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.

 

How the Deceptive Videos Attacking Planned Parenthood Are Hindering Cures for Deadly Diseases

page: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Why can't stillbirths, miscarriages be donated to do this research? I don't see the need to promote abortion for medical research, when there are other options on the table. You say the woman was going to have an abortion anyways, how do you know? Maybe the fact that the babies can go to medical research is the justification that makes one more woman pull the proverbial trigger.




posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




I have a question, would you rather be treated for cancer in 2015 or in 1975? Which year do you think you have the higher odds of surviving due to medical treatment?


Depends, not much confidence in a system that the "pushers" don't even dare try on themselves. But why are you getting personal? Do you even care about the suffering inflicted on cancer patients with no real hope for life extension?

www.thebigcancerlie.com...


CANCER COVER-UP No. 1: 91 Percent of Oncologists Would REFUSE Chemotherapy If They Had Cancer.

Why? Because they know it's extremely ineffective and extremely toxic.

Did you know that the true 5-year cure rate of conventional cancer treatments is less than 3% (actually, about 2.1%). This statistic is from the Journal of Oncology in 2004. Their "cure rate" hasn't changed much, if any, since 2004. They hide their true cure rate by using clever terminology, such as by using the term "response," which means nothing as far as survival is concerned.

Research has shown that 3 of every 4 doctors and scientists would refuse chemotherapy for themselves due to its devastating effects body and immune system, and because of its extremely low success rate. On top of that, only 2 to 4% of all cancers even respond to chemotherapy or prove to be "life extending," yet it is prescribed across the board for just about every kind of cancer.

The McGill Cancer Center in Montreal, Quebec, one of the largest and most prestigious cancer treatment centers in the world, did a study of oncologists to determine how they would respond to a diagnosis of cancer. On the confidential questionnaire, 91% said that ALL chemotherapy programs were unacceptable to them and their family members





www.whale.to...




Cancer: Radiation Therapy ?

What doctors say about it ?

What statistics say ?

All authorities agree that radiation therapy does not improve the survival of patients with breast cancer.

Radiation treatment for breast cancer raises slightly a woman's long-term risk for esophageal cancer, according to a study by epidemiologists at Columbia-Presbyterian Medical Center in the Annals of Internal Medicine.


articles.mercola.com...


As you can see above in my previous interview with Dr. Golomb, the non-Open Access conventional journals are no angels, and most are in bed with the drug companies. Our current medical system has been masterfully orchestrated by the drug industry to give the perception of science when it really is a heavily manipulated process designed to elevate their products and boost their profits.

Back in 2005, Dr. John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece, showed that there is less than a 50 percent chance that the results of any randomly chosen scientific paper will be true.7 Interestingly, this is about the same ratio that the hit piece by the Science journalist found in the Open Access journals. But you sure didn’t see him quote this information. Within just a few years, one-third of the conclusions of all research will have been proved wrong by subsequent studies—even research that makes it into the top medical journals.8

There is a major bias toward publishing studies that show dramatic results, positive results, or results from “hot” competitive fields, and certainly studies that support their major advertisers, which are the drug companies. And it is much easier than you might think for unscrupulous researchers to massage and manipulate data in order to get the result they’re after.

Many drug studies published in leading journals are actually sponsored by drug makers and include deceptive statistical reporting and wording. Studies funded by drug companies favor drugs 80 percent of the time. The flu vaccine is a perfect example of medical manipulation, with research concluding the effectiveness of the vaccines to be as low as one percent. Yet, despite this, flu vaccines are still pushed by mainstream health officials as the “best” way to protect yourself against influenza. Valuable health care workers are even losing their jobs for refusing to accept the flu shot, despite the fact that the scientific basis for the flu vaccine is pathetically weak.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 11:55 AM
link   
ATTENTION

This is a thread about How the Deceptive Videos Attacking Planned Parenthood Are Hindering Cures for Deadly Diseases. The topic is not whether nor not PP is justified, when conception begins, or any other ancillary topic to how the videos about Planned Parenthood are affecting clinical research.

Please keep discussion to this topic. Off topic posts will be removed, repeat offenders may incur a temporary posting ban.

As is usual, please do not reply to this post.

Thank you

bigfatfurrytexan
Forum Moderator



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 11:59 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




No solution?

So, you want to "do nothing."

K.


I thought this sites motto was...blah blah blah...you know the spiel.
How is the sensationalist thread title even addressed logically in the text in the op?
Show me the patents that they were on the verge of making a breakthrough
Explain me why most end of life treatments are so expensive
Prove wrong the oft quoted lie of "its takes 100 millions of dollars to bring a new drug onto the market" when those same millions are mostly spent on advertising and not on actual research

To use Krazysh0t tactic would you undergo radio therapy for cancer treatment?

Dont tell me you missed these threads?

