Cancer Is Top Killer Of Thais Among All Diseases

[xylophone]

And partington was actually challenged about his understanding/qualifications in the following post by GentlemanJim: –

"I wonder where PARTINGTON gets his funding from or is he such a misguided person that he blindly believes and follows the BS that is fed to him without using his own brain?

It could be that because one of the primary functions of Fluoride in a human body is to change the configuration of the synapses in a way that dumb the person down and makes them more compliant....."

So I think there is an onus of responsibility on all of us to put our hands up and say that some of the challenges have been unnecessary and aggressive.

And that post was mine Xylophone? Are you really sure about that?? If so please kindly direct me to the post number. It seems once a perceived prejudice is embedded then it can alter all things. Not quite spot on now are we! Thank you.

Quite right GJ, not yours but you subscribed to it by agreeing to the comment.........but that is splitting hairs because as I stated you had already set the scene/tone by your other "aggressive" posts.

Touché.

[GentlemanJim]

And partington was actually challenged about his understanding/qualifications in the following post by GentlemanJim: –

"I wonder where PARTINGTON gets his funding from or is he such a misguided person that he blindly believes and follows the BS that is fed to him without using his own brain?

It could be that because one of the primary functions of Fluoride in a human body is to change the configuration of the synapses in a way that dumb the person down and makes them more compliant....."

So I think there is an onus of responsibility on all of us to put our hands up and say that some of the challenges have been unnecessary and aggressive.

And that post was mine Xylophone? Are you really sure about that?? If so please kindly direct me to the post number. It seems once a perceived prejudice is embedded then it can alter all things. Not quite spot on now are we! Thank you.

Quite right GJ, not yours but you subscribed to it by agreeing to the comment.........but that is splitting hairs because as I stated you had already set the scene/tone by your other "aggressive" posts.

Touché.

It is becoming clear that you have gone to great lengths in some of your previous post to display yourself with reason and objectivity , however it transpires that you are now displaying your true colours for all to see. What a pity!

I think you need to practice what you preach!

[laislica]

I think that I am also done with this thread.

I wish you all good health, good luck and prosperity.

Should the big C strike, never give up, boost your immune system

and have a good look at your belief systems.

[JetsetBkk]

How about MSG or Monosodium glutamate?

I believe they are both the same.

[partington]

Blimey this is a good one. Thanks to xylophone for defending me! I would like to try to answer some of the points and criticisms made, in as concise a way as I can.

First, as xylophone pointed out, I was goaded into describing my experience and qualifications in science as a direct irritated response to laislica telling me that I blindly believed BS fed to me without using my brain. This is rude, but I don't mind that too much as these are important topics. No, it is just having made my entire professional living from working in research science, and using my brain every day thinking about exactly these matters, it seemed too much to endure being told I was thoughtlessly swallowing BS from others.

(Especially by someone who had just posted a completely untrue statement about vitamin C that he had obviously got from some unreliable source and not fact checked).

What I say in these posts about how you really prove something works as a therapy , what high standards you must hold yourself and others to, about respecting the truth, and the validity of the scientific method, are my most seriously held principles. I have thought about them a lot, and I think if these procedures are not followed harm, error and self-deception are a consequence.

I object strongly to the suggestion I am trying to "stifle the debate". Putting forward your objections to another person's point of view is HAVING the debate. That's what a debate IS, a sequential series of points and counter points designed to clarify what you believe and why you believe the other side is mistaken.

I also recognised completely that laislica was being sarcastic when he made the point that he would have a smoke 'because smoking is good for you, Oh wait a minute I'll just pick and choose the studies that support this view.' He was implying that what I am doing, or what the "scientists do", or what drug researchers and clinicians do, is pick out the research that shows what they want to say, so they can prove anything they want.

I'm afraid he misunderstood my response, probably because I wasn't clear enough in my explanation. I have said all along, consistently, as clearly as I could in all my contributions: trust the weight of the evidence, not any single person, pundit or view. So in the case of smoking and cancer, if 12 studies have been done, and 10 of them show a link between smoking and cancer and two of them don't, what you must do is follow the weight of the evidence, that is say to yourself "ten against two, ok the evidence is clear". That is, because the numerical majority of independent studies done show cancer is associated with smoking, then the common sense view is that this is the truth. Think of it like the verdict of a jury, 10 against 2. This is what scientists, health authorities and professional review bodies do, and it is the OPPOSITE of picking what you want to believe.

Now say there is a cancer expert, let's call him Doctor B, and he does a study where he finds his wonder drug cures 25% of cancers, but every other study that is done in independent labs around the world to test his drug cannot reproduce his results. In fact he turns out to be the only one who ever finds this, in 30 years of looking. The common sense view is, that since most independent studies have not found what he claims to find, he is wrong, because he is in the numerical minority. Again, this is the opposite of picking what you want to see. It is putting forward the completely uncontroversial, common sense view--whatever there is MOST independent evidence for is likely to be the truth. Again this isn't choosing what you want to believe, it is saying if more people find point A is true than point B, I will have to accept point A is likely to be true on the current evidence. Picking the thing you want to believe would be ignoring the majority view, like the tobacco industry tried to do with the smoking/cancer link, and like Dr Buryzinski tries to do with the lack of evidence for effectiveness of his treatments.

