The Reason Why There's No Cure For Cancer Revealed
Mayor Of R'lyeh
pants around their ankles to doing research...unless you want to count
the study of Japanese midget scat videos as 'research'.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18070.html
Cuss and discuss
GreyCloud
The only reason I can figure out why there isn't a main stream cancer
cure is that they can't find an expensive
way to conjure up a cure. A 2% cure rate under chemotherapy is about
the same as playing a slot machine hoping
to hit the jackpot. And of course there are tons of supposedly snake
oil out that that claims to cure cancer.
There are a few MDs out there that can cure it, but are very afraid to
mention it for fear of getting their license
revoked. They have to stay inside the establishments box in order to
practice medicine.
So it looks like these researchers already know that they can't push out
a cancer cure so they just go online
to watch porn videos instead, otherwise out the door they go. Besides,
there seems to be a push on the Eugenics
side of medical care as it is.
--
"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."
William G. McAdoo.
American Government official (1863-1941).
MuahMan
Ask Fritzy Titzy, he's part of the "research" establishment. Not only
does he do NOTHING, he makes you pay for his porn watching with your
hard earned tax dollars! Ahhh socialism at it's finest.
Dave Fritzinger
wrote:
Sigh...
A couple of things wrong with your story.
1) most of the money for cancer research comes from the NCI, not the
NSF.
2) The study was about NSF *employees*. Now, I may be incorrect about
this, but I believe (and I know you will correct me if I am wrong)
that most NSF funded research is done extramurally, IOW, the NSF funds
grants to individual researchers. I don't believe that the NSF has
much of in internal research program at all. Therefore, these
employees who are looking at porn aren't involve in actual research,
just administering grants, etc. Things are different at the NIH
institutions, including the NCI, all of which have active intramural
research programs in addition to the grants they fund.
Dark
"Mayor Of R'lyeh" <mayor.o...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:00d84877-56bd-432b...@e12g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
Vincent
"Dark" <da...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4ac54c5b$0$31257$607e...@cv.net...
> Jimmy Lee, that's an old story and it is BS like most of your stuff.
That jerk posts while under the influence. His pickled brain must be the
size of a walnut. Maybe his god Steve Jobs will by him a new liver. Or give
him his old one.
ZnU
GreyCloud <cum...@mist.com> wrote:
Conspiracy theories are unnecessary here. "Cancer" isn't really a single
disease, and the notion that there's going to be a single discovery some
day which cures all types of cancer probably doesn't make sense. Some
cancers which used to be nearly 100% fatal now have a 90% or better
recovery rate, while science has made little progress with other cancers.
--
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
ed
<snip>
> The only reason I can figure out why there isn't a main stream cancer
> cure is that they can't find an expensive
> way to conjure up a cure.
oh for fucks sake greycloud, you're f'in crazy. there's so many cheap
cures / vaccines / treatments for stuff that used to be deadly, even a
whacko like you can't believe these conspiracy theories.
ZnU
<dadce2cc-8109-47d9...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
You're talking to someone who considered it plausible that the Chinese
military was operating within the United States and was on its way to
secure Chinese assets at banks in New York[1], and that information to
this effect was somehow being suppressed except for a few Internet
rumors.
[1] How this works with modern electronic currency is anyone's guess.
I'm picturing a bunch of guys with machine guns standing around in front
of server racks.
Sandman
ZnU <z...@fake.invalid> wrote:
> In article
> <dadce2cc-8109-47d9...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
> ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 1, 11:17�am, GreyCloud <cumu...@mist.com> wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > The only reason I can figure out why there isn't a main stream cancer
> > > cure is that they can't find an expensive
> > > way to conjure up a cure.
> >
> > oh for fucks sake greycloud, you're f'in crazy. there's so many cheap
> > cures / vaccines / treatments for stuff that used to be deadly, even a
> > whacko like you can't believe these conspiracy theories.
