I've seen it!! a REAL cure for cancer!

Discussion in 'General Scientology Discussion' started by Rmack, Jul 27, 2009.

View Users: View Users
  1. knn

    knn Patron Meritorious

    Please no fatasy future arguments.

    Please don't turn this thread into an evolution thread. This is rather directed at RMack.

    THE EVOLUTION/BIBLE THREAD IS HERE:
    http://forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=10972
     
  2. knn

    knn Patron Meritorious

    Perhaps. Perhaps not. Just because B17 tastes bitter doesn't mean that it harms you.

    Moreover: This is exactly the standard medicine strategy when they do chemotherapy and radiation therapy: Poison the whole body and let the strongest cells (= the healthy non-cancer cells) survive.

    Apricot kernels are very non-dangerous:

    In 1993, The State Department of Agriculture and Markets of New York tested the cyanide content of two 8oz. packages of the bitter kernel which were being sold in health food stores as a health snack. The results returned showed that each package, if consumed entirely, contained at least double the lethal dosage of cyanide needed to kill a human being. In spite of this, there were no USA deaths and only 1 serious toxicity from apricot kernels reported from 1979 to 1998. On average, an apricot kernel contains about 0.5mg of cyanide.

    http://www.answers.com/topic/apricot-kernel
     
  3. knn

    knn Patron Meritorious

    Only if there is Theta Inside(r).
     
  4. Royal Prince Xenu

    Royal Prince Xenu Trust the Psi Corps.

    This thread is turning into a right bitch-fest.
     
  5. 13heathens

    13heathens Patron with Honors

    Actually, I know a woman who's worked in a critical care unit for cancer patients for around 40 years. During that time she can't remember seeing a single person who had lung cancer who hadn't had their tonsils removed.

    Should I start jumping up and down and claim a conspiracy? :D
     
  6. knn

    knn Patron Meritorious

    Could make sense: Lung problems show up years earlier as tonsilitis. Thus tonsilitis could be an indicator. Don't see any conspiracy.

    Probably there would be some other illnesses correlated with tonsilitis, since tonsilitis hints at a weak immune system (= too little minerals etc).
     
  7. [​IMG]

    The tonsils thing was a joke. You just made the "Correlation does not imply causation" logical fallicy.

    Just about everyone who was raised in the United States in the 1950's 60's and 70's had their tonsils removed, wether they needed it or not, ANNNND just about everyone who was raised in the United States in the 1950's 60's and 70's smoked at some point in their lives (the leading cause of lung cancer).

    Just because you see "A" with "B", dosen't mean "A" causes "B". A scientist needs to find the real relationship with studies, double-blind trials, and genuine HARD research, instead of the "OH NOES! TEH GOV'MENT IS TRYIN TA TAKE AWAY ME MAGICAL B-17!" hysteria, that you guys are going on about.


    ...But, then again I'm trying to explain logic to a scientologist, which is like trying to explain quantum physics to a cat, so maybe I'm the stupid one here...
     
  8. Mick Wenlock

    Mick Wenlock Admin Emeritus (retired)

    well there is at least a small chance that the cat will understand the physics. there is no chance at all that a Scientologist will understand logic.
     
  9. knn

    knn Patron Meritorious

    No, 13heathens said something about a conspiracy theory, thus I thought 13heathens meant something like "Tonsils are removed to cause lung cancer". I merely tried to prevent someone from making a logical fallacy "Tonsils removal -> Cancer" (= conspiracy theory) by mentioning that it could be other way around "Cancer-proneness -> Tonsilitis".

    Just like the following statement is true (which I always use when teaching about logical fallacies): "The more calcium you have in your bones, the younger is your aunt".

    And indeed "In one previous study, tonsillectomy or appendectomy was found to increase the risk of childhood leukaemia" and "Women who have had a tonsillectomy are 50% more likely to develop breast cancer, but only if they are premenopausal"

    Thus there _IS_ a correlation between tonsillectomy and cancer, just as I speculated. Now, I don't know whether it's true for LUNG cancer, but you and Mick Lenin are way having too much fun in laughing things off too fast.

