800000 killed by Big Bad Pharma - breaking story

beckybecky
reply to post by Bakatono

 

high dose vitamin d 4000 to 10000 i.u might be the answer plus magnesium ,vitamin k and c.
go to vitamin d council website for thousands of research papers and advice.

that pardon? poster works for big pharma as he accidentally admitted in another post.

he also claim a cure rate of 80% for chemo when everyone knows it is 3% over 5 years.

Which post did I admit I worked for big pharma?
Link it.
Was it the one where another poster said he did and you said it was me then back-tracked and tried to make out I had multiple usernames?
Is that the one?
That poster (crazewok I think it was) deliberately said he used to work for them and has repeated that several times. There was no accident about it.

And link where I've claimed a "cure rate" for chemo anywhere.
I think I said in a reply to you earlier that there's no cure so why would I suggest otherwise?
I leave that up to liars like you.

And again, the 3% which is bandied around is from an Australian study that looked into the effect of chemo in cancers which generally don't respond to chemo or use chemo as a minor part of the therapy.

But don't let the facts get in the way of one of your sentences becky.
You never do.

VeritasAequitas
reply to post by Pardon?

 

Big Pharma is multiple corporations but who are ultimately of the same family.

I said they are of the same family; not owned by the same family. Reading comprehension is key to any debate. It helps to reduce strawman arguments.

If you're trying to exonerate yourself then cherry-picking a sentence from what you've posted won't help.
Here's the whole piece you wrote which gives that sentence its proper context.

VeritasAequitas
Alternative medicine doesn't make 50 billion for just any single one company though; Big Pharma is multiple corporations but who are ultimately of the same family.

Writing is also key in debating. If you do it properly it saves having to back-track all the time.

darkbake

rickymouse
Sure, wisdom does rob us of the fun and excitement, mostly from making stupid mistakes or comments. But that is the way we are supposed to be as we age. I would never want to be young again.

I don't think Statins and Beta Blockers are the same though. Maybe Statins have Beta blocker properties though.

edit on 29-1-2014 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)

That is some random wisdom - I like it. Interesting about the beta blockers, I just got prescribed some for anxiety.

I'd be more anxious the BB's could end up putting you into the ground than anything else.

Death is pretty final, anxiety can be managed.

reply to post by Pardon?


I didn't cherry pick anything.. If you want to argue semantics, please do it with somebody else, because I grow tired of you faceless ProPharma advocates and your silly games.

Also for all of you people bitching about Mike Adams & Natural News, I thought you should read this, it's on his website, which I recommended you to look into..

Non-Profit

Natural News is affiliated with the 501(c )3 non-profit known as the Consumer Wellness Center (www.ConsumerWellness.org).

Mike Adams, the editor of NaturalNews.com, is the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center . It is a non-paid position. The Consumer Wellness Center donates 100% of its contributions to programs that teach nutrition education and gardening education to women and children around the world.

Case studies and success stories of the nutrition grants are available at www.ConsumerWellness.org

He has also state numerous times on his website that he does not get paid to advertise, review, or sell any of the products on his site, and that the proceeds go to the companies who make them, which in turn donate the money towards further research or more of the notable causes further down below.

Link to Information

If you look under this section, it also mentions donating the money they raise from the site towards notable causes such as :

Natural News has helped raise millions of dollars for what it considers to be "worthy causes" such as documentary films and legal defense funds for farmers who have been raided by the government for producing raw milk.

In addition, Natural News makes its own cash donations to many important causes. Over the years, Natural News has either raised money for or donated directly to all the following causes:

Organic Consumers Association
Institute for Responsible Technology
"Bought" movie project on IndieGoGo
Unacceptable Levels documentary
The Great Culling documentary
Victims of the Oklahoma tornadoes of 2013 (Regional Food Bank of Oklahoma)
Victims of the Central Texas fires of 2011
Victims of the Taiwan earthquake of 2010
Vernon Hershberger, the raw milk dairy farmer of Wisconsin
James Stewart, the "raw milkman" of California
Citizens Commission on Human Rights
The Canary Party, creators of the video "Do vaccines cause autism?"
Proposition 37, the California GMO labeling initiative of 2011
House of Cards film exploring the AIDS epidemic
Donated solar panels to the One Earth Indigenous Nations Institute in 2005 ( Nanish Shontie , A "native guided community")
In addition, Natural News has also helped publicize numerous authors including Dr. Suzanne Humphries, author of "Dissolving Illusions" and Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, author of, "Science Set Free."

It's a sad, stupid, crazy, and #ed up world we live in if pharmaceutical companies can make obscene amounts of money with no problem at all, but any guy recommending natural medicine, with a website, must be a scam artist, and a hoaxer... Some people here just don't make any sense at all unless you look at their standpoint from a different perspective...

VeritasAequitas
Also for all of you people bitching about Mike Adams & Natural News, I thought you should read this, it's on his website, which I recommended you to look into..

Non-Profit

Natural News is affiliated with the 501(c )3 non-profit known as the Consumer Wellness Center (www.ConsumerWellness.org).

Mike Adams, the editor of NaturalNews.com, is the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center . It is a non-paid position. The Consumer Wellness Center donates 100% of its contributions to programs that teach nutrition education and gardening education to women and children around the world.

Case studies and success stories of the nutrition grants are available at www.ConsumerWellness.org

He has also state numerous times on his website that he does not get paid to advertise, review, or sell any of the products on his site, and that the proceeds go to the companies who make them, which in turn donate the money towards further research or more of the notable causes further down below.

Link to Information

If you look under this section, it also mentions donating the money they raise from the site towards notable causes such as :

Natural News has helped raise millions of dollars for what it considers to be "worthy causes" such as documentary films and legal defense funds for farmers who have been raided by the government for producing raw milk.

