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

[knn]

You ought to do the learning. You need to. If not then you will be on your death bed one day and you will realise on that day that

Please no fatasy future arguments.

As for the cells forming, when I don't think anyone knows how they started off. But I am guessing it was easier for them when they were based in the sea.

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

 

[knn]

You don't know that the cyanide is bonded in a safe way for circulation around the human body. Certainly, when I ate a cherry seed kernel, it was extremely bitter and unpleasant so perhaps saliva can release the cyanide.

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.http://www.answers.com/topic/apricot-kernel#cite_note-3 In spite of this, there were no USA deaths and only 1 serious toxicity from apricot kernels reported from 1979 to 1998.http://www.answers.com/topic/apricot-kernel#cite_note-4 On average, an apricot kernel contains about 0.5mg of cyanide.

http://www.answers.com/topic/apricot-kernel
​

 

[knn]

We could probably make a simple robot that was able to reproduce itself. Would that make it alive?

Only if there is Theta Inside(r).

 

[Royal Prince Xenu]

The main reason why Rmack probably doesn't believe in "Everything follows entropie laws" is because Rmack believes in God(s). Per definition gods or other "higher forces" like thetans are arbitraries in closed systems. They can bring order or chaos, thus higher forces can make every closed system open and every open system closed.

This thread is turning into a right bitch-fest.

 

[13heathens]

Yes. However smoking studies by Dr. Marlboro and Prof. Camel are even more suspect.

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?

 

[knn]

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.

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).

 

[ChronicEnturbulator]

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).

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...

 

[Mick Wenlock]

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...

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.

 

[knn]

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

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 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 about everyone" smoked and "just about everyone" had tonsillectomy. A ridiculous claim.

 

[knn]

A scientist needs to find the real relationship with studies, double-blind trials, and genuine HARD research, instead of

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.

 

[13heathens]

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".

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.

 

[Rmack]

Modern complexity came from earlier simplicity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OwSARYTK7w&NR=1

oh and about that bacterial flagellum

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdwTwNPyR9w

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/



.

 

[knn]

I enjoyed that you missed the actual joke.

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.

You did a great job of displaying a logical fallacy

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.

CORRELATION DOES NOT DENOTE CAUSATION!

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.

But either way, you fell right into the snare.

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.

 

[Royal Prince Xenu]

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.
...

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"?

 

[Royal Prince Xenu]

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have received this e-mail because our records indicate that you signed up for a free subscription to the Daily Dose eLetter.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Study finds unusual suspect in lung cancer risk

Dear Friend,

For years I've told you that the link between smoking and cancer has been exaggerated, and I'm not surprised to see that there's another danger factor here that's got nothing to do with lighting up.

Researchers at the University of Montreal were stunned to find that that women who had undergone hysterectomies, or had otherwise had menopause medically induced were almost twice as likely to develop lung cancer as women who had gone through "the changes" naturally.

Ironically, the study began as a quest to find a link between lung cancer and hormones in women. Can you imagine a worse situation? You have a hysterectomy or get your ovaries removed for whatever reason, believing that at the very least you're reducing your risk of the lethal ovarian cancer… only to find out that you're nearly doubling your chances of developing an equally deadly disease.

Hormones contain growth agents, and they're just as likely to cause cancer cells to grow as they are to help offset the effects of menopause -- which is why there's so much evidence out there which says that women should avoid hormone therapies.

The researchers on this study theorize that the lung cancer danger is rooted in the fact that surgically or medically induced menopause results in a woman's estrogen level dropping to radically low levels almost instantly. In the case of naturally occurring menopause, the decline in estrogen is far less extreme, giving the body time to adjust.

Other studies have also unearthed the detrimental health effects of removing ovaries. The recent Nurse's Health study found that women who underwent hysterectomies but kept their ovaries tended to live longer than women who had their ovaries removed entirely. Women without ovaries also tended to be at higher risk for theoretically unconnected ailments like heart disease and other cancers -- including lung cancer.

If nothing else, I'm hoping that this study helps spread the news that cigarettes are not the sole cause of lung cancer. For too long, the "quit smoking" mantra of the mainstream healthcare community has served as a catch-all solution to this terrible disease.