Now of course drug companies ARE in it for the money. They are like soap powder or sausage makers, but much more than these others they need to be watched like hawks, because what they sell has the capacity to wreck or rescue lives. This is why the rules are so strict in getting a drug approved in the first place. Nearly all drugs are rejected by the FDA, on their first application for approval. They are sent back time and time again, for new trials, to prove they work, or to prove their safety , with more and more onerous tests. This is a matter of record and this is a very good thing. It's only right they that people like Buryzinski and others are subjected to the same requirement for stringent proof that what they are selling , actually works, and is safe.

Finally my view is that there is only one kind of medicine: that which has been tested and shown to work. Just as there is only one way to fix cars: there is no such thing as "alternative auto repair", or "complementary auto repair".

There is not an "alternative truth" - there is only one kind of truth - things that are true.

Edited February 9, 2013 by partington

[xylophone]

And partington was actually challenged about his understanding/qualifications in the following post by GentlemanJim: –

"I wonder where PARTINGTON gets his funding from or is he such a misguided person that he blindly believes and follows the BS that is fed to him without using his own brain?

It could be that because one of the primary functions of Fluoride in a human body is to change the configuration of the synapses in a way that dumb the person down and makes them more compliant....."

So I think there is an onus of responsibility on all of us to put our hands up and say that some of the challenges have been unnecessary and aggressive.

And that post was mine Xylophone? Are you really sure about that?? If so please kindly direct me to the post number. It seems once a perceived prejudice is embedded then it can alter all things. Not quite spot on now are we! Thank you.

Quite right GJ, not yours but you subscribed to it by agreeing to the comment.........but that is splitting hairs because as I stated you had already set the scene/tone by your other "aggressive" posts.

Touché.

It is becoming clear that you have gone to great lengths in some of your previous post to display yourself with reason and objectivity , however it transpires that you are now displaying your true colours for all to see. What a pity!

I think you need to practice what you preach!

Hmmm, I think it is you who needs to practice what you preach and own up to your mistakes about your pseudoscience and do that by which you implored another to do in this post by, "despite being blatantly wrong or mistaken, instead of having the kuhoona's to put your hand up and say 'oop's sorry guy's, mistake there', you try and pass the buck on to everyone else, despite the mistake being in writing under your nose! Unbelievable".

Yes you said that, however you cannot accept that the pseudoscience and factually incorrect post on grape juice would not stand scrutiny in any scientific/medical tests whatsoever. If you wish to believe in those sort of things then expect to be challenged quite rigourously by someone who has experience and qualifications in this field.

My true colours are that I believe in the science and medical profession in prescribing what is best for us and in doing the necessary tests and I have never in my posts deviated from that. They are my true colours nailed to the mast for all to see.

You wish to believe in pseudoscience and claptrap, up to you as they say in Thailand, however expect to be challenged at every turn with these beliefs. Who knows you may go on to greater things and believe in Scientology, whereby an alien from another planet called a Thetan has inhabited your body, or again you may be a teacher and you know what they say about teachers............

[partington]

It is becoming clear that you have gone to great lengths in some of your previous post to display yourself with reason and objectivity , however it transpires that you are now displaying your true colours for all to see. What a pity!

I think you need to practice what you preach!

Hey GentlemanJim

as an obviously bright individual, has it ever occurred to you to email Dr Buryzinski to let him know about the grape cure for cancers? After all , as you point out here grapes are SO cheap, and they kill cancer cells without needing chemo:

"Result cancer cells completely eradicated in 5 weeks. This method kills only cancer cells/bad cells it causes no harm to healthy cells. Chemo kills all cells, thats why you get so ill. For serious stage cancer such as 4+ it may be necessary to do 5-6 weeks, then break for 2-4 weeks then do another 5-6 weeks. I know many people that have followed this procedure strictly and every single one now has no trace of cancer left. This is a huge dichotomy for Big Pharma, the humble grape at $3-4 a kilo kills cancer! All BP can do is spread disinformation about real alternative cures to their own."

From these sites it appears that Dr Buryzinski's treatments cost between $20,000 and $60,000 a year, and can bankrupt some people [http://burzynskiscam.com/ .%20%20So"]http://coffeelovings...m/?p=1372]. So wouldn't it help to let Dr Buryzinski know that, as grapes work so well, his treatments may not be required anymore ?

Although thinking about it, I'm a bit surprised that an alternative cancer expert like Buryzinski wouldn't be already aware of the fact that cancer problem has already been solved, by grapes.

How do you suppose he hasn't heard of this?

Or if he has heard of it, do you think he might not believe in it? That's interesting isn't it..I wonder why he wouldn't take it seriously. I mean either it's true and it renders his treatment unnecessary, or it's false, and people still need his treatment.

But then if he thinks it's false, and he is the trustworthy expert you describe him as, why do you believe it?

Puzzling all this, isn't it?

[laislica]

Children - play nicely .....

[xylophone]

Children - play nicely .....