In addition, Natural News makes its own cash donations to many important causes. Over the years, Natural News has either raised money for or donated directly to all the following causes:

Organic Consumers Association
Institute for Responsible Technology
"Bought" movie project on IndieGoGo
Unacceptable Levels documentary
The Great Culling documentary
Victims of the Oklahoma tornadoes of 2013 (Regional Food Bank of Oklahoma)
Victims of the Central Texas fires of 2011
Victims of the Taiwan earthquake of 2010
Vernon Hershberger, the raw milk dairy farmer of Wisconsin
James Stewart, the "raw milkman" of California
Citizens Commission on Human Rights
The Canary Party, creators of the video "Do vaccines cause autism?"
Proposition 37, the California GMO labeling initiative of 2011
House of Cards film exploring the AIDS epidemic
Donated solar panels to the One Earth Indigenous Nations Institute in 2005 ( Nanish Shontie , A "native guided community")
In addition, Natural News has also helped publicize numerous authors including Dr. Suzanne Humphries, author of "Dissolving Illusions" and Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, author of, "Science Set Free."

It's a sad, stupid, crazy, and #ed up world we live in if pharmaceutical companies can make obscene amounts of money with no problem at all, but any guy recommending natural medicine, with a website, must be a scam artist, and a hoaxer... Some people here just don't make any sense at all unless you look at their standpoint from a different perspective...

edit on 3-2-2014 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)

I've just shown that you cherry-picked.
It's there in whatever colours the theme you've chosen shows up the words.
And I'm not pro-pharma, I'm just anti BS.


As for Mike the Health DeRanger...

Yep, he's a scam artist and a hoaxer. Always has been and always will be.
The fact he gives to charities doesn't detract from this fact.
Also because HE states on HIS website (what did I say earlier about anyone can write anything without proof?) that he doesn't get paid doesn't mean he doesn't, does it?
Plus since he tends to advertise a lot of his own products and gets paid for them by definition he's lying.

Since the early days of the internet he's scammed people, why would you think he's any different now?
healthwyze.org...

The only member of the Board of Directors for Consumerwellness, is guess who? Yes, Mike Adams.
His "advisory board" member is Jon Barron. A man who claims to make his magic tinctures stronger by subjecting them to methods involving "paradigm shifts"(?), "scalar energy"(?) and "Kirlian photography"(wtf?!). The terms in parentheses indicate that they are Jon's own words. It's like buzzword bingo on his site.
Here are more of Jon's words taken directly from his website
"Cancer
That's right; as if all of the benefits we've listed so far were not enough, the regular intake of scalar enhanced products may very well play a significant role in preventing and/or reversing cancer.

Cancer cells are, almost without exception, low voltage cells. As I mentioned earlier, the optimum cell voltage for most cells in the body is in the 70-90 millivolt range. Cancer cells are almost exclusively in the 15-20 millivolt range.

There have been many theories proposed as to why this is true. The most likely one is that as cell voltage starts to drop into the range where the very survival of the cell may be called into question, the cell begins to proliferate uncontrollably in an attempt to guarantee its "survival."

If you raise cell voltage (which is exactly what can happen when you consume scalar enhanced products), the cell no longer needs to proliferate wildly. In effect, it can become "normal" again. The implications for this in treating cancer could be profound."
Seems legit...(especially if you know absolutely nothing about human physiology and are classed as highly gullible).

Every major pharma company donates millions to charities and most have charitable trusts set up.
By your reasoning that should make them good and all above board, correct?

I've said it before and I'll say it again.
I really need to get into this alt health thing.
It would definitely beat working hard for a living.

Pardon?

beckybecky
reply to post by Bakatono

 

high dose vitamin d 4000 to 10000 i.u might be the answer plus magnesium ,vitamin k and c.
go to vitamin d council website for thousands of research papers and advice.

that pardon? poster works for big pharma as he accidentally admitted in another post.

he also claim a cure rate of 80% for chemo when everyone knows it is 3% over 5 years.

Which post did I admit I worked for big pharma?
Link it.
Was it the one where another poster said he did and you said it was me then back-tracked and tried to make out I had multiple usernames?
Is that the one?
That poster (crazewok I think it was) deliberately said he used to work for them and has repeated that several times. There was no accident about it.

And link where I've claimed a "cure rate" for chemo anywhere.
I think I said in a reply to you earlier that there's no cure so why would I suggest otherwise?
I leave that up to liars like you.

And again, the 3% which is bandied around is from an Australian study that looked into the effect of chemo in cancers which generally don't respond to chemo or use chemo as a minor part of the therapy.

But don't let the facts get in the way of one of your sentences becky.
You never do.

ahhh you have been caughtout again:-

Below the post you said 80%.Shall I remind you?

""""The woman had an 80% chance of survival had she had the appropriate treatment early enough. She didn't and she died as a direct result of it. That's what this is all about. Chemotherapy is treatment of cancer with chemicals. Radiation is a separate therapy altogether (as is surgery). Different cancers respond to different therapies and some have better outcomes than others. No-one says that there is 100% chance of a cure with standard therapies but the sooner it's diagnosed and treated the better it will be. That's why there are 560,000 deaths per year of cancer even though 1,600,000 (that's over one and a half million just in case you thought it was 160000) get cancer every year. That means over one million DON'T die of cancer every year.Text""


See? do'es your ailing memory recall your own words.Your your your oun own posts condemn you.

80% you said.

As God is my witness and may Lord Jesus smite me dead if i lie. YOU you you ou u said 80% above.Hoist by your petard.



I am an unhappy girl. I am haunted by my inability to express the inexpressible, to come to terms
with the unknown The pursuit of truth is, of course,a major psychological drive.
In its various guises --
which is to say, the urge to perfection, the yearning to merge with the eternal, the explorer's restlessness, the
realization of an Absolute created by ourselves, yet larger than our totality -- it is perhaps the most single
important human endeavor , this search for the truth.

