep a complete secret, insulting the name of science itself, for a pay raise.

No, I'm saying the ones who do NOT support global warming don't get heard. So all you hear are the ones who have been bought-out and those who genuinely believe it.

Rented Tritium wrote:
So you think that literally every climate scientist is so devoid of integrity that they'd sell out and keep a complete secret, insulting the name of science itself, for a pay raise.

And a very small one, considering the money that would follow from speaking engagements tied to the cover-up itself.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:You mention the UN and global warming. Did you know that if you divided the entire UN budget between the scientists who believe global warming is happening, each one would roughly double their salary.

That's the entire UN budget to get there. I'm being quite charitable.

So you think that literally every climate scientist is so devoid of integrity that they'd sell out and keep a complete secret, insulting the name of science itself, for a pay raise.

No, I'm saying the ones who do NOT support global warming don't get heard. So all you hear are the ones who have been bought-out and those who genuinely believe it.

Bought out with what money? The ENTIRE UN BUDGET would not be enough for what you are saying.

Rented Tritium wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:You mention the UN and global warming. Did you know that if you divided the entire UN budget between the scientists who believe global warming is happening, each one would roughly double their salary.

That's the entire UN budget to get there. I'm being quite charitable.

So you think that literally every climate scientist is so devoid of integrity that they'd sell out and keep a complete secret, insulting the name of science itself, for a pay raise.

No, I'm saying the ones who do NOT support global warming don't get heard. So all you hear are the ones who have been bought-out and those who genuinely believe it.

Bought out with what money? The ENTIRE UN BUDGET would not be enough for what you are saying.

You seriously think that funds used to bribe people would come out of the UN budget?

DeadlySquirrel wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:You mention the UN and global warming. Did you know that if you divided the entire UN budget between the scientists who believe global warming is happening, each one would roughly double their salary.

That's the entire UN budget to get there. I'm being quite charitable.

So you think that literally every climate scientist is so devoid of integrity that they'd sell out and keep a complete secret, insulting the name of science itself, for a pay raise.

No, I'm saying the ones who do NOT support global warming don't get heard. So all you hear are the ones who have been bought-out and those who genuinely believe it.

Bought out with what money? The ENTIRE UN BUDGET would not be enough for what you are saying.

You seriously think that funds used to bribe people would come out of the UN budget?

Oh silly me, yes. I thought that.

I suppose they come out of the secret fund, a dark second budget larger than the first one that's only used by the negaUN, a secret body of mustache twirling villains. This is how they paid for the silence of tens of thousands of climate scientists.

Rented Tritium wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:You mention the UN and global warming. Did you know that if you divided the entire UN budget between the scientists who believe global warming is happening, each one would roughly double their salary.

That's the entire UN budget to get there. I'm being quite charitable.

So you think that literally every climate scientist is so devoid of integrity that they'd sell out and keep a complete secret, insulting the name of science itself, for a pay raise.

No, I'm saying the ones who do NOT support global warming don't get heard. So all you hear are the ones who have been bought-out and those who genuinely believe it.

Bought out with what money? The ENTIRE UN BUDGET would not be enough for what you are saying.

You seriously think that funds used to bribe people would come out of the UN budget?

Oh silly me, yes. I thought that.

I suppose they come out of the secret fund, a dark second budget larger than the first one that's only used by the negaUN, a secret body of mustache twirling villains. This is how they paid for the silence of tens of thousands of climate scientists.

Something like that, but less silly.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:

Rented Tritium wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:
You seriously think that funds used to bribe people would come out of the UN budget?

Oh silly me, yes. I thought that.

I suppose they come out of the secret fund, a dark second budget larger than the first one that's only used by the negaUN, a secret body of mustache twirling villains. This is how they paid for the silence of tens of thousands of climate scientists.

Something like that, but less silly.

Oh yes, the less silly version of the bizzaro UN with a secret larger budget than the regular one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Has it occurred to you that the upkeep of a secret counter UN would end up being larger than any rewards reaped in their evil schemes?

Whatever, no point in arguing this

DeadlySquirrel wrote:Whatever, no point in arguing this

You're right.

But probably for different reasons that you think.

I think it is quite clear what he is saying the taxes collected from all the industrial nations are used to pay off all the scientists, in fact, I am willing to bet this is all a giant conspiracy and they use the money from blood diamonds to set up puppet professors in Universities across the globe to spread their propaganda.

How I never saw this before is beyond me.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:
Something like that, but less silly.