Trying to, laislica, however very difficult under the circumstances and I think the outcome would have been very different had there been a change of attitude early on.

For example if GJ had stated that although the grape cancer cure was unproven, untried and untested and had no clinical trials whatsoever HOWEVER it was what he BELIEVED in, then that would have put an entirely different slant on the conversation, and I expect the outcome would have been different.

But what he did was to attack an expert in the field of medicine, questioning his objectivity and experience which surely has to be a no-no from a layman's perspective?

He set the tone early on, despite protestations to the contrary and they are there for all to see on the posts. So what is one supposed to do but to try and set the record straight, which is proving extremely difficult in this case.

By his beliefs and his vehement challenges he is relegating himself to the realms of the believers in things like the "apricot kernel cancer cure"; the "electro-diagnostic device cancer cure" (http://www.benhills.com/articles/medical-mayhem/item/94-fake...) and others like it. Indeed it is only a short step away from believing that our bodies are inhabited by aliens (Scientology) and the claims by the "creationists" that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, despite an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary.

As I said, just stating that his grape cure had no basis in medical science, but was what he believed in, and then left it at that, one could have had some sympathy for the man, well as much as you can for someone with this type of belief anyway!!

I think I have had enough of this, and perhaps partington has too, because there is none so blind as those who will not see, and even taking what I believe to be a couple of rational approaches has not made any difference.

I will not be commenting any further as I think everything that needs to be said has been said.

I also wish you well and agree with you that we should try and look after ourselves, and I see no problem with taking stuff like grape juice and other supplements, as long as they are not IN PLACE of tried, trusted and researched methods.

[SundayAfternoon]

From these sites it appears that Dr Buryzinski's treatments cost between $20,000 and $60,000 a year, and can bankrupt some people [http://burzynskiscam.com/ .%20%20So"]http://coffeelovings...m/?p=1372]. So wouldn't it help to let Dr Buryzinski know that, as grapes work so well, his treatments may not be required anymore ?

Avastin (Bevacizumab) for cancer anyone... at $50,000 a year. Or, Alexion Pharmaceutical's Soliris, at $409,500 a year, the world's single most expensive drug.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/19/expensive-drugs-cost-business-healthcare-rare-diseases.html

Given that at one point bevacizumab was approved for breast cancer by the FDA, but the approval was revoked on 18 November 2011 because, although there was evidence that it slowed progression of metastatic breast cancer, there was no evidence that it extended life or improved quality of life, either.

And it caused adverse effects including severe high blood pressure and hemorrhaging.

In 2008, the FDA gave bevacizumab provisional approval for metastatic breast cancer, subject to further studies. The FDA's advisory panel had recommended against approval.

In July 2010, after new studies failed to show a significant benefit, the FDA's advisory panel recommended against the indication for advanced breast cancer. Genentech requested a hearing, which was granted in June 2011.

The FDA ruled to withdraw the breast cancer indication in November 2011. FDA approval is required for Genentech to market a drug for that indication. Doctors may sometimes prescribe it for that indication, although insurance companies are less likely to pay for it.

The drug remains approved for breast cancer use in other countries including Australia.

Some might say Dr. B's treatment is cheap in comparison (and your chance of surival much higher!)

Edited February 10, 2013 by SundayAfternoon

[laislica]

Number one - it's about money and who has it or can get it.

Number two - The Big Boys, in health, agriculture, food industries etc. are served by the FDA and other government agencies - of course they are - the big boys put them in place to do their bidding.

Number three - the revolving door between these industries and the regulatory agencies is a fact.

I think it's a shame that we (TV posters) can't rise above the sort of power struggles we seemed to sink into. Does it really matter who said what or who "started it"?

The bottom line is simple - if something works for someone - great.

If that something is beyond known scientific facts - so what?

It worked and who should say that it's fraudulent?

We now know that the world is not flat but back in the day it was heresy to even think it!

in a recent post I read this:- By his beliefs and his vehement challenges he is relegating himself to the realms of the believers in things like the "apricot kernel cancer cure"; the "electro-diagnostic device cancer cure" (http://www.benhills....item/94-fake...) and others like it. Indeed it is only a short step away from believing that our bodies are inhabited by aliens (Scientology) and the claims by the "creationists" that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, despite an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary.

And so, somewhat off topic I know, but I feel compelled to advise you of this:-

snip>It's not often that a heart surgeon admits that he's wrong. It's even more astounding when a heart surgeon admits that everything he's advised for 25 years to prevent heart attacks was wrong. But that's exactly what Dr. Dwight Lundell did this year.

For years, heart surgeons have "insisted heart disease resulted from the simple fact of elevated blood cholesterol," says Dr. Lundell. "The only accepted therapy was prescribing medications to lower cholesterol and a diet that severely restricted fat intake. The latter of course we insisted would lower cholesterol and heart disease. Deviations from these recommendations were considered heresy and could quite possibly result in malpractice."

But now, Dr. Lundell says that the weight of the scientific research has determined conclusively that cholesterol is not what causes heart disease. In fact, he says, "These recommendations are no longer scientifically or morally defensible."< snip.