I am tormented by this search; I strive, I build; yet,paradoxically,
I suffer from the conviction that should
I ever achieve my peculiar goals, I might find the results unsatisfying. In this case, the contest is worth more
than the victory. I will not describe my own struggle,my grief, my dark midnights, my heartbreaks.
You might find them incomprehensible, or worse for you, noble

I am often described as an sorrowful girl, and while I do not dispute the label,
I have not taken the stricture
to heart. Sorrow is a vector quality, operative only in the direction of the vector,
and often the acts which incur the most censure do singularly small harm, and often benefit,
to the most people concerned...

beckybecky

Pardon?

beckybecky
reply to post by Bakatono

 

high dose vitamin d 4000 to 10000 i.u might be the answer plus magnesium ,vitamin k and c.
go to vitamin d council website for thousands of research papers and advice.

that pardon? poster works for big pharma as he accidentally admitted in another post.

he also claim a cure rate of 80% for chemo when everyone knows it is 3% over 5 years.

Which post did I admit I worked for big pharma?
Link it.
Was it the one where another poster said he did and you said it was me then back-tracked and tried to make out I had multiple usernames?
Is that the one?
That poster (crazewok I think it was) deliberately said he used to work for them and has repeated that several times. There was no accident about it.

And link where I've claimed a "cure rate" for chemo anywhere.
I think I said in a reply to you earlier that there's no cure so why would I suggest otherwise?
I leave that up to liars like you.

And again, the 3% which is bandied around is from an Australian study that looked into the effect of chemo in cancers which generally don't respond to chemo or use chemo as a minor part of the therapy.

But don't let the facts get in the way of one of your sentences becky.
You never do.

ahhh you have been caughtout again:-

Below the post you said 80%.Shall I remind you?

""""The woman had an 80% chance of survival had she had the appropriate treatment early enough. She didn't and she died as a direct result of it. That's what this is all about. Chemotherapy is treatment of cancer with chemicals. Radiation is a separate therapy altogether (as is surgery). Different cancers respond to different therapies and some have better outcomes than others. No-one says that there is 100% chance of a cure with standard therapies but the sooner it's diagnosed and treated the better it will be. That's why there are 560,000 deaths per year of cancer even though 1,600,000 (that's over one and a half million just in case you thought it was 160000) get cancer every year. That means over one million DON'T die of cancer every year.Text""


See? do'es your ailing memory recall your own words.Your your your oun own posts condemn you.

80% you said.

As God is my witness and may Lord Jesus smite me dead if i lie. YOU you you ou u said 80% above.Hoist by your petard.

edit on 3-2-2014 by beckybecky because: (no reason given)

Can you point out in that where I said "cure rate" as chance of survival and being cured are very different indeed

I'd look to the skies if I were you you ou u as there might well be some smiting, smiting, smite going on soon.

Pardon?

beckybecky

Pardon?

beckybecky
reply to post by Bakatono

 

high dose vitamin d 4000 to 10000 i.u might be the answer plus magnesium ,vitamin k and c.
go to vitamin d council website for thousands of research papers and advice.

that pardon? poster works for big pharma as he accidentally admitted in another post.

he also claim a cure rate of 80% for chemo when everyone knows it is 3% over 5 years.

Which post did I admit I worked for big pharma?
Link it.
Was it the one where another poster said he did and you said it was me then back-tracked and tried to make out I had multiple usernames?
Is that the one?
That poster (crazewok I think it was) deliberately said he used to work for them and has repeated that several times. There was no accident about it.

And link where I've claimed a "cure rate" for chemo anywhere.
I think I said in a reply to you earlier that there's no cure so why would I suggest otherwise?
I leave that up to liars like you.

And again, the 3% which is bandied around is from an Australian study that looked into the effect of chemo in cancers which generally don't respond to chemo or use chemo as a minor part of the therapy.

But don't let the facts get in the way of one of your sentences becky.
You never do.

ahhh you have been caughtout again:-

Below the post you said 80%.Shall I remind you?

""""The woman had an 80% chance of survival had she had the appropriate treatment early enough. She didn't and she died as a direct result of it. That's what this is all about. Chemotherapy is treatment of cancer with chemicals. Radiation is a separate therapy altogether (as is surgery). Different cancers respond to different therapies and some have better outcomes than others. No-one says that there is 100% chance of a cure with standard therapies but the sooner it's diagnosed and treated the better it will be. That's why there are 560,000 deaths per year of cancer even though 1,600,000 (that's over one and a half million just in case you thought it was 160000) get cancer every year. That means over one million DON'T die of cancer every year.Text""


See? do'es your ailing memory recall your own words.Your your your oun own posts condemn you.

80% you said.

As God is my witness and may Lord Jesus smite me dead if i lie. YOU you you ou u said 80% above.Hoist by your petard.

edit on 3-2-2014 by beckybecky because: (no reason given)

Can you point out in that where I said "cure rate" as chance of survival and being cured are very different indeed

I'd look to the skies if I were you you ou u as there might well be some smiting, smiting, smite going on soon.

you said 80%. now you trying to backtrack and hide behind in semantic pedantry.

what you got against Australians anyway.Are they not good enough for you.why the zenophobia.

beckybecky

I am an unhappy girl. I am haunted by my inability to express the inexpressible, to come to terms
with the unknown The pursuit of truth is, of course,a major psychological drive.
In its various guises --
which is to say, the urge to perfection, the yearning to merge with the eternal, the explorer's restlessness, the
realization of an Absolute created by ourselves, yet larger than our totality -- it is perhaps the most single
important human endeavor , this search for the truth.

I am tormented by this search; I strive, I build; yet,paradoxically,
I suffer from the conviction that should
I ever achieve my peculiar goals, I might find the results unsatisfying. In this case, the contest is worth more
than the victory. I will not describe my own struggle,my grief, my dark midnights, my heartbreaks.
You might find them incomprehensible, or worse for you, noble

I am often described as an sorrowful girl, and while I do not dispute the label,
I have not taken the stricture
to heart. Sorrow is a vector quality, operative only in the direction of the vector,
and often the acts which incur the most censure do singularly small harm, and often benefit,
to the most people concerned...

