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.

 

Arguably The Most Important Documentary In The History Of Medicine Was Just Released

page: 14
62
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 06:19 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

That's rich, coming from a person who clearly doesn't understand how the world works.




posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 06:20 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

Wasn't a dodge and/or deflection. It was a VERY simple observation.

HINT: Try learning what deflection means. You use it too often out of context.



posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

I wonder, if in total, he suffered more than the Apostle Paul.

Somehow, I still believe the bit that the sufferings in this dimension--the worst of them--are not worthy to be compared with the resulting glories of the next.

Suffering is a b**ch, for sure. No way around it. But either suffering can be made meaningful by The One who is the 'ground of all meaning'

or it is all meaningless chance plus time.

If all is chance plus time, then one may as well flay and bar-b-q a loved one as feed them. Nothing would make any significant, meaningful, lasting sense or difference.

If man is nothing more than a rat, a pigeon, a radish or a rock--as many of the high priests of scientism contend--then--nothing makes any difference.

Which is one reason the oligarchy feel so ENTITLED to treat everyone as serfs, slaves and objects to experiment on.



posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

The goals of psychology are to understand organisms and predict their behaviors.

I've been very satisfied with my accuracy in such understanding and predictions of said organisms and behaviors.

I realize mileage varies.

However, feel free to shove me in whatever tidy little box leaves you feeling more comfortable.



posted on Apr, 22 2016 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

I'm done with this thread.

You fit science to your fairy tales if you want. Just don't expect science to take you seriously.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: PeterMcFly




Better real life experience person having done real life work


I guess we should all go with our real life experience and we all seem to have differing experiences so to each his own.
Why bother with medical studies and experts i agree

edit on 23-4-2016 by SeaWorthy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: SeaWorthy
Why bother with medical studies and experts i agree


Great idea: let's replace doctors and nurses with people who have done their google research and see how well hospitals do.

Also, don't call the paramedics if you have an accident or a heart attack, they also rely on evidence based medicine which comes from medical studies and experts. It's all the same science after all....



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 02:40 PM
link   
This is a great show. Hopefully some of you have the time. It really supports cannabis as a treatment.

I think this is huge and it's just a matter of time before everyone is on board.


I'm curious to see if anyone can debate the facts in this video.
edit on 23-4-2016 by GoShredAK because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 02:45 PM
link   
There's evidence of treatment of leukemia. Evidence of treatment of a brain tumor, and more. It's amazing.



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 08:01 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

I'm a neuroradiologist who has railed - with no effect - for years about how stupidly we go about treating carcinoma.

Cut, burn, and poison - quite medieval. Interestingly , Inequity pops its ugly head into the equation nowadays, in the form of "advanced cancer centers" put together by venture capitalists and enterprising doctors. These types of centers are for profit, boutiques, that typically charge hundreds of thousands of dollars to sequence your tumor's unique genome (no 2 cancers are alike, no matter if they're the same organ and subtype, due to mutations). Sequencing is as cheap as $2000 for the whole genome - but then what. Someone has to analyze it, find a codon that a certain cancer needs, and targets it or it's gene product (enzymes usually, or other protein) selectively and effectively.

But that's not where it ends. If you don't kill ALL the cancer STEM cells - and about 1 in 1000 are- the cancer regrows. With new mutations (unregulated growth, with altered cellular biology). So you have, again, a new cancer that the original novel molecular therapy won't treat. You can try viral insertion of killer genes of various types (ie., engineered polio virus infused into brain glioblastomas), nanoparticle shells encasing lipophilic or other chemotherapies, and of course the holy grail: immune system modulation. Problem is - the immune system is incredibly complex. And so is the living, mutation machine cancer. The cancer is essentially a moving target.

Not to say curing various cancers can't be done - it has been done already (ie., gleevec and c-able gene in CML, chromosome 22 and the crossover use in disabling GI stromal tumors). The problem is the NIH is chronically undefunded for what it is capable of doing!

So the Vulture capitalists have stepped in to fill the need for advanced cancer genotyping and molecular therapeutics that is generally unavailable to most without millions - including me. A few MD PhD's in cancer labs have been able to treat themselves using the lab's resources when the lab directors allow it - very rare. If the NIH had 10X the budget (30B->300B USD), which wouldn't even be HALF our military's budget (i forgot the black ops budget in the trillions - i guess we have to fight reptilians so its ok), then you would see a trickle down effect to the average citizen. That would be morally correct. But what does our system do that is morally correct - of late?
edit on 4/24/2016 by drphilxr because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2016 @ 02:10 AM
link   
a reply to: SeaWorthy


I guess we should all go with our real life experience and we all seem to have differing experiences so to each his own.

Why bother with medical studies and experts i agree


As answered to:



I don't need to look for published reference for malignant tumor high perfursion, I have an excellent source right beside me! Spouse have worked as a cytotechnologist, those specialists that use a microscope to identify and characterise cancer cells taken from a biopsy or smear and making the report for pathologists.

Better real life experience person having done real life work, than some wannabe medical youtube "expert" doing published studies cherry picking and "re-inventing" what he cannot understand!!!