My point? the above is not a minor mistake. If the apricot or electro-magnetic cure worked for someone GREAT. Those "Cures" are no more or less Quackery than the "Scientific Cures".

Want to know what the FDA is capable of?

Number one -

it's about MONEY and POWER to legislate so that "They" will always have the MONEY!!

[chiangmaikelly]

Number one - it's about money and who has it or can get it.

Number two - The Big Boys, in health, agriculture, food industries etc. are served by the FDA and other government agencies - of course they are - the big boys put them in place to do their bidding.

Number three - the revolving door between these industries and the regulatory agencies is a fact.

I think it's a shame that we (TV posters) can't rise above the sort of power struggles we seemed to sink into. Does it really matter who said what or who "started it"?

The bottom line is simple - if something works for someone - great.

If that something is beyond known scientific facts - so what?

It worked and who should say that it's fraudulent?

We now know that the world is not flat but back in the day it was heresy to even think it!

in a recent post I read this:- By his beliefs and his vehement challenges he is relegating himself to the realms of the believers in things like the "apricot kernel cancer cure"; the "electro-diagnostic device cancer cure" (http://www.benhills....item/94-fake...) and others like it. Indeed it is only a short step away from believing that our bodies are inhabited by aliens (Scientology) and the claims by the "creationists" that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, despite an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary.

And so, somewhat off topic I know, but I feel compelled to advise you of this:-

snip>It's not often that a heart surgeon admits that he's wrong. It's even more astounding when a heart surgeon admits that everything he's advised for 25 years to prevent heart attacks was wrong. But that's exactly what Dr. Dwight Lundell did this year.

For years, heart surgeons have "insisted heart disease resulted from the simple fact of elevated blood cholesterol," says Dr. Lundell. "The only accepted therapy was prescribing medications to lower cholesterol and a diet that severely restricted fat intake. The latter of course we insisted would lower cholesterol and heart disease. Deviations from these recommendations were considered heresy and could quite possibly result in malpractice."

But now, Dr. Lundell says that the weight of the scientific research has determined conclusively that cholesterol is not what causes heart disease. In fact, he says, "These recommendations are no longer scientifically or morally defensible."< snip.

My point? the above is not a minor mistake. If the apricot or electro-magnetic cure worked for someone GREAT. Those "Cures" are no more or less Quackery than the "Scientific Cures".

Want to know what the FDA is capable of?

Number one -

it's about MONEY and POWER to legislate so that "They" will always have the MONEY!!

Are you saying that Lundell is not a quack, lost his license, filed for bankruptcy numerous times and is not selling fish oil?

[Tolley]

Talking of alternative treatments for cancer one that has been around for a long time is the Gerson method or therapy.

http://gerson.org/gerpress/the-gerson-therapy/

It is based on high volume of organic veggie juices and supplements.

Again it is not suitable for everyone and it is not guaranteed to cure all cancers for everyone.

[laislica]

Number one - it's about money and who has it or can get it.

Number two - The Big Boys, in health, agriculture, food industries etc. are served by the FDA and other government agencies - of course they are - the big boys put them in place to do their bidding.

Number three - the revolving door between these industries and the regulatory agencies is a fact.

I think it's a shame that we (TV posters) can't rise above the sort of power struggles we seemed to sink into. Does it really matter who said what or who "started it"?

The bottom line is simple - if something works for someone - great.

If that something is beyond known scientific facts - so what?

It worked and who should say that it's fraudulent?

We now know that the world is not flat but back in the day it was heresy to even think it!

in a recent post I read this:- By his beliefs and his vehement challenges he is relegating himself to the realms of the believers in things like the "apricot kernel cancer cure"; the "electro-diagnostic device cancer cure" (http://www.benhills....item/94-fake...) and others like it. Indeed it is only a short step away from believing that our bodies are inhabited by aliens (Scientology) and the claims by the "creationists" that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, despite an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary.

And so, somewhat off topic I know, but I feel compelled to advise you of this:-

snip>It's not often that a heart surgeon admits that he's wrong. It's even more astounding when a heart surgeon admits that everything he's advised for 25 years to prevent heart attacks was wrong. But that's exactly what Dr. Dwight Lundell did this year.

For years, heart surgeons have "insisted heart disease resulted from the simple fact of elevated blood cholesterol," says Dr. Lundell. "The only accepted therapy was prescribing medications to lower cholesterol and a diet that severely restricted fat intake. The latter of course we insisted would lower cholesterol and heart disease. Deviations from these recommendations were considered heresy and could quite possibly result in malpractice."

But now, Dr. Lundell says that the weight of the scientific research has determined conclusively that cholesterol is not what causes heart disease. In fact, he says, "These recommendations are no longer scientifically or morally defensible."< snip.

My point? the above is not a minor mistake. If the apricot or electro-magnetic cure worked for someone GREAT. Those "Cures" are no more or less Quackery than the "Scientific Cures".

Want to know what the FDA is capable of?

Number one -

it's about MONEY and POWER to legislate so that "They" will always have the MONEY!!