But the truth of the matter is that thousands upon thousands of people die from lung cancer every year -- people who have never even taken a puff of a single cigarette (filtered or otherwise!).

Case in point: the tragic death of Diana Reeve, who was felled by lung cancer just seven months after being diagnosed with a disease -- and she had never smoked. She'd never even lived in an environment where she was exposed to second hand smoke, third hand smoke, sidestream smoke or any of the other crazy smoke "exposures" they're always citing as "causes" of cancer.

And yet she was taken by the disease as rapidly and mercilessly as someone who'd had a three-pack-a-day habit for forty years. Until doctors want to admit that there's a lot more to lung cancer than preventing people from smoking, I'm afraid we'll never get to the bottom of this disease.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Beware of America's Vitamin D Fraud

Vitamin D is cramming renowned medical journals with amazing anti-aging studies... But before you take your next vitamin D supplement, you must discover the two dirty little secrets behind many of today's most popular vitamin D sources.

Avoid the fraud and discover a true vitamin D hero that delivers real anti-aging miracles...

Keep reading...

http://clicks.douglassreport.com//t/AQ/T2Y/U+o/j6s/AQ/AtWJdg/J-3q

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Courts say vaccines at fault for kid's disability

The medical community may not be ready to acknowledge the dangers of vaccinations, but the nation's courts don't seem to have a problem doing it.

Courts recently ruled that there is a possible link between vaccinations and autism, and the Circuit Court of Appeals says a child who suffers from a seizure disorder brought on by a vaccination at eight weeks of age is legally entitled to compensation.

At the age of just eight weeks, this child received the DPT vaccination (diptheria, whole- cell pertussis, and tetanus). Lawyers argued that the resulting seizure prompted a low IQ and other developmental delays, and the court agreed.

Of course, when you're an objective observer like a judge (and aren't influenced by Big Pharma cash), it's easy to see there's likely a potential danger to pumping three deadly diseases into a newborn baby.

I hope that the news of this ruling will spread, and get rational folks thinking about the potential dangers of compulsory vaccinations for swine flu or other forms of influenza that are now being discussed.

But my fear is always that the money being made from vaccinations by Big Pharma will forever overrule common sense on this issue.

Always giving truth a shot in the arm,

William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Get the POWER of 35 different fruits and vegetables--without taking a single bite


I'm hardly one to recommend you crowd your plate with fruits and veggies--but it's hard to deny their age-defying secrets. Nothing in nature packs more antioxidants, vitamins, minerals, and fiber. If you're like me, you just hate eating them.

Discover the perfect solution that packs the power of 35 fruits and vegetables, tastes delicious and won't force you to take even one bite...

http://clicks.douglassreport.com//t/AQ/T2Y/U+o/j6w/AQ/AtWJdg/QUow


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interested in receiving Dr. William C. Douglass' highly acclaimed monthly newsletter -- and FREE bonus gifts? Call (915) 849-4615 or visit http://clicks.douglassreport.com//t/AQ/T2Y/U+o/C+Q/AQ/AtWJdg/rM-C


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To start receiving your own copy of the Daily Dose, visit:
http://clicks.douglassreport.com//t/AQ/T2Y/U+o/C+U/AQ/AtWJdg/VLUM Or forward this e-mail to a friend so they can sign-up to receive their own copy of the Daily Dose.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Daily Dose readers can now tap into the minds of other health-conscious readers at http://clicks.douglassreport.com//t/AQ/T2Y/U+o/C4Y/AQ/AtWJdg/IZZ_

Copyright (c)2009 by Healthier News, LLC. The Daily Dose may not be posted on commercial sites without written permission.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[RolandRB]

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/



.

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!

 

[RolandRB]

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.http://www.answers.com/topic/apricot-kernel#cite_note-3 In spite of this, there were no USA deaths and only 1 serious toxicity from apricot kernels reported from 1979 to 1998.http://www.answers.com/topic/apricot-kernel#cite_note-4 On average, an apricot kernel contains about 0.5mg of cyanide.

http://www.answers.com/topic/apricot-kernel
​

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.

 

[knn]

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.

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

 

[RolandRB]

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

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

 

[Rmack]

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".

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.

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

Edit: I only managed a half second. Sorry!

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.



.