Vitamin C - What You Don't Know May Kill You AND Why The USDA is Wrong
page: 1
www.abovetopsecret.com...

10 More Ways to Cure Cancer
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I make my own liposomal vit C. This stuff is frickin AMAZING!!!!!
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 12:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rezlooper

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Rezlooper
a reply to: Krazysh0t

We haven't found a single cure for a disease in over half a century, but now anti-abortionists are to blame? There's no money in cures..,,these studies are even about how much funding they can get.


This argument is dumb. Are you seriously trying to suggest that just because we haven't found a cure to a disease in so long that medical researchers haven't made enough progress in any disease to be worth it in that time frame? Just because we haven't found a cure doesn't mean progress isn't being made.


Progress for who? Big Pharma! Certainly not progress for the millions who die needlessly year after year.


You clearly don't know anyone in your life who has or had cancer in their lifetime if you seriously think this is an intelligent response.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rezlooper

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Same question as the previous post I made except for diabetes, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's. Would you rather be treated for those diseases in 2015 or in 1975?


That's just it....treatment. Rather than just come up with a cure, which they most likely already have, there's more money in "treating" the disease than there is in a cure.


How do you know? Do you know ANYTHING about cancer research or are you just saying this because you are on a conspiracy website and that is a popular buzzphrase to use?



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
Depends, not much confidence in a system that the "pushers" don't even dare try on themselves. But why are you getting personal? Do you even care about the suffering inflicted on cancer patients with no real hope for life extension?

www.thebigcancerlie.com...


Sorry buddy, any website that proceeds to tell you that everything you know about something is a lie then at the bottom attempt to sell you the "truth" is immediately listed as a dubious source in my book. So this source means zilch to me; I don't care WHAT the text says, it's biased and likely exaggerated if not an outright lie.



www.whale.to...


There are more ways to treat cancer than with radiation.


articles.mercola.com...



Cool. An article on how to spot propaganda scientific studies. Though it does nothing to further any of your points.

PS: You are trying to prove that current cancer treatments aren't effective enough all to prove that fetal tissue research is unnecessary (Though I haven't seen you answer my question about which years you'd rather have cancer. I wonder why that is?). Yet the irony seems to be lost on you that if current cancer treatments aren't as effective as they could be, we need MORE research to make them better. Not less.
edit on 26-10-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   


Why can't stillbirths, miscarriages be donated to do this research?


They do.


I don't see the need to promote abortion for medical research, when there are other options on the table.


Nobody is promoting abortion. Women are being offered the choice of donating their aborted results to science.


You say the woman was going to have an abortion anyways, how do you know? Maybe the fact that the babies can go to medical research is the justification that makes one more woman pull the proverbial trigger.


Statistics show that since the fetal tissue ban was lifted in 2008, by President Obama, the abortion rate has dropped.

Obama’s Culture of Life: The Abortion Rate Has Fallen 13% Under This President



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Yet the irony seems to be lost on you that if current cancer treatments aren't as effective as they could be, we need MORE research to make them better. Not less


That shows that you have bought into the paradigm...we need ever increasing research monies. Cognitive dissonance



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: windword




They do.


But it's not enough, they need multiple sources? There are tens of thousands of stillbirths and miscarriages every year, surely they could focus on those right?




Nobody is promoting abortion. Women are being offered the choice of donating their aborted results to science.


It could give many women on the fence cause to go through with it because it could help others live. There shouldn't be incentives to have abortions imo. Especially when there are more natural ways to accomplish the research.




Statistics show that since the fetal tissue ban was lifted in 2008, by President Obama, the abortion rate has dropped.


That doesn't mean that's the correlation, it could be because women thought they would be getting free universal health care for their babies, or better safety nets than what Bush offered. In essence the potential mothers could have felt less stressed about having a baby under Obama.



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 05:51 PM
link   
a reply to: jaws1975




But it's not enough, they need multiple sources?


Apparently so.


There are tens of thousands of stillbirths and miscarriages every year, surely they could focus on those right?


If the still birth occurred at a hospital that participates in a fetal tissue exchange program, then the woman will be offered the choice to donate her stillborn child to science. Many women bury their stillborn children too, even their late term aborted fetuses are often mourned and given a burial.

Also, 1st trimester miscarriages usually occur at home, and are too tiny for the woman to even recognize, let alone fish out of the bowl and rush to some fetal tissue exchange. Miscarriages that occur at hospitals that offer a fetal tissue exchange program offer their patients the opportunity to donate.



It could give many women on the fence cause to go through with it because it could help others live.


So, you want to push women on the fence one way, by NOT offering her the choice of donating her aborted fetus to science?

A woman on the "fence" still has her own mind and the more options she's offered, the better educated her choices will be.