    "Just about everyone" smoked and "just about everyone" had tonsillectomy. A ridiculous claim.
     
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2009
  10. knn

    knn Patron Meritorious

    You are overestimating "scientific research". Thousands of studies have been performed on only 1 or 2 handful of people (e.g. "Coleus Forskohlii leads to weight loss", study on 8 people, "Cola Zero has no adverse effects", study performed on a handful of Coca Cola Company workers).

    Or studies which are completely flawed, e.g.
    • "Wine is healthy" where they erased everyone from the statistic who had to stop because of side-effects
    • "Vitamin A is dangerous for pregnant women" where they never actually measured Vitamin A, but merely let the subjects remember and guess what they ATE when they were pregnant
    • "Our product lowers cholesterol" without telling you that a side-effect is to make you suicidal and accident-prone thus actually not less people are dying from high cholesterol
    Yet these claims are then marketed as "A recent study has shown".

    If you didn't read the whole study and didn't read it exactly you don't actually know whether this is true or not what the study tries to tell you.

    Moreover as I already mentioned: Even large studies and claims are controversial. Fat causes obesity? Contested. Fluor helps against caries? Contested. Sports makes thinner? Contested. High cholesterol causes heart attacks? Contested.
     
  11. 13heathens

    13heathens Patron with Honors

    I enjoyed that you missed the actual joke. You did a great job of displaying a logical fallacy as well as showing that you can't move beyond immediate context to see the direction in which a person is aiming.

    The aim of my long running medical community/government conspiracy theory joke does involve tonsils. However removal on tonsils would only be one part of the picture. It would suggest that tonsils protect us from lung cancer. It would also imply that this is why tonsils are only removed as a last resort.

    You see, she can't remember a single smoker who had still had their tonsils in there in the 30+ years she worked there. Rats don't have tonsils, so would not have this natural filter to help protect them from lung cancer.

    It wouldn't be that removal of tonsils causes the cancer, but that the tonsils are a natural defense against it. Now to further follow this chain of logic. Finding out that smoking + tonsil removal = high probability of lung cancer would lead to millions of lawsuits against the medical community, and would shake the confidence of the health system as a whole, the government would have to step in to find a scape goat.

    It's only natural that the lab rats would get cancer because of their lack of tonsils. Thus you have a vast conspiracy pinning it all on "big tobacco". It has now gotten to the point that, due to the forced reduction of tonsil removals, there's been an associated decline in lung cancer. Thus more and more anti-smoking programs and regulations are required to disguise the connection between tonsil removal and lung cancer....

    If spun right it can make one hell of a convincing argument.. however it's all based on the observations of ONE nurse in a critical care ward, who DOES happen to be a smoker.

    Therefore the source is biased, and there is no scientific study or evidence to back up her claim. This discredits the entire conspiracy theory. While it's fascinating enough that I'd love to see a long term study I simply don't put any faith in this correlation because;

    CORRELATION DOES NOT DENOTE CAUSATION!

    But either way, you fell right into the snare. In doing so you pretty well defined your gullibility and willingness to jump to conclusions without proper investigation or evidence.

    Thanks for that.

    FOOTNOTE; I also noticed your wording;

    "I thought 13heathens meant something like "Tonsils are removed to cause lung cancer". I merely tried to prevent someone from making a logical fallacy "Tonsils removal -> Cancer" (= conspiracy theory) by mentioning that it could be other way around "Cancer-proneness -> Tonsilitis"."

    I'm not surprised you jumped those directions either. The first would be presuming the government's out to get us, and wants people to get lung cancer, the other is jumping to associating tonsillitis with cancer which is way out in left field.

    The claim was; "During that time she can't remember seeing a single person who had lung cancer who hadn't had their tonsils removed." There was no statement made as to why those people had had their tonsils removed. The point is the non-existence of tonsils, not the assumption of why they didn't have them. Your interpretation of cause and effect, as well as assumptions of the speakers meaning are both flawed in this case.
     
  12. Rmack

    Rmack Van Allen Belt Sunbather

    Sorry, doesn't do it for me.

    "Somehow, in the early primordial soup, simple cell membranes and primitive genetic material arose and coalesced into the first cells"

    Oh, really?