The problem with that is you just expand the web of people that need to be paid off. Tens of thousands of climate budget from secret black bag fund requires infrastructure, and a means of distributing that money. This means more people that are being pad off not to rat out the whole thing. Then you have to look at all the Nations of the UN, and their staff working with the UN and the number gets larger. All of these people are being paid directly from the black bag fund, or an organization that works directly with the black bag fund. Of course, this black bag fund had to come from somewhere, most likely member nations, and these nations further had to acquire their money from somewhere, which is to say taxes on their citizens.

Now because you're basically talking about an epic secret that everyone at the UN, and every government in the world is in one, you're talking about a huge number of people who need to be paid off. Even if you have the money, hiding that amount of money is ridiculously hard, and most likely impossible because taking it, ultimately from citizens, is a very public affair. I guess you could just print more money, but then we have to start paying of anyone with a stake in the market, which means we're talking about even more people, and even more money.

All of this is, presumably, about control. Which is a strange thing worry about considering that the present means of control are rather effective.

So the conspiracy requires leaders and budget makers from every UN contributing country (that is not a small list) and every single climate scientist to stay quiet.

I think that the Iranian president's theories about the holocaust are less silly than anything that you have posted about medicine, global warming, and mass conspiracies involving the UN and its scientists.

Actually, this is great news for DeadlySquirrel. If the conspiracy is spread that far, it should be very easy for him to get in by getting a degree and working for one of those climate scientists and getting some evidence. The larger it is, the easier it is to infiltrate it and prove it.

Godspeed, deadlysquirrel.

Rented Tritium wrote:Actually, this is great news for DeadlySquirrel. If the conspiracy is spread that far, it should be very easy for him to get in by getting a degree and working for one of those climate scientists and getting some evidence. The larger it is, the easier it is to infiltrate it and prove it.

Godspeed, deadlysquirrel.

He'll never infiltrate our organization rented, you know know that already... I mean what organization?

Rented Tritium wrote:So the conspiracy requires leaders and budget makers from every UN contributing country (that is not a small list) and every single climate scientist to stay quiet.

Then there's the whole thing about the people receiving the money actually spending it. Many of them will be nominally wealthy, but where all these scientists with estates in the Hamptons?

I mean, I guess they might not be allowed to spend the money, but then why take it?

Hahaha

Think of me as you will, but I will stand by my convictions.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:Hahaha

Think of me as you will, but I will stand by my convictions.

We knew this guy who bought into this whole "homeopathic" medicine deal, turns out he now has a degenerative disease thanks to the "treatments" he was receiving. He's standing by his convictions, but he doesn't remember where he left them.

That is poor research on his behalf then.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:That is poor research on his behalf then.

It was the same kind of quackery you support, fungus causing illness or metal ions being able to prevent artherosclerosis. Its all pseudoscience and for you to say that he had poor research is indicative of your own attitudes of "they're wrong but I'm right" even though your beliefs are clearly and scientifically proven to be incorrect. I implore you to bleed yourself to remove the acidic humors from your blood, its medical benefits are equal to that of using sodium bicarbonate to cure cancer.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:That is poor research on his behalf then.

Here is the deal, you can go on websites and troll about silly things. Troll all you want. Troll away. (I pray you are trolling, I really do)

But do not go on a website and tell people you can cure cancer with baking soda. There are desperate people out there that will try this hoping to save their lives or a family members life, then they will end up killing themselves with such a stupid treatment.

Holistic Hoodoo.

Piston Honda wrote:DeadlySquirrel, are you a poe?

I can't tell.

we call them trolls

Again, I pray that he doesn't really believe this stuff about arm and hammer curing cancer. If he's trolling I would think him to be a better person than one who actually believes it.

halonachos wrote:Again, I pray that he doesn't really believe this stuff about arm and hammer curing cancer. If he's trolling I would think him to be a better person than one who actually believes it.

you could say an arm and a hammer would cure cancer, and end the life of said cancerous person


but you can't feed the trolls, they react like gremlins, cept you can NEVER feed them

The amount of Biology Fail in this topic is quite staggering to say the least. Alkaline to Acidic Blood? (What? Nobody heard about Buffers?) Fungi infected by Viruses causing Cancer? (An inventive lie I will admit) This is like that Homoeopathic stuff (aka a fake con to make money).

What causes Cancer is mutation in DNA. The things that can cause said mutation are varied. The tumours are your own cells (If I remember right, sometimes you can find hair and teeth inside tumours). Thats about it. FOXP3 and other FOX proteins are implemented in Cancer protection (FOXP3 is a tumour suppressor).

Thats about all I know, I don't do much Immunology (Parasitology is my speciality.)

DeadlySquirrel wrote:Chemo kills you.Radio therapy kills you.The cancer doesn't "come back" after the therapy ... The treatment gives you a new cancer.