I once realized that I searched an organism which could carry all the guilt, for all that I saw as unjust in the world.
At some point I realized there is no evil source, there is just humanity, searching and trying their hardest to balance concern for self and concern for the all, in the middle of their own ignorance.
Both a tragedy and a blessing. Here we are.

beckybecky

Pardon?

beckybecky

Pardon?

beckybecky
reply to post by Bakatono

 

high dose vitamin d 4000 to 10000 i.u might be the answer plus magnesium ,vitamin k and c.
go to vitamin d council website for thousands of research papers and advice.

that pardon? poster works for big pharma as he accidentally admitted in another post.

he also claim a cure rate of 80% for chemo when everyone knows it is 3% over 5 years.

Which post did I admit I worked for big pharma?
Link it.
Was it the one where another poster said he did and you said it was me then back-tracked and tried to make out I had multiple usernames?
Is that the one?
That poster (crazewok I think it was) deliberately said he used to work for them and has repeated that several times. There was no accident about it.

And link where I've claimed a "cure rate" for chemo anywhere.
I think I said in a reply to you earlier that there's no cure so why would I suggest otherwise?
I leave that up to liars like you.

And again, the 3% which is bandied around is from an Australian study that looked into the effect of chemo in cancers which generally don't respond to chemo or use chemo as a minor part of the therapy.

But don't let the facts get in the way of one of your sentences becky.
You never do.

ahhh you have been caughtout again:-

Below the post you said 80%.Shall I remind you?

""""The woman had an 80% chance of survival had she had the appropriate treatment early enough. She didn't and she died as a direct result of it. That's what this is all about. Chemotherapy is treatment of cancer with chemicals. Radiation is a separate therapy altogether (as is surgery). Different cancers respond to different therapies and some have better outcomes than others. No-one says that there is 100% chance of a cure with standard therapies but the sooner it's diagnosed and treated the better it will be. That's why there are 560,000 deaths per year of cancer even though 1,600,000 (that's over one and a half million just in case you thought it was 160000) get cancer every year. That means over one million DON'T die of cancer every year.Text""


See? do'es your ailing memory recall your own words.Your your your oun own posts condemn you.

80% you said.

As God is my witness and may Lord Jesus smite me dead if i lie. YOU you you ou u said 80% above.Hoist by your petard.

edit on 3-2-2014 by beckybecky because: (no reason given)

Can you point out in that where I said "cure rate" as chance of survival and being cured are very different indeed

I'd look to the skies if I were you you ou u as there might well be some smiting, smiting, smite going on soon.

you said 80%. now you trying to backtrack and hide behind in semantic pedantry.

what you got against Australians anyway.Are they not good enough for you.why the zenophobia.

Yep, I said an 80% chance of survival.
Surviving doesn't mean being cured does it?
There are no semantics nor pedantry involved, just a basic understanding of the difference between the two terms.

Your second sentence suggests you've forgotten to take your meds again.

Pardon?

beckybecky

Pardon?

beckybecky

Pardon?

beckybecky
reply to post by Bakatono

 

high dose vitamin d 4000 to 10000 i.u might be the answer plus magnesium ,vitamin k and c.
go to vitamin d council website for thousands of research papers and advice.

that pardon? poster works for big pharma as he accidentally admitted in another post.

he also claim a cure rate of 80% for chemo when everyone knows it is 3% over 5 years.

Which post did I admit I worked for big pharma?
Link it.
Was it the one where another poster said he did and you said it was me then back-tracked and tried to make out I had multiple usernames?
Is that the one?
That poster (crazewok I think it was) deliberately said he used to work for them and has repeated that several times. There was no accident about it.

And link where I've claimed a "cure rate" for chemo anywhere.
I think I said in a reply to you earlier that there's no cure so why would I suggest otherwise?
I leave that up to liars like you.

And again, the 3% which is bandied around is from an Australian study that looked into the effect of chemo in cancers which generally don't respond to chemo or use chemo as a minor part of the therapy.

But don't let the facts get in the way of one of your sentences becky.
You never do.

ahhh you have been caughtout again:-

Below the post you said 80%.Shall I remind you?

""""The woman had an 80% chance of survival had she had the appropriate treatment early enough. She didn't and she died as a direct result of it. That's what this is all about. Chemotherapy is treatment of cancer with chemicals. Radiation is a separate therapy altogether (as is surgery). Different cancers respond to different therapies and some have better outcomes than others. No-one says that there is 100% chance of a cure with standard therapies but the sooner it's diagnosed and treated the better it will be. That's why there are 560,000 deaths per year of cancer even though 1,600,000 (that's over one and a half million just in case you thought it was 160000) get cancer every year. That means over one million DON'T die of cancer every year.Text""


See? do'es your ailing memory recall your own words.Your your your oun own posts condemn you.

80% you said.

As God is my witness and may Lord Jesus smite me dead if i lie. YOU you you ou u said 80% above.Hoist by your petard.

edit on 3-2-2014 by beckybecky because: (no reason given)

Can you point out in that where I said "cure rate" as chance of survival and being cured are very different indeed

I'd look to the skies if I were you you ou u as there might well be some smiting, smiting, smite going on soon.

you said 80%. now you trying to backtrack and hide behind in semantic pedantry.

what you got against Australians anyway.Are they not good enough for you.why the zenophobia.

Yep, I said an 80% chance of survival.
Surviving doesn't mean being cured does it?
There are no semantics nor pedantry involved, just a basic understanding of the difference between the two terms.

Your second sentence suggests you've forgotten to take your meds again.

you remind of that old joke ...a plane crashed on the border between france and spain.where do they the bury the survivors?


80% survival of what ?

beckybecky
80% survival of what ?

""""The woman had an 80% chance of survival had she had the appropriate treatment early enough. She didn't and she died as a direct result of it. That's what this is all about.

