Originally posted by bsl4doc
Ad hominem attacks ftw
it boils down to a simple conundrum: you're using, or at least appealing to, authority. using one sided arguments like 'it's not used because it
does not work' is superficially valid, just not on planet Earth, where special interest groups found out that emotionally appealing to the
unsuspecting majority
can in fact grant them the power to ban substances. it started out with hemp, because there's a useless smoking vaiety,
with Opiates and Cocaine, which was once used for local anesthesia. in fact these substances are still with us, but they are regimented. using such
superficial arguments could be refuted, like Escallum has done by mentioning patents, but i really don't feel like limiting myself to such a reactive
approach.
illustrating a point by posting links to old threads, otoh, allows me to access and use far more data, which means the picture does get a lot clearer.
my personal memory and bookmarked threads are easily accessible to me, but they would go unnoticed by a casual reader. i feel that older threads a
accessible for a reason and such use may be controversial but obviously within the frame of this forum.
as for my remark about thread tagging, if it looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck and walks like one - think duck, not zoologist on an exam.
Originally posted by cybertroy
I have thought this same sort of thing. Silly stuff. It's actually a sad situation. Nutrition and such are labeled as "alternative." No folks,
this is part of the "real" solution. It should never be labeled as "alternative." Vitamins, minerals, enzymes and such are part of our natural
bodily systems. These are some of the things we need to help improve our health.
..
yeah, anyone can post the more nagging questions, my favorite pet peeve being 'what exactly is herd immunity ?' when you get to the bottom of it, it
becomes obvious that the effect has to be on an individual level, otherwise it's pure metaphysics, but perhaps i'm missing something. then we have
cancer therapy - how many actually survive and for how long?
www.karlloren.com...
Success statistics are being manipulated and fabricated in such an expert and subtle way that they give evidence of some manifest and significant
progress in the fight against cancer. In medical circles, this systematic and large-scale deceit is excused by the concern 'not to cause panic' in
cancer patients who do not have any serious alternative anyhow than walk the classic therapeutic way. It goes without saying that not only are all
alternative ways of treatment en bloc rejected for being useless and even dangerous, but furthermore, the hypothesis that a patient would prefer n o
t to be treated and, consequently, live the rest of his life in a qualitative more positive way, is considered to be non-existant. This is even more
criminal because the fact that chemo(toxico)therapy would have any effect on cancer patients' life expectations, is far from being proven. On the
contrary, comparative studies with non-treated patients have revealed that chemo(toxico) therapy does not produce any life-prolonging effects (1).
Untreated patients appear to live (survive) at least as long as treated patients (2)....
and so on. it's out there you just have to look! one thing i have to say about cancer prognosis in particular, that people are given super-optimisitc
outlooks, i know of one 'case' where one wonder drug was supposed to stop cancer growth for ~2 years, with a chance of utilising new developments by
then. needless to say, three weeks later, she was dead and buried. i call that distortion and lieing. if you're consequently being dishonest with
people don't expect a friendly response.
PS:
Gregory Curt, MD
"Patients who seek alternative or unsound cancer therapies are intelligent and inquisitive and unlikely to be persuaded that an approach is
useless simply because the same lacks scientific credentials or has not been published in peer reviewed journals."
(emphasis mine)