>
> You're talking to someone who considered it plausible that the Chinese
> military was operating within the United States and was on its way to
> secure Chinese assets at banks in New York[1], and that information to
> this effect was somehow being suppressed except for a few Internet
> rumors.
>
> [1] How this works with modern electronic currency is anyone's guess.
> I'm picturing a bunch of guys with machine guns standing around in front
> of server racks.
Haha!
--
Sandman[.net]
Vincent
"ZnU" <z...@fake.invalid> wrote in message
news:znu-FC9396.0...@Port80.Individual.NET...
> In article
> <dadce2cc-8109-47d9...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
> ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 1, 11:17 am, GreyCloud <cumu...@mist.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>> > The only reason I can figure out why there isn't a main stream cancer
>> > cure is that they can't find an expensive
>> > way to conjure up a cure.
>>
>> oh for fucks sake greycloud, you're f'in crazy. there's so many cheap
>> cures / vaccines / treatments for stuff that used to be deadly, even a
>> whacko like you can't believe these conspiracy theories.
>
> You're talking to someone who considered it plausible that the Chinese
> military was operating within the United States and was on its way to
> secure Chinese assets at banks in New York[1], and that information to
> this effect was somehow being suppressed except for a few Internet
> rumors.
>
> [1] How this works with modern electronic currency is anyone's guess.
> I'm picturing a bunch of guys with machine guns standing around in front
> of server racks.
>
A cheap fix for cancer would effectivly kill the medical industry.
Hydrogen fuel would effectivy kill the oil industry.
The list is much longer. If you can't see how you're getting fucked on a
daily basis, if you want to deny it or you're too frightend to complain,
enjoy your ignorance and fear but don't bash those in the know..
GreyCloud
And how much money have people donated for a cancer cure?
And where are the cures for cancer?
Do you really think that a 2% cure rate using chemotherapy is a good choice
when you consider the odds of success are stacked against you?
Snit
10/3/09 10:19 AM:
> ed wrote:
>> On Oct 1, 11:17 am, GreyCloud <cumu...@mist.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> The only reason I can figure out why there isn't a main stream cancer
>>> cure is that they can't find an expensive
>>> way to conjure up a cure.
>>
>> oh for fucks sake greycloud, you're f'in crazy. there's so many cheap
>> cures / vaccines / treatments for stuff that used to be deadly, even a
>> whacko like you can't believe these conspiracy theories.
>
> And how much money have people donated for a cancer cure?
> And where are the cures for cancer?
> Do you really think that a 2% cure rate using chemotherapy is a good choice
> when you consider the odds of success are stacked against you?
Can you quote where you got that 2% cure rate stat? And what would you
suggest as a better treatment?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
GreyCloud
> In article
> <dadce2cc-8109-47d9...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
> ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 1, 11:17 am, GreyCloud <cumu...@mist.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> The only reason I can figure out why there isn't a main stream cancer
>>> cure is that they can't find an expensive
>>> way to conjure up a cure.
>> oh for fucks sake greycloud, you're f'in crazy. there's so many cheap
>> cures / vaccines / treatments for stuff that used to be deadly, even a
>> whacko like you can't believe these conspiracy theories.
>
> You're talking to someone who considered it plausible that the Chinese
> military was operating within the United States and was on its way to
> secure Chinese assets at banks in New York[1], and that information to
> this effect was somehow being suppressed except for a few Internet
> rumors.
>
> [1] How this works with modern electronic currency is anyone's guess.
> I'm picturing a bunch of guys with machine guns standing around in front
> of server racks.
>
The typical brainwashed sheeple response. You'd believe anybody that
claims to have any kind
of authority as the total and unbiased truth. Do you honestly believe
their BS when their only
concern is profits?
And your modern currency system is still slowly collapsing. Soon the
dollar will be worthless.
Hope you are prepared for this.
GreyCloud
They believe in the BS presented by the great white priesthood of so
called science. :-))
It is a controll paradigm and they are absolutely blind to it.