Are you saying that Lundell is not a quack, lost his license, filed for bankruptcy numerous times and is not selling fish oil?

Not saying any such thing.

The Authorities can do fairly anything they want to do.

Perhaps you missed this part of the post:

"We now know that the world is not flat but back in the day it was heresy to even think it!"

or maybe this:-

"The only accepted therapy was prescribing medications to lower cholesterol and a diet that severely restricted fat intake. The latter of course we insisted would lower cholesterol and heart disease. Deviations from these recommendations were considered heresy and could quite possibly result in malpractice."

Are you saying that it's not about Money and Power?

[chiangmaikelly]

Number one - it's about money and who has it or can get it.

Number two - The Big Boys, in health, agriculture, food industries etc. are served by the FDA and other government agencies - of course they are - the big boys put them in place to do their bidding.

Number three - the revolving door between these industries and the regulatory agencies is a fact.

I think it's a shame that we (TV posters) can't rise above the sort of power struggles we seemed to sink into. Does it really matter who said what or who "started it"?

The bottom line is simple - if something works for someone - great.

If that something is beyond known scientific facts - so what?

It worked and who should say that it's fraudulent?

We now know that the world is not flat but back in the day it was heresy to even think it!

in a recent post I read this:- By his beliefs and his vehement challenges he is relegating himself to the realms of the believers in things like the "apricot kernel cancer cure"; the "electro-diagnostic device cancer cure" (http://www.benhills....item/94-fake...) and others like it. Indeed it is only a short step away from believing that our bodies are inhabited by aliens (Scientology) and the claims by the "creationists" that the Earth is only a few thousand years old, despite an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary.

And so, somewhat off topic I know, but I feel compelled to advise you of this:-

snip>It's not often that a heart surgeon admits that he's wrong. It's even more astounding when a heart surgeon admits that everything he's advised for 25 years to prevent heart attacks was wrong. But that's exactly what Dr. Dwight Lundell did this year.

For years, heart surgeons have "insisted heart disease resulted from the simple fact of elevated blood cholesterol," says Dr. Lundell. "The only accepted therapy was prescribing medications to lower cholesterol and a diet that severely restricted fat intake. The latter of course we insisted would lower cholesterol and heart disease. Deviations from these recommendations were considered heresy and could quite possibly result in malpractice."

But now, Dr. Lundell says that the weight of the scientific research has determined conclusively that cholesterol is not what causes heart disease. In fact, he says, "These recommendations are no longer scientifically or morally defensible."< snip.

My point? the above is not a minor mistake. If the apricot or electro-magnetic cure worked for someone GREAT. Those "Cures" are no more or less Quackery than the "Scientific Cures".

Want to know what the FDA is capable of?

Number one -

it's about MONEY and POWER to legislate so that "They" will always have the MONEY!!

Are you saying that Lundell is not a quack, lost his license, filed for bankruptcy numerous times and is not selling fish oil?

Not saying any such thing.

The Authorities can do fairly anything they want to do.

Perhaps you missed this part of the post:

"We now know that the world is not flat but back in the day it was heresy to even think it!"

or maybe this:-

"The only accepted therapy was prescribing medications to lower cholesterol and a diet that severely restricted fat intake. The latter of course we insisted would lower cholesterol and heart disease. Deviations from these recommendations were considered heresy and could quite possibly result in malpractice."

Are you saying that it's not about Money and Power?

Not saying any such thing. I am saying Lundell is a quack, lost his license, filed for bankruptcy numerous times and is selling fish oil?

[partington]

Seriously, laislica you seem not to grasp how to critically assess the weight of evidence.

You quote the statements of a single doctor saying that cholesterol doesn't cause heart disease, and seem to think it is a triumphant demonstration that the link between cholesterol and heart disease has now been called into question.

But the vast majority of studies show that the link is real. The statements of this doctor are completely irrelevant. One man cannot call this fact into question, when the work of literally thousands of doctors all over the world have shown it to be true. Again the weight of evidence is against him, so his statements can be discounted.

This would be true if he were the finest and most respected doctor in the world by the way. One man's statements don't determine the truth.

The fact that another poster has pointed out he is a bankrupt, discredited physician trying to sell something is I'm afraid an all too familiar story. But even if he wasn't, his statement would be rubbish.

I honestly can't decide whether you just don't understand the absolute requirement for evidence to back up any statement before it can be taken seriously, or whether you do understand, and are just ignoring it to be mischeivous. I just thank whatever deity may exist out there that people like you don't design and build airplanes.

"laislica, you put the engine on this plane backwards!"

"Yes"

"Why did you do that?!"

"Well an aeronautics engineer in Canada was just on You Tube saying engines work better that way"

"You didn't think you should test that first?!"

"No"

Edited February 10, 2013 by partington

[laislica]

snip> I am saying Lundell is a quack, lost his license, filed for bankruptcy numerous times and is selling fish oil?

What you say is of course true but the water is so muddy that it is quite hard to decide on what is right and what is wrong.