ETA: Here is the original reference for tumor angiogenesis: Judah Folkman


I sense a good dose of cynism in such answer...

Since you reject first hand the information coming from an experimented cytotechnologist expert, I am willing to consult your medical studies PROVING that malignant tumors suffer from poor perfursion.

Please repost them if I missed previous post by you of these medical studies and I will gladly read them and retract if you prove that:

MALIGNANT TUMORS SUFFER FROM POOR PERFUSION.

I understand that professionals like cytotechnologists and nurses can sometime remember wrong and confabulate, they are just simple technicians after all... And as you said:


I guess we should all go with our real life experience and we all seem to have differing experiences so to each his own.


But I was thinking that these medical professionals were trained in a very strick formal framework based on serious medical studies, and then had to successfully pass difficult exams to prove they are worth of the profession.



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 04:34 PM
link   
a reply to: namelesss




My mother tried all the 'alternative cures'. Didn't do a thing! Not even placebo effect. RIP mom. If something actually 'worked', don't you think the world would be beating a path? Perhaps some of the alternatives make ones 'recycling' less painful than the allopathic heavy handed treatments?


I'm sorry if she never tried Dandelion Root.

It's usually PRIDE that keeps people from
using this, since it's beyond their understanding
that something so mundane could be a cure.

The reason the majority is not beating down
any doors is due to ignorance.



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 02:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: MrBlaq
a reply to: namelesss




My mother tried all the 'alternative cures'. Didn't do a thing! Not even placebo effect. RIP mom. If something actually 'worked', don't you think the world would be beating a path? Perhaps some of the alternatives make ones 'recycling' less painful than the allopathic heavy handed treatments?


I'm sorry if she never tried Dandelion Root.

It's usually PRIDE that keeps people from
using this, since it's beyond their understanding
that something so mundane could be a cure.

The reason the majority is not beating down
any doors is due to ignorance.

All I can say is... if I ever get the real good deadly cancer, I'll be happy to not crap up the experiment with all that allopathic Hell but I'll use your dandelion root (tea, not suppository, I presume) and report the results, if any. *__-
My immediate intellectual reaction is that is the simple 'weed' worked as you claim, with all that great big internet all over the world, well... one would think there would be all sorts of a furor being raised, all sorts of drug companies poo-pooing it, etc...
But all I hear is...
(cue crickets)

But, really, I'll be happy to try it, if necessary!
Okay? *__-



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 05:10 AM
link   
Treating cancer is more lucrative than curing it.

Curing it would destroy the pharmaceutical imperative to that sector's investors.

Must. Profit.



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 06:56 AM
link   
a reply to: namelesss

Uhhhhh . . . there is one . . . factoid that you may not be giving due weight . . .

A big chunk of the chemeo therapies started out as extracts from various 'weeds' . . . sometimes from tribal cultures.



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Restricted
Treating cancer is more lucrative than curing it.
Curing it would destroy the pharmaceutical imperative to that sector's investors.
Must. Profit.


So scientists, doctors, CEOs, politicians etc and their families never get cancer and don't die of cancer? Ridiculous! Every year there are many rich and powerful people who die of cancer. And scientists too. I'll give the same example I have given on this very thread already: Dr. Ralph Steinman, a cell biologist who was trying to find new ways to fight the disease. He passed away days before being awarded a Nobel Prize in Medicine. He died of pancreatic cancer.

Or perhaps you can prove me wrong by posting some evidence to your statement.



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Agartha

A dying man, my father, was given three pints of blood and a Neupogen shot two days before his death. You don't give a man two days from death a $10,000 injection to stimulate WBC production. You only treat neutropenia if there is hope that he will live long enough to produce WBC's.

I decline to provide further examples, but I will point out that he received many and varied medications over a period of a year and a half that were not consistent with his condition and they were all ruinously expensive.

The treatment of cancer is a racket. You will never convince me otherwise.



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Restricted
a reply to: Agartha

A dying man, my father, was given three pints of blood and a Neupogen shot two days before his death. You don't give a man two days from death a $10,000 injection to stimulate WBC production. You only treat neutropenia if there is hope that he will live long enough to produce WBC's.

I decline to provide further examples, but I will point out that he received many and varied medications over a period of a year and a half that were not consistent with his condition and they were all ruinously expensive.

The treatment of cancer is a racket. You will never convince me otherwise.


But see, this doesn't make sense in countries with social health care, where the government pays. Because millions of patients have never paid one penny in taxes their whole life and still they get all treatments, interventions and meds for free. I don't see any government wasting so many millions on treating people when there could be a cure. What you say, in countries with social free health care, doesn't make sense (like the UK).
edit on 27-4-2016 by Agartha because: Spelling...



posted on Apr, 27 2016 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Agartha
But see, this doesn't make sense in countries with social health care


I.e. most of the first world.



posted on Apr, 28 2016 @ 11:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: namelesss
A big chunk of the chemeo therapies started out as extracts from various 'weeds' . . . sometimes from tribal cultures.

Absolutely True! *__-



new topics

top topics



 
62
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join