My sister went to Mexico for thyroid cancer treatment. She received a
russian developed cancer
cure and it worked. Another man she met had advanced bone cancer and
was written off by US
medical doctors for dead. Yet in a month he left there with no pain and
was able to walk again
and cancer free. But for my sister, when she came back home and then
checked in with the same
doctor that diagnosed her said she was cancer free. Then he conned her
into taking some vaccines
because she was down in Mexico. A month later she died, but it wasn't
from cancer.
ZnU
GreyCloud <cum...@mist.com> wrote:
> ZnU wrote:
> > In article
> > <dadce2cc-8109-47d9...@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
> > ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Oct 1, 11:17 am, GreyCloud <cumu...@mist.com> wrote: <snip>
> >>> The only reason I can figure out why there isn't a main stream
> >>> cancer cure is that they can't find an expensive way to conjure
> >>> up a cure.
> >> oh for fucks sake greycloud, you're f'in crazy. there's so many
> >> cheap cures / vaccines / treatments for stuff that used to be
> >> deadly, even a whacko like you can't believe these conspiracy
> >> theories.
> >
> > You're talking to someone who considered it plausible that the
> > Chinese military was operating within the United States and was on
> > its way to secure Chinese assets at banks in New York[1], and that
> > information to this effect was somehow being suppressed except for
> > a few Internet rumors.
> >
> > [1] How this works with modern electronic currency is anyone's
> > guess. I'm picturing a bunch of guys with machine guns standing
> > around in front of server racks.
> >
>
> The typical brainwashed sheeple response. You'd believe anybody that
> claims to have any kind of authority as the total and unbiased truth.
> Do you honestly believe their BS when their only concern is profits?
Hey, turns out there weren't actually any Chinese troops on their way to
New York that time, though, were there?
> And your modern currency system is still slowly collapsing. Soon the
> dollar will be worthless. Hope you are prepared for this.
Please explain how you know that "my" modern currency system is still
slowly collapsing.
--
Autymn D. C.
I gave the cure here, http://agnosticsfacingdeath.blogspot.com/2009/06/my-first-blog.html#c2877822481471764474,
but he would not answer!
GreyCloud
They are already here... you just don't get out enough to see is all.
But things do change. Why are we now starting to see our own troops
patrolling some of our
cities during protests... like Pittsburg, PA? Sort of a violation of
Posse Comitatus.
>> And your modern currency system is still slowly collapsing. Soon the
>> dollar will be worthless. Hope you are prepared for this.
>
> Please explain how you know that "my" modern currency system is still
> slowly collapsing.
>
Easy,... go look up the USDX past history. Right now since the G20
summit meeting there is a move
to choose another currency reserve other than the dollar. This will
only weaken the dollar further.
The vast majority of other countries have quit buying US T bills.
They're tired of financing our debt.
GreyCloud
No, I heard it from my sisters' Dr. when he offered chemo, but said that
it was only 2% effective.
He also went on to state that 90% of most people that use chemo, have a
relapse after 5 years if they
fall into the 2% success. I'd get better odds in Vegas. She was in bad
pain. She went to Mexico and
took a Russian cure and her pain left after a couple of days. After two
weeks she left cured.
Unfortunately, her doctor also said she was cured but conned her into
taking some vaccines because
she went to Mexico... can't trust them down there being clean he said.
Two weeks later she died.
GreyCloud
The problem is that the vast majority will believe the garbage that
their doctors tell them and won't trust anyone
that isn't part of the medical establishment. The Russians have a cure
tho. Just that you can't get it in the US.
Snit
10/5/09 7:59 PM:
> Snit wrote:
>> GreyCloud stated in post d6ydnQzkZoAMGlrX...@bresnan.com on
>> 10/3/09 10:19 AM:
>>
>>> ed wrote:
>>>> On Oct 1, 11:17 am, GreyCloud <cumu...@mist.com> wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>> The only reason I can figure out why there isn't a main stream cancer
>>>>> cure is that they can't find an expensive
>>>>> way to conjure up a cure.