That doesn't mean that's the correlation, it could be because women thought they would be getting free universal health care for their babies, or better safety nets than what Bush offered. In essence the potential mothers could have felt less stressed about having a baby under Obama.


That's nice thing to say about Obama Care!



posted on Oct, 26 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Rezlooper

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Rezlooper
a reply to: Krazysh0t

We haven't found a single cure for a disease in over half a century, but now anti-abortionists are to blame? There's no money in cures..,,these studies are even about how much funding they can get.


This argument is dumb. Are you seriously trying to suggest that just because we haven't found a cure to a disease in so long that medical researchers haven't made enough progress in any disease to be worth it in that time frame? Just because we haven't found a cure doesn't mean progress isn't being made.


Progress for who? Big Pharma! Certainly not progress for the millions who die needlessly year after year.


You clearly don't know anyone in your life who has or had cancer in their lifetime if you seriously think this is an intelligent response.


Actually I've known a few. I authored a thread a couple years ago about how my father in law cured his own prostate cancer with alternative natural cure. I'd link it but I'm on my phone, you can see it in my profile. Anyways, in it I tell the story of how doctors refused to acknowledge that he cured himself until over a year later. So yes, I have my reasons and I know what I'm talking about. I guess you believe only a conspiracy nut would think Big Pharma may not have our best interests in mind, but rather their shareholders!
edit on 26-10-2015 by Rezlooper because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 06:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Krazysh0t




Yet the irony seems to be lost on you that if current cancer treatments aren't as effective as they could be, we need MORE research to make them better. Not less


That shows that you have bought into the paradigm...we need ever increasing research monies. Cognitive dissonance


You have to prove the paradigm is wrong for me to disbelieve it. I'm not going to just disbelieve it because a paranoid person on the internet told me to. So far, your best source was trying to sell me something, so I'd say you aren't doing to well in that department.

Though I'm not saying that EVERY research company is in it for altruistic reasons either. But to pretend like EVERYONE only does it for the money to the point that cures or cost saving measures aren't developed is naive. I mean that is speaking for an AWFUL lot of people in the cancer industry.
edit on 27-10-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 06:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Rezlooper

I believe that saying that ALL cancer research is flawed is a terrible statement regardless of what is and isn't being done in people's best interests.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 07:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Rezlooper

I believe that saying that ALL cancer research is flawed is a terrible statement regardless of what is and isn't being done in people's best interests.


You"re right, there are many googbpeople trying to do good things, but Big Pharma can"t allow a cure to be found. Even on ATS over the years I've read about possible major advancements and possible cures being found, only to never hear about it again. Big Pharma now owns the FDA and uses them accordingly. I once read a story about a man who possibly discovered a cure for diabetes and then he disappeared. There's billions to be made treating the sick over long periods. A cure would be too easy and a major financial loss to a behemoth of an industry.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Rezlooper

Not really. Just because we cure something doesn't mean the disease is going to go away. That requires immunization. A cure gets rid of the disease after it has already taken hold and thus discovered. Cancer, by its nature, will ALWAYS be a threat to humanity since it is defective cell mutation that causes your body to produce cells at an unstable rate in whatever organ is effected. Therefore, there will always be a market for whatever medical process cures cancer. Any pharmaceutical company that invented the cure for cancer (any cancer) would likely make more money than its ever seen before.

PS: The pharmaceutical industry isn't one monolith that works together on everything. Collusion is illegal in the US, plus I work for a pharmaceutical manufacturer. Any company that could discover the cure for cancer, would waste little time marketing it and care not one # about the financial wellbeing of any other companies effected by this cure's sale.
edit on 27-10-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 08:31 AM
link   
found this and thought it might interest some:




This week, a “radical” blogger leaked confidential videos that were provided to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and which he claims to have received directly from a Congressional source. These videos are protected by a temporary restraining order issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. They were provided in response to a Congressional subpoena because the Court believed the Committee would “exercise [its] powers responsibly and with due regard for the rights of affected parties.” This alleged Congressional leak raises some serious questions about the integrity and impartiality of this Committee and its investigation into federal funding of Planned Parenthood.

According to published reports, the individual behind these leaks is a personal friend of David Daleiden, the man who orchestrated the illegal video smear campaign that is the subject of the National Abortion Federation’s lawsuit. Although the blogger claims to have received the videos from Congress, we are not certain that this is the case. Still, it is imperative that Committee Chairman Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) take immediate action to investigate whether the videos were leaked by a Congressional source, and take any and all steps necessary to maintain the confidentiality of these protected materials.

thehill.com...


weather through a congressional aide, or through CMP and buddies, these videos should not have been leaked out and uplaoded onto the internet,...... I highly doubt if we ever find out just how they managed to get on the there is it does cause me to question (as if I wasn't doing so before this) the credibility of any congressional investigations done or the republicans leading the charge on all this.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join