Is it that hard to figure out? She could have went with the 80% chance on surviving with the chemo, or a certain death, and she didn't do the chemo, and she died.

Really.....and this relates to beta-blockers prior to surgery, or to statins...
Did the big pharma boogyman get her? Sounds like bad choices...
I'm confused.

beckybecky

Pardon?

beckybecky

Pardon?

beckybecky

Pardon?

beckybecky
reply to post by Bakatono

 

high dose vitamin d 4000 to 10000 i.u might be the answer plus magnesium ,vitamin k and c.
go to vitamin d council website for thousands of research papers and advice.

that pardon? poster works for big pharma as he accidentally admitted in another post.

he also claim a cure rate of 80% for chemo when everyone knows it is 3% over 5 years.

Which post did I admit I worked for big pharma?
Link it.
Was it the one where another poster said he did and you said it was me then back-tracked and tried to make out I had multiple usernames?
Is that the one?
That poster (crazewok I think it was) deliberately said he used to work for them and has repeated that several times. There was no accident about it.

And link where I've claimed a "cure rate" for chemo anywhere.
I think I said in a reply to you earlier that there's no cure so why would I suggest otherwise?
I leave that up to liars like you.

And again, the 3% which is bandied around is from an Australian study that looked into the effect of chemo in cancers which generally don't respond to chemo or use chemo as a minor part of the therapy.

But don't let the facts get in the way of one of your sentences becky.
You never do.

ahhh you have been caughtout again:-

Below the post you said 80%.Shall I remind you?

""""The woman had an 80% chance of survival had she had the appropriate treatment early enough. She didn't and she died as a direct result of it. That's what this is all about. Chemotherapy is treatment of cancer with chemicals. Radiation is a separate therapy altogether (as is surgery). Different cancers respond to different therapies and some have better outcomes than others. No-one says that there is 100% chance of a cure with standard therapies but the sooner it's diagnosed and treated the better it will be. That's why there are 560,000 deaths per year of cancer even though 1,600,000 (that's over one and a half million just in case you thought it was 160000) get cancer every year. That means over one million DON'T die of cancer every year.Text""


See? do'es your ailing memory recall your own words.Your your your oun own posts condemn you.

80% you said.

As God is my witness and may Lord Jesus smite me dead if i lie. YOU you you ou u said 80% above.Hoist by your petard.

edit on 3-2-2014 by beckybecky because: (no reason given)

Can you point out in that where I said "cure rate" as chance of survival and being cured are very different indeed

I'd look to the skies if I were you you ou u as there might well be some smiting, smiting, smite going on soon.

you said 80%. now you trying to backtrack and hide behind in semantic pedantry.

what you got against Australians anyway.Are they not good enough for you.why the zenophobia.

Yep, I said an 80% chance of survival.
Surviving doesn't mean being cured does it?
There are no semantics nor pedantry involved, just a basic understanding of the difference between the two terms.

Your second sentence suggests you've forgotten to take your meds again.

you remind of that old joke ...a plane crashed on the border between france and spain.where do they the bury the survivors?


80% survival of what ?

You see, when you don't even understand the first thing about cancer and it's treatment why are you even bothering to comment on it?
Trolling or ignorance?

I'll write this next bit s l o w l y so you can keep up.

If the cancer cannot be removed completely it can be treated in such a way as to keep it benign.
You are not cured of the cancer, you still have it but the treatment is stopping bad things from happening.
If you don't have the treatment or have treatment that doesn't work (like the woman this thread is about), bad things will happen.
Therefore effective treatment=survival
Non-effective treatment=death.

Pardon?

beckybecky

Pardon?

beckybecky

Pardon?

beckybecky

Pardon?

beckybecky
reply to post by Bakatono

 

high dose vitamin d 4000 to 10000 i.u might be the answer plus magnesium ,vitamin k and c.
go to vitamin d council website for thousands of research papers and advice.

that pardon? poster works for big pharma as he accidentally admitted in another post.

he also claim a cure rate of 80% for chemo when everyone knows it is 3% over 5 years.

Which post did I admit I worked for big pharma?
Link it.
Was it the one where another poster said he did and you said it was me then back-tracked and tried to make out I had multiple usernames?
Is that the one?
That poster (crazewok I think it was) deliberately said he used to work for them and has repeated that several times. There was no accident about it.

And link where I've claimed a "cure rate" for chemo anywhere.
I think I said in a reply to you earlier that there's no cure so why would I suggest otherwise?
I leave that up to liars like you.

And again, the 3% which is bandied around is from an Australian study that looked into the effect of chemo in cancers which generally don't respond to chemo or use chemo as a minor part of the therapy.

But don't let the facts get in the way of one of your sentences becky.
You never do.

ahhh you have been caughtout again:-

Below the post you said 80%.Shall I remind you?

""""The woman had an 80% chance of survival had she had the appropriate treatment early enough. She didn't and she died as a direct result of it. That's what this is all about. Chemotherapy is treatment of cancer with chemicals. Radiation is a separate therapy altogether (as is surgery). Different cancers respond to different therapies and some have better outcomes than others. No-one says that there is 100% chance of a cure with standard therapies but the sooner it's diagnosed and treated the better it will be. That's why there are 560,000 deaths per year of cancer even though 1,600,000 (that's over one and a half million just in case you thought it was 160000) get cancer every year. That means over one million DON'T die of cancer every year.Text""


See? do'es your ailing memory recall your own words.Your your your oun own posts condemn you.

80% you said.

As God is my witness and may Lord Jesus smite me dead if i lie. YOU you you ou u said 80% above.Hoist by your petard.

edit on 3-2-2014 by beckybecky because: (no reason given)

Can you point out in that where I said "cure rate" as chance of survival and being cured are very different indeed

I'd look to the skies if I were you you ou u as there might well be some smiting, smiting, smite going on soon.

you said 80%. now you trying to backtrack and hide behind in semantic pedantry.

what you got against Australians anyway.Are they not good enough for you.why the zenophobia.