>>>> oh for fucks sake greycloud, you're f'in crazy. there's so many cheap
>>>> cures / vaccines / treatments for stuff that used to be deadly, even a
>>>> whacko like you can't believe these conspiracy theories.
>>> And how much money have people donated for a cancer cure?
>>> And where are the cures for cancer?
>>> Do you really think that a 2% cure rate using chemotherapy is a good choice
>>> when you consider the odds of success are stacked against you?
>>
>> Can you quote where you got that 2% cure rate stat? And what would you
>> suggest as a better treatment?
>>
> No, I heard it from my sisters' Dr. when he offered chemo, but said that it
> was only 2% effective. He also went on to state that 90% of most people that
> use chemo, have a relapse after 5 years if they fall into the 2% success. I'd
> get better odds in Vegas. She was in bad pain. She went to Mexico and took a
> Russian cure and her pain left after a couple of days. After two weeks she
> left cured.
I decided to do a bit of research to prove you wrong about chemo. Instead
this is what I found:
<http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/chemotherapy-quotes.html>
-----
"Two to 4% of cancers respond to chemotherapy...
-----
<http://alternatehealthtips.blogspot.com/2007/10/what-is-success-rate-of-che
motherapy.html>
-----
Even so, the study concluded that overall, chemotherapy contributes
just over 2 percent to improved survival in cancer patients!
-----
I did find a few cancers where this was not the case:
<http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/dra
matic-improvement-in-chemotherapy-success-rate-400248.html>
-----
By using the test to select patients, they say chemotherapy
could eradicate the tumour in 70 per cent of those treated,
compared with 44 per cent now.
-----
With that said, when my mother was dying of cancer, she was on chemo not to
save her but to slow the progress. It might have. A little. And lead to
more suffering - she wisely, I think, decided to stop the chemo after a few
experiences with it.
> Unfortunately, her doctor also said she was cured but conned her into taking
> some vaccines because she went to Mexico... can't trust them down there being
> clean he said.
> Two weeks later she died.
What of? And sorry to hear that, sincerely.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Autymn D. C.
> > 10/3/09 10:19 AM:
>
> >> ed wrote:
> >>> On Oct 1, 11:17 am, GreyCloud <cumu...@mist.com> wrote:
> >>> <snip>
> >>>> The only reason I can figure out why there isn't a main stream cancer
> >>>> cure is that they can't find an expensive
> >>>> way to conjure up a cure.
> >>> oh for fucks sake greycloud, you're f'in crazy. there's so many cheap
> >>> cures / vaccines / treatments for stuff that used to be deadly, even a
> >>> whacko like you can't believe these conspiracy theories.
> >> And how much money have people donated for a cancer cure?
> >> And where are the cures for cancer?
> >> Do you really think that a 2% cure rate using chemotherapy is a good choice
> >> when you consider the odds of success are stacked against you?
>
> > Can you quote where you got that 2% cure rate stat? And what would you
> > suggest as a better treatment?
>
> No, I heard it from my sisters' Dr. when he offered chemo, but said that
> it was only 2% effective.
> He also went on to state that 90% of most people that use chemo, have a
> relapse after 5 years if they
> fall into the 2% success. I'd get better odds in Vegas. She was in bad
which stage?
> pain. She went to Mexico and
> took a Russian cure and her pain left after a couple of days. After two
> weeks she left cured.
which stage?
> Unfortunately, her doctor also said she was cured but conned her into
> taking some vaccines because
con -> conf
-Aut
GreyCloud
No, even chemo has been debated as to whether it even does anything.
http://www.1cure4cancer.com/controlcancer/information/chemo.htm
John Cairns, professor of microbiology at Harvard University, published
a devastating 1985 critique in Scientific American.
"Aside from certain rare cancers, it is not possible to detect any
sudden changes in the death rates for any of the major cancers that
could be credited to chemotherapy. Whether any of the common cancers can
be cured by chemotherapy has yet to be established."