I found this site :-

http://paleohacks.com/questions/107494/do-we-need-to-be-a-lot-more-careful-about-publicly-lauding-doctors-who-support-pa#axzz2KU9xgopE

<p>snip><span style="font-size:12px;"> <em>Googling his name brought up a 2008 hearing in which his license to practice was revoked

[animatic]

As highlighted lifestyle also to blame; no exercise, poor diet, taking meals at any time of the day... just general indiscipline towards life.

Snacking causes cancer? Really? Can you enlighten us as to how many times and when we should eat to avoid cancer?

BTW my TGF insists toast more than dark brown is a definite cause of cancer. Not sure if this applies to midnight cheese and Vegemite.

Some macro-biotic guys I worked with believe

eating 8-10 small meals a day, each of one single item,

but all combined and timed were giving a truly balance diet.

Each food was ingested individually, so that the body didn't compete for gathering the nutrients,

but that properly sequenced combining meant that;

as one came in and was assimilated, one that worked with it came in shortly after

and they co-joined without interference from other digestive/assimilation processes.

They believed that 'mixing foods together unscientifically' in the classic 3 meal per day scenario,

actually left much waste products, and unintended carcinogenic interactions, thus storing bad

substances in our colon and other organs, and this makes cancer much more likely.

So what if Steak and Potatoes and Gravy is traditional in many places,

that doesn't mean it is good for you in that combination.

Add to that environmental factors like plastics and solvents in the water we are ready to melt down.

Edited February 10, 2013 by animatic

[GentlemanJim]

Xylophone

You are rude and boorish. If I wish to believe in something that worked 100% for a member of my family, then I will, and I don't need your permission to do so Now go and play with your instrument some where else.

[473geo]

As highlighted lifestyle also to blame; no exercise, poor diet, taking meals at any time of the day... just general indiscipline towards life.

Snacking causes cancer? Really? Can you enlighten us as to how many times and when we should eat to avoid cancer?

BTW my TGF insists toast more than dark brown is a definite cause of cancer. Not sure if this applies to midnight cheese and Vegemite.

Some macro-biotic guys I worked with believe

eating 8-10 small meals a day, each of one single item,

but all combined and timed were giving a truly balance diet.

Each food was ingested individually, so that the body didn't compete for gathering the nutrients,

but that properly sequenced combining meant that;

as one came in and was assimilated, one that worked with it came in shortly after

and they co-joined without interference from other digestive/assimilation processes.

They believed that 'mixing foods together unscientifically' in the classic 3 meal per day scenario,

actually left much waste products, and unintended carcinogenic interactions, thus storing bad

substances in our colon and other organs, and this makes cancer much more likely.

So what if Steak and Potatoes and Gravy is traditional in many places,

that doesn't mean it is good for you in that combination.

Add to that environmental factors like plastics and solvents in the water we are ready to melt down.

A very good lead in for my contribution, not a cure, I am for assisting prevention, and start young, so......a high fibre diet to me is extremely beneficial, coupled with plenty of water, as I say not a solution but there is reasoning that suggests a high fibre diet will reduce the "unintended carcinogenic interactions", and assist in preventing "storing bad substances in our colon and other organs " as mentioned in the post above. I would suggest as diet changes the world over 'high fibre' input is lowering, in Thailand specificaly the use of fully husked white rice as staple diet, alongside processed meat products. But I also must acknowledge that the Thai I am involved with do eat vegetables (Raw) and fruit on an almost daily basis. I have no idea of the rate of cancer but there are many old people in the village, and most deaths appear to be old age, accident, and the very occasional 'unexplained'

[xylophone]

Xylophone

You are rude and boorish. If I wish to believe in something that worked 100% for a member of my family, then I will, and I don't need your permission to do so Now go and play with your instrument some where else.

Hmm, look in the mirror to see "rude and boorish". And pleased that you BELIEVE grapes worked for a member of your family with absolutely no scientific evidence to back it up, but please DON'T post such rubbish AND challenge an expert on it.

By the way, did you know that dancing naked round a fire at midnight, with a full moon, clasping a plastic replica of L Ron Hubbard in your hands, will cure many things, but then you don't believe that sort of thing do you..............or do you?

[laislica]

Seriously, laislica you seem not to grasp how to critically assess the weight of evidence.

You quote the statements of a single doctor saying that cholesterol doesn't cause heart disease, and seem to think it is a triumphant demonstration that the link between cholesterol and heart disease has now been called into question.

But the vast majority of studies show that the link is real. The statements of this doctor are completely irrelevant. One man cannot call this fact into question, when the work of literally thousands of doctors all over the world have shown it to be true. Again the weight of evidence is against him, so his statements can be discounted.

This would be true if he were the finest and most respected doctor in the world by the way. One man's statements don't determine the truth.

The fact that another poster has pointed out he is a bankrupt, discredited physician trying to sell something is I'm afraid an all too familiar story. But even if he wasn't, his statement would be rubbish.

I honestly can't decide whether you just don't understand the absolute requirement for evidence to back up any statement before it can be taken seriously, or whether you do understand, and are just ignoring it to be mischeivous. I just thank whatever deity may exist out there that people like you don't design and build airplanes.

"laislica, you put the engine on this plane backwards!"

"Yes"

"Why did you do that?!"

