It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Measles Vaccine Reduces Death From Other Infections Too

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 07:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Agartha

In the us they only tell you the side effects of you ask, often deny there is any risk, and then if you decline they try to take your kids away.




posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 07:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Pardon?

You’re making the serious claim that the radiation that is used in cancer treatment is less dangerous than the x-rays we get for non-cancer treatment purposes?

You know, when you use name-calling such as “Unhealthy Deranger,” you are resorting to the technique of ridicule, which is a fallacy of reason.

I see the Mike Adams story and the story by Carol Smith are from 2010. Perhaps a lot has changed since then.

Is the only information you’re interested in is that which is published in scientific papers? Is there no value in investigative journalism?

“Neutralization by "antineoplastin" of insulin-activated nitric oxide synthase antibody and its effects in cancers.”

That sounds as if antineoplastin is a process.

Is it?

I was not commenting on your post to the “scientist.” I was commenting on your stated work experience and your rude remarks to me and others about lack of scientific acumen. Remarks that are quite unnecessary and are actually off-topic.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Pardon?

You’re making the serious claim that the radiation that is used in cancer treatment is less dangerous than the x-rays we get for non-cancer treatment purposes?


No.
Show me where I made that claim.
I said that radiotherapy is specifically targeted.
It's not like getting an x-ray.


You know, when you use name-calling such as “Unhealthy Deranger,” you are resorting to the technique of ridicule, which is a fallacy of reason.

Those who promote the ridiculous should accept that they will be ridiculed.
It's infinitely more acceptable than his offerings though.
He should be thankful he gets off so lightly.
blogs.discovermagazine.com...

And don't forget his scams prior to his health crusade...
www.zdnet.com...

He earns his money by promoting fear.
He always has done.


I see the Mike Adams story and the story by Carol Smith are from 2010. Perhaps a lot has changed since then.

That would seem to be the case wouldn't it?


Is the only information you’re interested in is that which is published in scientific papers? Is there no value in investigative journalism?

I'll happily accept information from pretty much anywhere.
As long as it's verifiable.
And up to date.


“Neutralization by "antineoplastin" of insulin-activated nitric oxide synthase antibody and its effects in cancers.”

That sounds as if antineoplastin is a process.

Is it?

This in the results section.
RESULTS:
"Neither antineoplastin I nor antineoplastin II itself enters into the circulation"
They've applied the term to specific compounds.




I was not commenting on your post to the “scientist.” I was commenting on your stated work experience and your rude remarks to me and others about lack of scientific acumen. Remarks that are quite unnecessary and are actually off-topic.


My experience was stated as a direct explanation of why the "scientist" was talking from where the sun doesn't shine.
And it's true, no-one I've ever worked with has ever called themselves a scientist.

As for my remarks, considering the subject matter I like to think I'm actually being as civil as people deserve.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Adding what I posted in another thread. Anecdotes are in fact scientific evidence. Its called case studies, and they make up a good percentage of most medical research.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: pexx421
Adding what I posted in another thread. Anecdotes are in fact scientific evidence. Its called case studies, and they make up a good percentage of most medical research.


Case studies do form part of medical research but without evidence to back them up they are worthless.
As the old saying goes, the plural of anecdote is not data.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 10:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: pexx421
a reply to: Agartha

In the us they only tell you the side effects of you ask, often deny there is any risk, and then if you decline they try to take your kids away.


I like the way things are done in the UK, we never force a patient to have a certain treatment, everything is done with informed consent. And if somebody wants to refuse a medication or procedure then we have to respect their choice (obviously to a certain extent, if a child needs blood transfusion to survive but parents won't allow it because they are Jehova Witness, doctors can legally intervene to protect the kids life).

This is why I am firmly pro-vaccination but would never agree to force anybody to be vaccinated, despite the unfortunate consequences to those that need herd immunization.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Pardon?

The vast majority of psychiatric medicine is based mostly off of subjective assessments. Add and all its meds are based off of anecdotal subjective info. And so on.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Pardon?