My dad had 3 melanomas on his arm, they cut out one but it came back. So my dad decided to cure it. And he did, he is now in perfect shape.

Bicarbonate of soda applied daily to the effected areas, was gone in a week.

Cancer is caused by a certain fungus, bicarb kills all known fungi. And it killed cancer. Drug companies won't treat cancer because the drugs they already produce make them billions. It's terrible, but it's good business.

My 2 cents.

By any chance is cancer and global warming a Zionist conspiracy?

EDIT: OK I just had to read the whole thread, it was hilarious and now I'm late for work.

If modern medicine has all the answers, why do so many die? Pancreatic cancer has an 80% fatality rate in the first year from diagnosis. When the doctors tell you there is nothing more that they can do then do you just accept death, or do you look for an alternative cure?

That person who know has a degenerative disease has one because he didn't look into what he was taking and just accepted it. There is a lot of bogus alternative medicines out there, yes, but not all of them.

Russia can cure MRSA and other anti-biotic resistant diseases, but we refuse to lok into how they do it purely because it isn't Western medicine and is therefore wrong.

Most enjoyable read in the OT forum for quite some time

DeadlySquirrel wrote:If modern medicine has all the answers, why do so many die? Pancreatic cancer has an 80% fatality rate in the first year from diagnosis. When the doctors tell you there is nothing more that they can do then do you just accept death, or do you look for an alternative cure?

That person who know has a degenerative disease has one because he didn't look into what he was taking and just accepted it. There is a lot of bogus alternative medicines out there, yes, but not all of them.

Russia can cure MRSA and other anti-biotic resistant diseases, but we refuse to lok into how they do it purely because it isn't Western medicine and is therefore wrong.

Yes. You accept it. Because if nothing is done, then there is no cure. There are points in a disease where treatment is unlikely to work. Cancer is a great example of this. If it manages to spread, most likely the person is going to die, even if a 'cure' is applied. Its the way it works.

You need empirical, peer-reviewed evidence before you can make such a bold claim. Thats why Russia is untrustworthy. If you can't repeat the medical treatment's success...then how is it a cure?

You should be very wary of what you read. Anything that isn't shown in a medical journal is most likely wrong.

Mr Hyena wrote:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:If modern medicine has all the answers, why do so many die? Pancreatic cancer has an 80% fatality rate in the first year from diagnosis. When the doctors tell you there is nothing more that they can do then do you just accept death, or do you look for an alternative cure?

That person who know has a degenerative disease has one because he didn't look into what he was taking and just accepted it. There is a lot of bogus alternative medicines out there, yes, but not all of them.

Russia can cure MRSA and other anti-biotic resistant diseases, but we refuse to lok into how they do it purely because it isn't Western medicine and is therefore wrong.

Yes. You accept it. Because if nothing is done, then there is no cure. There are points in a disease where treatment is unlikely to work. Cancer is a great example of this. If it manages to spread, most likely the person is going to die, even if a 'cure' is applied. Its the way it works.

You need empirical, peer-reviewed evidence before you can make such a bold claim. Thats why Russia is untrustworthy. If you can't repeat the medical treatment's success...then how is it a cure?

You should be very wary of what you read. Anything that isn't shown in a medical journal is most likely wrong.

So you would rather give up and die rather than take a chance and try something that Western Science doesn't believe in.

Russian medicine has been proven to work time and time again. They use phage. But because you cannot copyright a bacteria's natural predator and make billions off it, the drug companies will not endorse it. It is that simple.

Squirrel, I have studied the biology of tumours. I have also worked in scientific research, and have many friends working in medical research. Your ideas are provably wrong. Go and get a biology book and have a look at some of the information in there. Then use the information to help you conduct some simple experiments. You may need to do some research into experimental design to ensure your experiments are fair.

It is mildly offensive to be accused of being part of a massive profit driven organisation which wants to milk sick people for their money. The principles of biology which allow me to understand my friend's AIDS research papers and my other friends diabetes research papers are the same that allowed me to understand veterinary parasitology papers when I was researching. I have never been indoctrinated into any giant conspiracy, and if I had, I expect the bribes would have left me substantially better off than I currently am. The biology researchers I know all make less than a manager in a small retail firm. None of them have yachts or take fancy holidays with their hush money. It may be that you have gotten yourself into a confused and self confirming world view. I hope you can break out of it.

But until you do, people are going to continue to dispute "Opinions" of yours which are demonstrably false.

Also, your point about "if medicine has all the answers, why do people die?" is a strawman, and a bad one. The principles of western medicine have allowed the greatest explosion in human population this planet has ever seen.