Yep, I said an 80% chance of survival.
Surviving doesn't mean being cured does it?
There are no semantics nor pedantry involved, just a basic understanding of the difference between the two terms.

Your second sentence suggests you've forgotten to take your meds again.

you remind of that old joke ...a plane crashed on the border between france and spain.where do they the bury the survivors?


80% survival of what ?

You see, when you don't even understand the first thing about cancer and it's treatment why are you even bothering to comment on it?
Trolling or ignorance?

I'll write this next bit s l o w l y so you can keep up.

If the cancer cannot be removed completely it can be treated in such a way as to keep it benign.
You are not cured of the cancer, you still have it but the treatment is stopping bad things from happening.
If you don't have the treatment or have treatment that doesn't work (like the woman this thread is about), bad things will happen.
Therefore effective treatment=survival
Non-effective treatment=death.

so what is the cure rate then?

what is the survival rate then?

is a a survivor cured or not on in some kind of limbo state?

which part of cancer treatment do i not understand?

Would that be the part where thy blast you with gamma radiation.inject some toxic drugs.charge $2 million and you still die a slow and horrible death.And the "doctor/ornithologist" does not get prosecuted for it?

questions you need to answer.

beckybecky

is a a survivor cured or not on in some kind of limbo state?

It's called remission

A decrease in or disappearance of signs and symptoms of cancer. In partial remission, some, but not all, signs and symptoms of cancer have disappeared. In complete remission, all signs and symptoms of cancer have disappeared, although cancer still may be in the body.

www.cancer.gov...

beckybecky

Pardon?

beckybecky

Pardon?

beckybecky

Pardon?

beckybecky

Pardon?

beckybecky
reply to post by Bakatono

 

high dose vitamin d 4000 to 10000 i.u might be the answer plus magnesium ,vitamin k and c.
go to vitamin d council website for thousands of research papers and advice.

that pardon? poster works for big pharma as he accidentally admitted in another post.

he also claim a cure rate of 80% for chemo when everyone knows it is 3% over 5 years.

Which post did I admit I worked for big pharma?
Link it.
Was it the one where another poster said he did and you said it was me then back-tracked and tried to make out I had multiple usernames?
Is that the one?
That poster (crazewok I think it was) deliberately said he used to work for them and has repeated that several times. There was no accident about it.

And link where I've claimed a "cure rate" for chemo anywhere.
I think I said in a reply to you earlier that there's no cure so why would I suggest otherwise?
I leave that up to liars like you.

And again, the 3% which is bandied around is from an Australian study that looked into the effect of chemo in cancers which generally don't respond to chemo or use chemo as a minor part of the therapy.

But don't let the facts get in the way of one of your sentences becky.
You never do.

ahhh you have been caughtout again:-

Below the post you said 80%.Shall I remind you?

""""The woman had an 80% chance of survival had she had the appropriate treatment early enough. She didn't and she died as a direct result of it. That's what this is all about. Chemotherapy is treatment of cancer with chemicals. Radiation is a separate therapy altogether (as is surgery). Different cancers respond to different therapies and some have better outcomes than others. No-one says that there is 100% chance of a cure with standard therapies but the sooner it's diagnosed and treated the better it will be. That's why there are 560,000 deaths per year of cancer even though 1,600,000 (that's over one and a half million just in case you thought it was 160000) get cancer every year. That means over one million DON'T die of cancer every year.Text""


See? do'es your ailing memory recall your own words.Your your your oun own posts condemn you.

80% you said.

As God is my witness and may Lord Jesus smite me dead if i lie. YOU you you ou u said 80% above.Hoist by your petard.

edit on 3-2-2014 by beckybecky because: (no reason given)

Can you point out in that where I said "cure rate" as chance of survival and being cured are very different indeed

I'd look to the skies if I were you you ou u as there might well be some smiting, smiting, smite going on soon.

you said 80%. now you trying to backtrack and hide behind in semantic pedantry.

what you got against Australians anyway.Are they not good enough for you.why the zenophobia.

Yep, I said an 80% chance of survival.
Surviving doesn't mean being cured does it?
There are no semantics nor pedantry involved, just a basic understanding of the difference between the two terms.

Your second sentence suggests you've forgotten to take your meds again.

you remind of that old joke ...a plane crashed on the border between france and spain.where do they the bury the survivors?


80% survival of what ?

You see, when you don't even understand the first thing about cancer and it's treatment why are you even bothering to comment on it?
Trolling or ignorance?

I'll write this next bit s l o w l y so you can keep up.

If the cancer cannot be removed completely it can be treated in such a way as to keep it benign.
You are not cured of the cancer, you still have it but the treatment is stopping bad things from happening.
If you don't have the treatment or have treatment that doesn't work (like the woman this thread is about), bad things will happen.
Therefore effective treatment=survival
Non-effective treatment=death.

so what is the cure rate then?

what is the survival rate then?

is a a survivor cured or not on in some kind of limbo state?

which part of cancer treatment do i not understand?

Would that be the part where thy blast you with gamma radiation.inject some toxic drugs.charge $2 million and you still die a slow and horrible death.And the "doctor/ornithologist" does not get prosecuted for it?

questions you need to answer.

edit on 6-2-2014 by beckybecky because: (no reason given)

You didn't respond to my earlier post about the total numbers of cancer sufferers in the US.
You know the one where two-thirds of people with cancer DON'T die.
Did that just pass you by did it?
Or the fact that the survival rate for cancer overall has increased by 20% over the last decade.

Which cancers would you like individual stats for as cancer isn't just one disease but hundreds of different ones?
I answered the question about survival in a manner a 5 year old could understand. If you don't get it then that's your issue.

