We may have cured father-in-laws cancer naturally - symptoms are gone in three weeks!!

reply to post by VeritasAequitas

I'm attempting to use analogy to teach you something if you'd only open your mind for a minute.

Yes you are but it's a feeble attempt. My mind is open to facts, not your misunderstanding of them.

There are several people that you can look at and tell that their nose, breasts, buttocks, and so forth have been surgically engineered and are not the result of natural formation.

Again, not analogous. You need to get that.

Just as we can discern those things, our body also knows when something that isn't natural is introduced.

AGAIN, how does the body discern this distinction without a difference? By what mechanism is this discerned?

You think because some synthetic is chemically structured the same way that our body doesn't know something man made from god made?

Correct. You have done nothing to prove otherwise.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


I see the education system has only taught you what to think, not how to think. Good day.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by DenyObfuscation

 

I see the education system has only taught you what to think, not how to think. Good day.

edit on 28-3-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)

So you can't support your erroneous assertion? No surprise there. It's not only false but potentially dangerous to someone who doesn't know any better than to believe you.

Take this for example,

So when we talk about “synthetic” substances versus “natural” substances, we’re referring the difference between how they are made—how they come into being—not any difference between their molecules. The molecules are identical.

Read more here www.chemheritage.org... if you're not afraid to learn.

I think for myself, tend to question virtually everything and go with what makes sense.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by DenyObfuscation

 

I see the education system has only taught you what to think, not how to think. Good day.

edit on 28-3-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)

N

Not at all. Your posts have been very cryptic. If you want a straightforward and intelligent response, then you need a straightforward and intelligent point. It does not matter what cosmic secrets you think you are privy to, if you cannot communicate them effectively, they are all for naught.

Originally posted by Rezlooper

Click here for more information.

Brilliant retort from someone lacking a position or evidence thereof.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
So you can't support your erroneous assertion? No surprise there. It's not only false but potentially dangerous to someone who doesn't know any better than to believe you.

Yet, you speak of erroneous assertions, my my...Simply because one does not speak, does not mean he doesn't know; on the contrary, he who knows, does not speak.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
Simply because one does not speak, does not mean he doesn't know; on the contrary, he who knows, does not speak.

Just don't fall into that "Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt" trap.

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by DenyObfuscation

 

Originally posted by DenyObfuscation
So you can't support your erroneous assertion? No surprise there. It's not only false but potentially dangerous to someone who doesn't know any better than to believe you.

Yet, you speak of erroneous assertions, my my...Simply because one does not speak, does not mean he doesn't know; on the contrary, he who knows, does not speak.

And yet, you speak of nothing. So far you have been a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.


Macbeth, Scene 5

reply to post by NavyDoc


Pardon me, would you care for me to make little airplane noises too while I spoon-feed you the information? Sorry guy, but indoctrination just isn't my thing.

reply to post by Rezlooper

As I did mention though, his PSA didn't change between the two tests.

What were the two PSA levels?

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


12

reply to post by Rezlooper


12 what? Both tests 12?

ETA: Actually it's 3 PSA tests now isn't it? They tested it on the 21st too, didn't they?

Originally posted by Rezlooper
reply to post by DenyObfuscation

 

12

More importantly, what's his Gleason Score?

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Rezlooper
reply to post by DenyObfuscation

 

12

More importantly, what's his Gleason Score?

I'm wondering if he's going to answer that. You first asked back on the 23rd and still no reply. Not a good sign.

reply to post by DenyObfuscation


You guys crack me up. I don't know his Gleason score. When we get online access to his records I'll post his info. On the 21st, he forgot to have them do a PSA. I was a little bummed about that because I wanted another reading as well. But, I will say that G says he is feeling even better. He continuously reports good news. Now he says that he can even hold his pee nowadays, and he couldn't before. If he had to go...he had to go now, and that's not the case. Anyways. I really don't care what you guys have to say. I said it in the beginning in the original OP, if you had negative to post, I wasn't in this for you. I know what G's done and there's not a doubt about it. You guys can talk negative, hope you're right in your doubt, but it doesn't matter. He beat cancer. He's extended his life many more years. I work full time and G depends on us to get him up north to his hometown, nearly two hours drive. I haven't had the time but we are planning on going up there on Wednesday and that's when he'll sign for his online records. Until then, I'm not going to argue with you guys anymore. It's not worth it. You'll never be convinced, even when shown the evidence, you'll still have something negative to say. And I'll never be convinced in what you say. We got no room for negativity around here. Hell, the dude just beat cancer without cutting, burning or poisoning and you can't get anymore positive than that.

Originally posted by Rezlooper
reply to post by DenyObfuscation

 

You guys crack me up. I don't know his Gleason score... We got no room for negativity around here. Hell, the dude just beat cancer without cutting, burning or poisoning and you can't get anymore positive than that.

I'm sorry, but you have placed yourself in a position of having made large claims that require proof. There are protocols that will provide proof. As a survivor myself, I feel entitled to ask the tough questions, because I know what they are and I know what the responses mean. I have contacted you off-line to offer advice, which I hope you heeded.

Now I'm going to offer some more. Why don't you leave this thread alone until you know exactly what's going on with your father-in-law? That way his welfare is your most important focus...and not whether you are right or wrong. Now I'm going to bow out of this thread...not because you are right, and I am wrong...but out of respect for your father in law. I have a lot better idea of what he is going through than you do. Go tend to his needs, and those of your family - if you end up with good news, please bring it to us, and we'll be happy for you. If it's bad, this community will try to help with that, too.

reply to post by Rezlooper


AFAIK, the Gleason score is the cause for the Dr's concern about the cancer spreading soon. That can't be ignored.

I wouldn't think a request for a PSA would be necessary at a follow up evaluation.

Maintain all the optimism you wish, just temper it with reality.

Most men have PSA levels under four (ng/mL) and this has traditionally been used as the cutoff for concern about the risk of prostate cancer. Men with prostate cancer often have PSA levels higher than four, although cancer is a possibility at any PSA level. According to published reports, men who have a prostate gland that feels normal on examination and a PSA less than four have a 15% chance of having prostate cancer. Those with a PSA between four and 10 have a 25% chance of having prostate cancer and if the PSA is higher than 10, the risk increases to 67%.
www.webmd.com...

Thanks for your guys' concern. The Gleason score must not have been good at the original diagnosis then, because the doctor did say to him that he was close to spreading and that's why they were recommending treatment. In many cases of prostate cancer at his age, they recommend doing nothing. Anways, Your right Canuck. I need to bow out of this thread till I have something to post. I shall return Wednesday.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

Why don't you leave this thread alone until you know exactly what's going on with your father-in-law?

Better yet, why don't you leave this thread.


Get a life.

Originally posted by dusty1
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

Why don't you leave this thread alone until you know exactly what's going on with your father-in-law?

Better yet, why don't you leave this thread. Get a life.

I have one, thanks to radiation treatment for my cancer. And your excuse is...?