"Well an aeronautics engineer in Canada was just on You Tube saying engines work better that way"

"You didn't think you should test that first?!"

"No"

Actually, this aeroplane is a canard.....

[xylophone]

Quote laislica: "The bottom line is simple - if something works for someone - great.

If that something is beyond known scientific facts - so what?

It worked and who should say that it's fraudulent?"

Laislica, you are missing the point again and it must be on purpose, surely???

Taking your points above...............without research who knows if the "something" really was responsible?

If it is beyond scientific facts, how can you know how it worked and why?

How do you know it worked when it can't be replicated anywhere else and that it only worked on one man's say so?

[laislica]

Xylophone

You are rude and boorish. If I wish to believe in something that worked 100% for a member of my family, then I will, and I don't need your permission to do so Now go and play with your instrument some where else.

Hmm, look in the mirror to see "rude and boorish". And pleased that you BELIEVE grapes worked for a member of your family with absolutely no scientific evidence to back it up, but please DON'T post such rubbish AND challenge an expert on it.

By the way, did you know that dancing naked round a fire at midnight, with a full moon, clasping a plastic replica of L Ron Hubbard in your hands, will cure many things, but then you don't believe that sort of thing do you..............or do you?

Oh dear.... not playing very nicely at all.

[laislica]

Quote laislica: "The bottom line is simple - if something works for someone - great.

If that something is beyond known scientific facts - so what?

It worked and who should say that it's fraudulent?"

Laislica, you are missing the point again and it must be on purpose, surely???

Taking your points above...............without research who knows if the "something" really was responsible?

If it is beyond scientific facts, how can you know how it worked and why?

How do you know it worked when it can't be replicated anywhere else and that it only worked on one man's say so?

As I posted before, if it works and there is no scientific proof - so what?

Who says that Science is the only correct thing?

Is the world the centre of the universe or flat?

Science thought it was both of those things for many years.

There are interesting scientists like Gregg Braden who are trying to bring the "Alternative" and "Scientific" worlds closer together. No doubt at some point there will be a paradigm shift in understanding and what was "in" will be "out", and there will be another new "in" for a while, until..... it happens constantly.

Compassion and an open mind are wonderful things.

BTW I did enjoy your idea "By the way, did you know that dancing naked round a fire at midnight, with a full moon, clasping a plastic replica of L Ron Hubbard in your hands, will cure many things,"

[GentlemanJim]

Xylophone

You are rude and boorish. If I wish to believe in something that worked 100% for a member of my family, then I will, and I don't need your permission to do so Now go and play with your instrument some where else.

Hmm, look in the mirror to see "rude and boorish". And pleased that you BELIEVE grapes worked for a member of your family with absolutely no scientific evidence to back it up, but please DON'T post such rubbish AND challenge an expert on it.

By the way, did you know that dancing naked round a fire at midnight, with a full moon, clasping a plastic replica of L Ron Hubbard in your hands, will cure many things, but then you don't believe that sort of thing do you..............or do you?

If you are worried about belief, I suggest you take it up with the 3 billion or so committed religious types, who BELIEVE without any scientific proof that praying to an imaginary friend will assist them.

Reference rude, show me, quote me. I used the word crap in one post, twice and that word was not directed at the person, it was a pleasant way of typing sh*t and was referring to the point that I don't want to spend my time on here to type sh*t. So, you show me where I have been rude to you. Both yourself and Partington have tried to display yourselves as intellects, yet the behaviour of both of you in terms of what you have written has been boorish and rude, as mentioned in my previous post and a trait you clearly displayed with your childish immature reply.

By the way, please clarify which 'expert' I am challenging? refers to the second line of your dreadful post above.

Edited February 10, 2013 by GentlemanJim

[JetsetBkk]

<snip>

Now say there is a cancer expert, let's call him Doctor B, and he does a study where he finds his wonder drug cures 25% of cancers, but every other study that is done in independent labs around the world to test his drug cannot reproduce his results. In fact he turns out to be the only one who ever finds this, in 30 years of looking.

<snip>

Can you say who performed the other studies in the independent labs?

[GentlemanJim]

<snip>

Now say there is a cancer expert, let's call him Doctor B, and he does a study where he finds his wonder drug cures 25% of cancers, but every other study that is done in independent labs around the world to test his drug cannot reproduce his results. In fact he turns out to be the only one who ever finds this, in 30 years of looking.

<snip>

Can you say who performed the other studies in the independent labs?

There is one thing for sure JetsetBKK, the story that Burzynski is on his own is not quite accurate!

In October 1991, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) conducted a site visit to Dr. Burzynski's clinic and verified that "anti-tumor activity was documented by the use of antineoplastons."⁹ Seventeen days after this visit, the United States of America as represented by "The Department of Health and Human Services," filed a patent for antineoplastons AS2-1 — one of the two antineoplastons Dr. Burzynski had already patented. The inventor listed on the copycat patent was Dr. Dvorit Samid, a former research consultant of Dr. Burzynski’s. The patent states:

"The invention described herein may be manufactured, used and licensed by or for the government, for governmental purposes, without the payment to us of any royalties thereon."