So which part of cancer treatment don't you understand eh?
Probably the whole part of performing different treatments for different cancers?
Some are treated by surgery (and not just scalpel based either, radio-frequency ablation, laser ablation etc).
Some are treated by chemo (yep, it's nasty stuff but what it's treating is far worse).
Some are treated by radiotherapy (gamma rays aren't used these days as much as they were. Have you been watching Hulk movies again? There's also different ways to administer the radiotherapy without "blasting" it, brachytherapy, interstitial therapy etc).
Some are treated by a combination of the above.
Some can't be treated.

Your oncologist (not "ornithologist" although they may well be bird-watchers...who knows what they do in their spare time) will give you a good idea of what to expect and what the chances are. If there's little chance of success they'll tell you that and advise against treatment.
You do have the final say though.

I remember in another thread you kept on saying that you "knew a cure for cancer" but wouldn't post it.
Eventually you hinted at what it was.
Do you remember what it was?
Yes, that's the one, the Bob Beck Protocol.

If anyone isn't familiar with that it uses a combination of electric pulses, colloidal silver and ozonated water to "cure" you of everything from cancer and AIDS to impetigo.
Oh, I forgot, it uses magic as well. It has to as the other parts of the treatment are completely ineffective.
And there's absolutely no evidence of it having worked for anything on anyone.
Unless of course you can provide some?

So getting back to the "which part of cancer treatment do i not understand?".
Well if you believe the Bob Beck stuff works, pretty much everything.

beckybecky been owned.

But we really can't deny ignorance until this thread is closed. As it is no longer on topic, or the topic has changed to debating magic and demons (not dangers of treatments).

Pardon?

beckybecky

Pardon?

beckybecky

Pardon?

beckybecky

Pardon?

beckybecky

Pardon?

beckybecky
reply to post by Bakatono

 

high dose vitamin d 4000 to 10000 i.u might be the answer plus magnesium ,vitamin k and c.
go to vitamin d council website for thousands of research papers and advice.

that pardon? poster works for big pharma as he accidentally admitted in another post.

he also claim a cure rate of 80% for chemo when everyone knows it is 3% over 5 years.

Which post did I admit I worked for big pharma?
Link it.
Was it the one where another poster said he did and you said it was me then back-tracked and tried to make out I had multiple usernames?
Is that the one?
That poster (crazewok I think it was) deliberately said he used to work for them and has repeated that several times. There was no accident about it.

And link where I've claimed a "cure rate" for chemo anywhere.
I think I said in a reply to you earlier that there's no cure so why would I suggest otherwise?
I leave that up to liars like you.

And again, the 3% which is bandied around is from an Australian study that looked into the effect of chemo in cancers which generally don't respond to chemo or use chemo as a minor part of the therapy.

But don't let the facts get in the way of one of your sentences becky.
You never do.

ahhh you have been caughtout again:-

Below the post you said 80%.Shall I remind you?

""""The woman had an 80% chance of survival had she had the appropriate treatment early enough. She didn't and she died as a direct result of it. That's what this is all about. Chemotherapy is treatment of cancer with chemicals. Radiation is a separate therapy altogether (as is surgery). Different cancers respond to different therapies and some have better outcomes than others. No-one says that there is 100% chance of a cure with standard therapies but the sooner it's diagnosed and treated the better it will be. That's why there are 560,000 deaths per year of cancer even though 1,600,000 (that's over one and a half million just in case you thought it was 160000) get cancer every year. That means over one million DON'T die of cancer every year.Text""


See? do'es your ailing memory recall your own words.Your your your oun own posts condemn you.

80% you said.

As God is my witness and may Lord Jesus smite me dead if i lie. YOU you you ou u said 80% above.Hoist by your petard.

edit on 3-2-2014 by beckybecky because: (no reason given)

Can you point out in that where I said "cure rate" as chance of survival and being cured are very different indeed

I'd look to the skies if I were you you ou u as there might well be some smiting, smiting, smite going on soon.

you said 80%. now you trying to backtrack and hide behind in semantic pedantry.

what you got against Australians anyway.Are they not good enough for you.why the zenophobia.

Yep, I said an 80% chance of survival.
Surviving doesn't mean being cured does it?
There are no semantics nor pedantry involved, just a basic understanding of the difference between the two terms.

Your second sentence suggests you've forgotten to take your meds again.

you remind of that old joke ...a plane crashed on the border between france and spain.where do they the bury the survivors?


80% survival of what ?

You see, when you don't even understand the first thing about cancer and it's treatment why are you even bothering to comment on it?
Trolling or ignorance?

I'll write this next bit s l o w l y so you can keep up.

If the cancer cannot be removed completely it can be treated in such a way as to keep it benign.
You are not cured of the cancer, you still have it but the treatment is stopping bad things from happening.
If you don't have the treatment or have treatment that doesn't work (like the woman this thread is about), bad things will happen.
Therefore effective treatment=survival
Non-effective treatment=death.

so what is the cure rate then?

what is the survival rate then?

is a a survivor cured or not on in some kind of limbo state?

which part of cancer treatment do i not understand?

Would that be the part where thy blast you with gamma radiation.inject some toxic drugs.charge $2 million and you still die a slow and horrible death.And the "doctor/ornithologist" does not get prosecuted for it?

questions you need to answer.

edit on 6-2-2014 by beckybecky because: (no reason given)

You didn't respond to my earlier post about the total numbers of cancer sufferers in the US.
You know the one where two-thirds of people with cancer DON'T die.
Did that just pass you by did it?
Or the fact that the survival rate for cancer overall has increased by 20% over the last decade.

Which cancers would you like individual stats for as cancer isn't just one disease but hundreds of different ones?
I answered the question about survival in a manner a 5 year old could understand. If you don't get it then that's your issue.

So which part of cancer treatment don't you understand eh?
Probably the whole part of performing different treatments for different cancers?
Some are treated by surgery (and not just scalpel based either, radio-frequency ablation, laser ablation etc).
Some are treated by chemo (yep, it's nasty stuff but what it's treating is far worse).
Some are treated by radiotherapy (gamma rays aren't used these days as much as they were. Have you been watching Hulk movies again? There's also different ways to administer the radiotherapy without "blasting" it, brachytherapy, interstitial therapy etc).
Some are treated by a combination of the above.
Some can't be treated.