Edit: "It is that simple"? Sorry, this is wrong. Go read some papers about use of phages in medicine and the challenges of delivering such things safely.
Penicillin can't self replicate, for a start.

Russian medicine has been proven to work time and time again. They use phage. But because you cannot copyright a bacteria's natural predator and make billions off it, the drug companies will not endorse it. It is that simple.

The same Phage treatment that is having difficulty in its current experimental stage? I've heard of better solutions that are being proposed. One mentions the use of genetically-modified Salmonella, injected into the body. It would have its whole metabolic system altered to target tumours and it would thus seek them out and eradicate them all off.

Of course, its far far off as theres several problems:

1) How do you target it to the tumour without it recognising other Self cells?
2) How do you minimise damage to the host?
3) How do you minimise escalation of the immune system of the host without making the salmonella into an opportunistic pathogen?
4) How do you get rid of it after its done its job?

Now, the Phage treatment idea has merits and it is already being looked into in labs in the West. The truth of the matter however is its not anywhere near ready. Which is pretty much the same for most idealistic cancer treatments.

If Russian medicine works 'time and time again' they can publish their medicine in peer-reviewed journals and prove that it does.

So you would rather give up and die rather than take a chance and try something that Western Science doesn't believe in.

The only time I would remotely even consider such a thing, is if I'm a step away (literally) from death...and at that point pretty much all treatments wouldnt work. I don't believe in Quack Science.

We don't let them publish the results in any Western journal, because it isn't Western science... If you want to, go read a Russian peer-reviewed journal.

All I can say DeadlySquirrel, is I do feel sorry for you and your father. Your father should go to the doctors again, in case his cancer has progressed to underskin, which is deadly.

Cancer is caused, by rapid cell mutation for whatever reason. Sodium Bicarbonate simply removes the surface objects on the skin. with scrubbing, and has commonly been used to remove surface objects off the skin and floors etc. However, Cancerous tissue is a fault with the actual cells themselves, so the site of the cancer will need to be treated, rather than the cancerous tissue itself.

EDIT:
Phage treatement was actually being looked at since the 80's. still hasn't progressed off the drawing board even close to mouse trials.

Doctadeth wrote:All I can say DeadlySquirrel, is I do feel sorry for you and your father. Your father should go to the doctors again, in case his cancer has progressed to underskin, which is deadly.

Cancer is caused, by rapid cell mutation for whatever reason. Sodium Bicarbonate simply removes the surface objects on the skin. with scrubbing, and has commonly been used to remove surface objects off the skin and floors etc. However, Cancerous tissue is a fault with the actual cells themselves, so the site of the cancer will need to be treated, rather than the cancerous tissue itself.

EDIT:
Phage treatement was actually being looked at since the 80's. still hasn't progressed off the drawing board even close to mouse trials.

He cured himself about 2 years ago... Hasn't come back. He is perfectly healthy now

And like I said, the drug companies will not fund the research for phage treatment because it isn't worth as much money as current drug treatments.

Cancers can go into remission and reemerge years later. I know personally of at least 2 people who have had that happen.

Well, let me put it another way, how much would an effective phage treatment cost to get off the drawing board? billions.

Current treatment types and treatments on the drawing board have actually been seen to be effective more or less. Individually, treatments may not be *so* effective, but in terms of total world population, and total number of cures vs deaths, its actually relatively good.

Baking soda is great stuff for a lot of things, cancer is not one of those things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:
And like I said, the drug companies will not fund the research for phage treatment because it isn't worth as much money as current drug treatments.

Then why hasn't a university done it? Are they bought too?

This entire thread has pretty much been an object lesson in successful trolling...

Rented Tritium wrote:Baking soda is great stuff for a lot of things, cancer is not one of those things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeadlySquirrel wrote:
And like I said, the drug companies will not fund the research for phage treatment because it isn't worth as much money as current drug treatments.

Then why hasn't a university done it? Are they bought too?

Seriously? A university that manages to scrape up the funds to do billions of dollars worth of testing on animals and eventually human trials will not be allowed to publish the results anyway.

DeadlySquirrel wrote:... If you want to, go read a Russian peer-reviewed journal.

Just like DeadlySquurrel hasn't done.

Much like he clearly hasn't actually read or studied any actual science either.

Still, with a bit of luck when the Atlanteans return later this year from Zeta Reticuli they'll lead us to an age of enlightenment. Where we shall all bestride the world like a legion of Dr. Manhattans.

An army of powerful, and naked, blue wang as far as the eye can see. Can't wait.

In other news : don't troll