In November of 1995, the US Patent office approved the first US Government patent for antineoplastons. Between 1995 and 2000, the US Patent office approved 11 copycat patents on antineoplastons AS2-1. Incredibly, In August of 2012, America's National Cancer Institute has begun to finally acknowledge and cite some of Burzynski's peer-reviewed Antineoplaston studies, as well as Japan's studies who have been independently reproducing Antineoplaston clinical trials studies since the 1980's. One of the most remarkable admissions by The National Cancer Institute is where they quote¹⁰:

"A Phase II study also conducted by the developer and his associates at his clinic reported on 12 patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brainstem glioma. Of the ten patients who were evaluable, two achieved complete tumor response, three had partial tumor response, three had stable disease, and two had progressive disease."

A brainstem glioma has simply never been cured before in the history of medicine — Antineoplastons hold the first cures ever. Kudos to the National cancer Institute for finally giving credit where credit is due!

Read more. http://articles.merc...-burzynski.aspx

Edited February 10, 2013 by GentlemanJim

[laislica]

Gentlemen, I just checked the label on this thread - it's past it's sell by date.

wish XYLOPHONE and PARTINGTON all the best for their future.

I thank GENTLEMANJIM, TOLLEY and all the other posters for their contributions, I have learned a lot.However, I will not take any further part in this thread, because the thread is no longer productive, has descended below the level of a children's playground and has, of it'self, become toxic.

There is a time and place for everything and we seem to have long forgotten the OP.

Time for another thread?

Goodnight and may your God go with you. (Dave Allen)

Dave Allen / Religious School

First question they ask, what do you know about God? I didn't know anything about God, Who? "God!" Who's God? "God, you do not know who God is? Sister! Sister! We have an Atheist here!" "Let me tell you little boy, God is, God was, and God always shall be..." What? "What he is!" What was that? "He is the father! He is the sun! He is the holy ghost! He is 3 in 1". "Do you understand?" I'm four years of age, why wouldn't I? Greatest Theological question in the world, three people in one... Where is he? "He is here!" Where? I can't see him. "That doesn't mean because you can't see him he's not here". It doesn't? He's in the cupboard? "He's not in the cupboard! God doesn't go into cupboards!" He's under the stairs? "He's not under the stairs! He is here, with us now. He's upstairs he's downstairs he's outside he's inside he's everywhere." He's a big bloke, why can't I see him? And I'm asked "Do you love him?" I don't know, I've never seen him. "God loves you and he wants your love, but if you do not give him your love he will cast you into ever lasting flame". What? "He will cast you into ever lasting flame, have you ever burnt yourself? Yes I burnt myself on a Candle. "What was it like?" It was sore. "Can you imagine that pain all over your body? That's what will happen to you if you do not love god! What do you think of that?" I love him!

Dave Allen

[Tolley]

<snip>

Now say there is a cancer expert, let's call him Doctor B, and he does a study where he finds his wonder drug cures 25% of cancers, but every other study that is done in independent labs around the world to test his drug cannot reproduce his results. In fact he turns out to be the only one who ever finds this, in 30 years of looking.

<snip>

Can you say who performed the other studies in the independent labs?

There is one thing for sure JetsetBKK, the story that Burzynski is on his own is not quite accurate!

In October 1991, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) conducted a site visit to Dr. Burzynski's clinic and verified that "anti-tumor activity was documented by the use of antineoplastons."⁹ Seventeen days after this visit, the United States of America as represented by "The Department of Health and Human Services," filed a patent for antineoplastons AS2-1 — one of the two antineoplastons Dr. Burzynski had already patented. The inventor listed on the copycat patent was Dr. Dvorit Samid, a former research consultant of Dr. Burzynski’s. The patent states:

"The invention described herein may be manufactured, used and licensed by or for the government, for governmental purposes, without the payment to us of any royalties thereon."

In November of 1995, the US Patent office approved the first US Government patent for antineoplastons. Between 1995 and 2000, the US Patent office approved 11 copycat patents on antineoplastons AS2-1. Incredibly, In August of 2012, America's National Cancer Institute has begun to finally acknowledge and cite some of Burzynski's peer-reviewed Antineoplaston studies, as well as Japan's studies who have been independently reproducing Antineoplaston clinical trials studies since the 1980's. One of the most remarkable admissions by The National Cancer Institute is where they quote¹⁰:

"A Phase II study also conducted by the developer and his associates at his clinic reported on 12 patients with recurrent diffuse intrinsic brainstem glioma. Of the ten patients who were evaluable, two achieved complete tumor response, three had partial tumor response, three had stable disease, and two had progressive disease."

A brainstem glioma has simply never been cured before in the history of medicine — Antineoplastons hold the first cures ever. Kudos to the National cancer Institute for finally giving credit where credit is due!

Read more. http://articles.merc...-burzynski.aspx

That makes interesting reading.

I find the whole story entirely plausible and in fact find it hard to believe those who disbelieve this story.

Also that Dr Mercola who is hosting this on his website is a very switched on guy with an advanced understanding of diet and nutrition far above your average doctor.