Your response is scientism.

Good, old-fashioned common sense is in order.

You probably have no idea what I'm talking about.

But I doubt you're interested.

So I'll leave it at that.



posted on Jul, 7 2015 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pardon?
I said that radiotherapy is specifically targeted.
It's not like getting an x-ray.

You have been making accusations about Dr. Bob’s integrity and knowledge about cancer treatment.

What is your point about the fact that radiotherapy, unlike getting an x-ray, is specifically targeted?

a reply to: Pardon?

I see you’ve posted two links to smear Mike Adams in response to my point about name-calling. But my point remains valid.

What is your criteria for verifying a piece of investigative journalism?

Again, what is meant by “Neutralization by ‘antineoplastin’ . . .”?

Is “antineoplastin” in that context referring to a process, or not?

Why is the term in quotation marks? Did the authors of the paper originate the term in the paper?

You are still missing my point. Your work experience in science does not justify rudeness to people who are laymen participating on a science thread. Rudeness is counterproductive.



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 03:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots
a reply to: Pardon?

Your response is scientism.

Good, old-fashioned common sense is in order.

You probably have no idea what I'm talking about.

But I doubt you're interested.

So I'll leave it at that.


I know exactly what the word "scientism" means.
And I know exactly what the type of people who bandy it around are too.



posted on Jul, 10 2015 @ 04:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: ConnectDots

originally posted by: Pardon?
I said that radiotherapy is specifically targeted.
It's not like getting an x-ray.

You have been making accusations about Dr. Bob’s integrity and knowledge about cancer treatment.

What is your point about the fact that radiotherapy, unlike getting an x-ray, is specifically targeted?

This is like pulling teeth...
Firstly, Dr Bob isn't a cancer expert is he?
He has never worked in oncology, he's never produced any research in oncology nor has he ever taught it.
I very rarely, if ever, hear real practising physicians talk outside of their areas of expertise, it isn't done because they understand that they are not expert enough to do it.

But I'll get back to the point.
An x-ray is a simple diagnostic procedure which pretty much everyone has over the course of their lives.
They're usually given over a relatively large area rather than being focussed.
In itself, an x-ray is extremely safe however continual exposure to large doses over a long period of time can have an association with cancers. X-ray dosage is also measured and monitored for everyone who comes into close contact with them.
He missed that bit out.
That's being disingenuous.
Radiotherapy is generally not given over a large area. It's a high-energy focussed delivery in specific and often small areas of cancer. Again, the dose is closely monitored.
He also missed that bit out.
That's being disingenuous again.

Do you get it now?

a reply to: Pardon?


I see you’ve posted two links to smear Mike Adams in response to my point about name-calling. But my point remains valid.

What is your criteria for verifying a piece of investigative journalism?

I could post hundreds of links showing Adams for what he is. It's pretty much a daily occurrence with him.
Did you read the links though?
Especially the one calling for GMO researchers to be killed?
Did you read that one?

And that's one of my criteria.
That the author isn't a psychopath.
For non-psychopaths though, investigative journalism has to be credible and non-sensationalistic.
That means that they should reference each fact and not assume anything nor jump to conclusions.
Pretty basic stuff.


Again, what is meant by “Neutralization by ‘antineoplastin’ . . .”?

Is “antineoplastin” in that context referring to a process, or not?

Why is the term in quotation marks? Did the authors of the paper originate the term in the paper?


You're probably best getting that info from the authors.



You are still missing my point. Your work experience in science does not justify rudeness to people who are laymen participating on a science thread. Rudeness is counterproductive.


No, I'm not missing your point at all. I see it very clearly.
However, my experience in science gives me the insight as to when people are pretending to understand it when they clearly don't.
If you think calling them out is rude I would suggest that is your issue not mine.

And I'll tell you what is really counter-productive, lying to people about cancer treatments.
That's bad and those who do it deserve all they get thrown at them.
Obviously within the decorum rules of this forum of course...
edit on 10/7/15 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join