Your oncologist (not "ornithologist" although they may well be bird-watchers...who knows what they do in their spare time) will give you a good idea of what to expect and what the chances are. If there's little chance of success they'll tell you that and advise against treatment.
You do have the final say though.

I remember in another thread you kept on saying that you "knew a cure for cancer" but wouldn't post it.
Eventually you hinted at what it was.
Do you remember what it was?
Yes, that's the one, the Bob Beck Protocol.

If anyone isn't familiar with that it uses a combination of electric pulses, colloidal silver and ozonated water to "cure" you of everything from cancer and AIDS to impetigo.
Oh, I forgot, it uses magic as well. It has to as the other parts of the treatment are completely ineffective.
And there's absolutely no evidence of it having worked for anything on anyone.
Unless of course you can provide some?

So getting back to the "which part of cancer treatment do i not understand?".
Well if you believe the Bob Beck stuff works, pretty much everything.

i think you are floundering now in you own morass of made up figures.

you said 1.6 million get cancer and 560000 bite the dust annually because chemo don't work.
according to your figures that's 65% success rate.Then you claim it's 80% suddenly.

You also neglected to mention that of the 1.6 million who are diagnosed with cancer don;t really have cancer
but misdiagnosed.which means your figures are wrong.for examplt it is possible that only 700000 genuinely have cancer and the rest are misdiagnosed.this would tie in with the 3% success rate of chemo as proved by the Australian study.

misdiagnosis means at least 25% don't have have cancer but get blasted with chemo and toxic cocktails to make them get cancer because TREATMENT makes MONEY MONEY MONEY ALWAYS SO SUNNY FOR YOU.

gamma radiation gives you cancer.take a trip to fukosimashma.

chemo gives you cancer.

tamoxifen gives you cancer...OMG it's actually LISTED IN THE SIDE EFFECTS OMG OMG...

Did not yuo not hear about that doctor who deliberately misdiagnosed patients with cancer and made
a whopping $60 MILLION after blasting them with chemo? any comments on that.

we can only wonder many criminal orthocologists are out there doing the same.

beckybecky

i think you are floundering now in you own morass of made up figures.

you said 1.6 million get cancer and 560000 bite the dust annually because chemo don't work.
according to your figures that's 65% success rate.Then you claim it's 80% suddenly.

You also neglected to mention that of the 1.6 million who are diagnosed with cancer don;t really have cancer
but misdiagnosed.which means your figures are wrong.for examplt it is possible that only 700000 genuinely have cancer and the rest are misdiagnosed.this would tie in with the 3% success rate of chemo as proved by the Australian study.

misdiagnosis means at least 25% don't have have cancer but get blasted with chemo and toxic cocktails to make them get cancer because TREATMENT makes MONEY MONEY MONEY ALWAYS SO SUNNY FOR YOU.

gamma radiation gives you cancer.take a trip to fukosimashma.

chemo gives you cancer.

tamoxifen gives you cancer...OMG it's actually LISTED IN THE SIDE EFFECTS OMG OMG...

Did not yuo not hear about that doctor who deliberately misdiagnosed patients with cancer and made
a whopping $60 MILLION after blasting them with chemo? any comments on that.

we can only wonder many criminal orthocologists are out there doing the same.

You really need to read what others post with a bit more care.
And really try to not make up what I've posted as it makes you look really dishonest.

"you said 1.6 million get cancer and 560000 bite the dust annually because chemo don't work.
according to your figures that's 65% success rate.Then you claim it's 80% suddenly."
Nope, wrong again. Read my previous posts.
The only 80% I've mentioned was for the specific type of cancer the woman in that thread had.
I'll mention it again as you seem, for some reason, not to be able to comprehend it but there are many types of cancers. Some have a better success rate than others and overall, using ALL types of conventional treatment (not just chemo) there's around a 65% success rate in the treatment.
Do you need me to explain what "success rate" is or can you remember it?

Yes, there's too much misdiagnoses of cancers (NOTE: these misdiagnoses include diagnosing one type of cancer in mistake for another. It's not like you go in with an ingrowing toenail and come out being told you have hepatic cancer...) but what you fail to mention is that there's a hell of a lot of people who get cancer who get diagnosed far too late or missed completely.
Pop that into your equation and see how the numbers add up then.
(Oh, by the way, 1,600,000 minus 25% doesn't equal 700,000. I think you need to calculate that again as your made up number is way, way, way out.).

Yes, extended exposure to radiation can give you cancer that's why the dose is controlled very tightly to minimise that risk.
Remember, the benefits outweigh the risk.
It's extremely rare but prolonged treatment with some types of chemo can provoke cancers (only if the recipient is in specific high-risk groups though) so that's why the type and dose is controlled to minimise the risk.
Remember, the benefits outweigh the risk.

I believe there was ONE oncologist who deliberately misdiagnosed patients, a Dr Farid Fata.
He was caught and I believe he's in jail now awaiting trial.
So that's one out of tens of thousands.

However, how many quacks and charlatans are pushing their worthless "cures" on people and are virtually untouchable?
Lets see....Stanislaw Burzynski, Kelley Eidem, Gaston Naessens, Robert O Young (although I think he's just been arrested, again!), Charlotte Gerson, Nicholas Gonzalez plus all of the people pushing nonsense like the Bob Beck Protocol(!), laetrile, fasting, psychic therapy, raw foods and juicing, alkaline diets, shark cartilage, magic etc etc etc.
None of them do it for free.
None of them have to show any results.
They do make a lot of promises though.
And none of the treatments they offer are successful.
So that's ALL of them. Every last one will defraud you and ultimately kill you.

If I'm ever unfortunate enough to contract cancer, if there's a choice between being treated by conventional or alternative methods, I know which one I'll take (and it won't involve magic).