    No one knows how that happened, but it MUST have happened, huh? Otherwise there had to have been an organizing force of some kind, and we can't have that, can we?

    'Simple genetic material' Is an oxymoron. No such thing. Anywhere. EVER. It's just hopeful speculation, and then they go from there.

    I watched your vids. I know this is much more of a commitment, but this is a very interesting lecture series;


    http://www.khouse.org/6640/BP045/



    .
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2009
  13. knn

    knn Patron Meritorious

    I am sorry that I am not acquainted with the fact that the US had something as insane as removing everyone's HEALTHY tonsils. You also failed to mention that she was a smoker herself and what the conspiracy theory actually was.

    Your whole argument about "knn fell for the fallacy" is based on the assumption that I knew about people getting "tonsillectomy without need" and that "she wanted to stay a smoker thus thought that blame on cigarettes is a conspiracy". I have never heard of such nonsense. I assumed that all lung cancer patients had their tonsils removed because it was medically needed.

    I never showed any logical fallacy. Moreover it turned out that my speculation points in the correct direction. I have no idea what you are claiming here.

    Very wrong statement.

    Correlation CAN denote causation. Correlation does not IMPLY causation. But nevertheless there can be a causation (in both directions). There can be another thing which is called "common cause", which is how _I_ argued: That there is a common cause between tonsillectomy and cancer, which turned out to be true.

    Obviously you, too, are way to happy when you can laugh things off.

    What are you talking about? My answer to the conspiracy theory is still completely true. I explained very well how removal of tonsils CAN HAVE SOMETHING TO DO with cancer without any conspiracy theory.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2009
  14. Royal Prince Xenu

    Royal Prince Xenu Trust the Psi Corps.

    This is one person's observation, that if taken seriously should be correlated across the community, yet as other responses have shown, the idea is simply laughed off on an A=A=A basis.

    I have been asking for years if there has been a correlative study between appendix removal and bowel cancer. The appendix has long been regarded as "useless", yet I am of the firm belief that it excretes into the digestive system, else why would it explode/burst if it were not backing up in "product"?
     
  15. Royal Prince Xenu

    Royal Prince Xenu Trust the Psi Corps.

    As you can see, many people have differing opinions in this area:
     
  16. RolandRB

    RolandRB Rest in Peace

    The "membrane" we know now might have started out as bubbles from an undersea volcanic vent. It might have started out as bubbles in mud or clay. Cell replication might have started out as a capacity to be able to be broken in half or squashed in half and yet still have both halves "alive".

    I'll listen to 60 seconds max of your woo woo video but that is all!

    Edit: I only managed a half second. Sorry!
     
  17. RolandRB

    RolandRB Rest in Peace

    I'd like you to demonstrate the harmlessness of these apricot kernels by eating a whole 8oz bag of them in a day and keeping them down for 24hr.
     
  18. knn

    knn Patron Meritorious

    Only after you demonstrate the harmlessness of the buttplug (that you advertise so nicely in your sig) by keeping it up for 24h.
     
  19. RolandRB

    RolandRB Rest in Peace

    I've never claimed nor even shared the opinion that the buttplug is harmless.
     
  20. Rmack

    Rmack Van Allen Belt Sunbather

    Yeah, and monkeys MIGHT fly out of my ass.

    These guys saying some chemical reaction which MIGHT form an amino acid associated with living organisms is like saying if you find a way to make an A, B, C, and a D, that explains how the entire catalog of the Library of Congress got written by itself.

    The building blocks are a fungible alphabet. It still needs to be arraigned in the incredibly complex patterns that form even the simplest organism, let alone a large living creature. It's just nonsensical to think it organized itself.

    It's not a video, it's a lecture. And the first part is by a PHD, and the second is by a MS in microbiology. Very scientific with plenty of incontrovertible facts to back them up.

    But, perhaps you prefer;

    The debunker's credo;

    * What the public doesn't know, I'm not going to tell.
    * Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is made up.
    * If you can't attack the data, attack the people, it's easier.
    * Do your research by proclamation-- investigation is too much trouble, and nobody will notice the difference anyway.



    .
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2009