State doesn't let mom make medical decision for daughter with cancer

a reply to: ScepticScot

Dude, you have an amazing ability to read things into words that are not there. You said I had no idea how a scientific study worked, and I replied that that's what I do. I used a figure of speech that one of us didn't, and that the one who did understand how they worked wasn't you. That means it was me, You then said that was a lie. Now, which part of it was a lie?

ARE YOU A SCIENTIST? You already admitted you are not.

That means there is only one part of my statement that could be a lie according to you, and that would be that I work with scientific studies. That is, of course, the truth. So that, sir, makes you a liar... again.

But discounting that, it also in turn means you apparently (think you) know what I do. I assumed that meant you had some way of seeing me in real time to make that determination... tongue in cheek, of course. I have sensors in my shop to detect any unauthorized EM transmissions. Call me paranoid. I work on what I consider some pretty serious stuff here, and it's not that big a deal to build what I want.

You have no clue what you are talking about. You have implied that a decision by an authority figure must always override a decision made by a non-authority figure, then immediately claimed you do not follow authority figures advise. You have stated that the child should have been taken from the mother, then claimed you did not mean there was a parenting issue. You have claimed that the child is either not in pain or not facing an and of life situation... well, since you also are quite adamant about her low chances of survival, that leaves not in pain, which is of course a lie.

Every post makes zero sense when taken in conjunction with any other post. You are not debating; you are throwing around word salads while accusing others of doing what you are. That might work on CNN, but it don't work with me. I know BS when I see it.

Now, if YOU want to actually discuss the issue, then fine; post. If you don't, that's fine too; don't post. But understand I will be calling out your BS every time I see it.

TheRedneck

a reply to: JAGStorm

and my personal favorite, blowing tobacco up someones bum (that's where we get don't blow smoke up my #$$ from)

I always wondered where that saying came from. Thank you!

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

One of us conducts research as an integral part of their occupation.

Hint: it ain't you.

TheRedneck

What you said.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

One of us conducts research as an integral part of their occupation.

Hint: it ain't you.

TheRedneck

Wrong again.

And are you really attempting to argue that the mother's actions are a study?

What I said.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

Now you know what I do? What, you got a hidden camera in here? If you do, let me know when that voltage reading reaches 12.3 volts, willya?

You are hilarious!

TheRedneck

What you said.

Now where did I claim to know what you did?

a reply to: ScepticScot

I know what I said, and I know what you said. ATS has both of our posts preserved for posterity. You want to play repost and twist, play it by yourself.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck


I found this page on liver resection. It doesn't sound low risk to me.

www.nhs.uk...

TheRedneck

By me, not to retype it...

I read it and it doesn't give much data. Saying 1 in 30 doesn't take into account those that are serious high risk too, so if you are high risk you might have a 50% chance of dying and with the young girl she could have close to zero chance. The average is .5% and the young girl is close to 0%.

If you are low risk it doesn't mean 3.33% just as the high risk doesn't mean 3.33% either. In other words that statement isn't something you should base your argument on.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

I know what I said, and I know what you said. ATS has both of our posts preserved for posterity. You want to play repost and twist, play it by yourself.

TheRedneck

I did repost.

It shows you LOLing at the idea of knowing what someone does on an anonymous online platform.

Only problem is It was you doing that.

LOL.

Desperately need to do the same with anti vaxxer (pro plague) parents who keep their kids from life saving vaccinations also. Kids gotta suffer because a Karen "read all about things and stuff on Facebook and Twitter"...

This world frightens me

originally posted by: sarra1833
Desperately need to do the same with anti vaxxer (pro plague) parents who keep their kids from life saving vaccinations also. Kids gotta suffer because a Karen "read all about things and stuff on Facebook and Twitter"...

This world frightens me

I dont think its really the same thing.

While I think anti vax parents are fundamentally wrong there isn't the same level of immediate risk.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Exactly where did I type the letters "LOL"?

See, I can play that game too.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

Exactly where did I type the letters "LOL"?

See, I can play that game too.

TheRedneck

LOL emoticon.

I would have thought you would know that

LOL

a reply to: ScepticScot

That's not what you said. Why are you lying about me?

Hmmm... this is fun.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

That's not what you said. Why are you lying about me?

Hmmm... this is fun.

TheRedneck

Yes you did.

I could show you but it would be like trying to show a poodle how to waterski.

Your game your rules.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Just more lies. You can't back up what you said so you revert to teaching watersports to canines.

TheRedneck












[Hope you're enjoying this as much as I am.)

a reply to: TheRedneck
It would be real nice if you could answer Xtrozero post which is on topic.
Xtrozero did not actually reply to you... but did quote your post.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: ScepticScot

Just more lies. You can't back up what you said so you revert to teaching watersports to canines.

TheRedneck












[Hope you're enjoying this as much as I am.)

I think It's hilarious how long a mod will keep pushing off topic posts, personal attacks on members and misrepresenting posts.

Shall we carry on?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

It would be real nice if you could answer Xtrozero post which is on topic.

I didn't see much to answer. As I already stated, the operation could be considered low risk, but there could be seemingly unrelated issues that cause the risk to significantly rise. The doctors involved should have explained this to the mother already; I have never heard of a US doctor not explaining the operation.

It's also possible that the mother heard something different from what the surgeon intended to say. I had two consultations with the surgeon before actually having my bypass. The first time, I swear I heard "unable to drive for 6 months." I simply could not afford to do that at the time due to other obligations. The second time, when he mentioned I had already put it off once, I told him why and he shook his head and said "No, 6 weeks!"

Now, I'm not going to argue over whether or not he said months or weeks the first time, but the point is that sometimes information gets tangled up. Maybe I misheard; maybe he mispoke. Either way, I made my decision based on what I heard. We really don't have full information here on what the mother was thinking en route to this issue coming to a head, so it's really all speculation.

Your other point is valid; ScepticScot and I are seriously off topic, so I am calling an end to playing cat and mouse with him. It's becoming boring anyway. Please forgive me for the indulgence.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Boadicea

Question:

Are you claiming that Cannabinoids alone will cure cancer ?

Yes or no.

Nope. I have no idea one way or another. And to the best of my knowledge, not enough research has been done to determine such... at least no such research has been published.

What I stated -- very clearly -- is that our immune systems require cannabinoids, that we have very specific receptors for cannabinoids which activate/stimulate immune processes and functions.

Follow up question, if yes...

Um... my answer was "nope"... but I'll respond anyway.

Can you please provide me with some peer reviewed studies that support this claim.

Is your Google broken? Did you fail Google 101? Here's a clue: Pubmed has virtually any and every peer reviewed medical study/review published.

Here's another clue: It is and has been illegal to conduct research on cannabis, therefore studies are limited, though that is changing.

And no am not interested in looking over your previous threads.

If you want to embrace ignorance, okay... that's your choice.

Not my problem.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: Boadicea

Thanks. I'll read through that as time allows.

You're welcome.

Most of my research since I wrote that thread was been focused on my own specific health needs, so I'm sorry I'm not better versed in cancer research and cannabinoids. I would also hope that more research has been done in the last few years, so there might be new and better research available, especially given the increased interest and availability of medical cannabis. Even then, there is still much research to be done.