And this is the problem still present to this day. When one goes in for
chemo, the body is being badly poisoned by this crap. How
can the body stave off other bugs while its immune system is under
attack? It really makes me wonder about doctors when John Cairns
says that chemo is basically questionable.
> Instead
> this is what I found:
>
> <http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/chemotherapy-quotes.html>
> -----
> "Two to 4% of cancers respond to chemotherapy...
> -----
>
Which is about what I have heard. Between 2 to 4% response. Very poor
odds.
We need at least a 98% cure rate.
> <http://alternatehealthtips.blogspot.com/2007/10/what-is-success-rate-of-che
> motherapy.html>
> -----
> Even so, the study concluded that overall, chemotherapy contributes
> just over 2 percent to improved survival in cancer patients!
> -----
>
> I did find a few cancers where this was not the case:
>
> <http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/dra
> matic-improvement-in-chemotherapy-success-rate-400248.html>
> -----
> By using the test to select patients, they say chemotherapy
> could eradicate the tumour in 70 per cent of those treated,
> compared with 44 per cent now.
> -----
>
Most likely not a major cancer.
> With that said, when my mother was dying of cancer, she was on chemo not to
> save her but to slow the progress. It might have. A little. And lead to
> more suffering - she wisely, I think, decided to stop the chemo after a few
> experiences with it.
All chemo does is attack the immune system and causes more damage. But
the whole point is,
chemo didn't cure her. One thing I learned from the Mexico clinic is
that there are cheap
ways of eliminating the pain, as it did for my sister. She was on heavy
duty pain meds and still
the pain wasn't totally gone. The mexican doctor detoxed her system and
the pain left.
You won't see any US medical doctors doing a detox to get rid of the
toxins in peoples systems which is a major
cause of disease in the first place. The current american diet of fast
foods and processed foods for convenience
is one of the big causes here. These industries only care that the food
tastes good, not whether there is any long
term health hazards involved. They are only interested in making a
profit. Most of these processed foods
have MSG, GMO foods such as corn and soy, and the real biggie is the
hydrogenated oils put into foods that
the FDA says are artery cloggers that cause strokes and heart attacks.
That is why NYC banned hydrogenated
oils in restaurant foods.
>
>> Unfortunately, her doctor also said she was cured but conned her into taking
>> some vaccines because she went to Mexico... can't trust them down there being
>> clean he said.
>> Two weeks later she died.
>
> What of? And sorry to hear that, sincerely.
>
We really aren't sure, but there are reports from concerned doctors that
a chemical known as Squalene is now
being mixed in with the vaccines that caused the Gulf War Syndrome. It
all depends if one wants to believe them or not.
Another chemical that is used in the processing of vaccines is mercury.
I think that this is what killed her.
http://honestnutrition.blogspot.com/2009/01/whats-in-your-vaccine.html
"Common substances found in vaccines include:
Aluminum gels or salts of aluminum which are added as adjuvants to help
the vaccine stimulate a better response to the vaccine. Adjuvants help
promote an earlier, more potent response, and more persistent immune
response to the vaccine.
Antibiotics which are added to some vaccines to prevent the growth of
germs (bacteria) during production and storage of the vaccine.
Egg protein is found in influenza and yellow fever vaccines, which are
prepared using chicken eggs. Ordinarily, persons who are able to eat
eggs or egg products safely can receive these vaccines.
Formaldehyde is used to inactivate bacterial products for toxoid
vaccines, (these are vaccines that use an inactive bacterial toxin to
produce immunity.) It is also used to kill unwanted viruses and bacteria
that might contaminate the vaccine during production.
Monosodium glutamate (MSG) and 2-phenoxy-ethanol which are used as
stabilizers in a few vaccines to help the vaccine remain unchanged when
the vaccine is exposed to heat, light, acidity, or humidity.
Thimerosal is a mercury-containing preservative that is added to vials
of vaccine that contain more than one dose to prevent contamination and
growth of potentially harmful bacteria."
And of course the current swine flu vaccine situation isn't as good as
the news has hyped it up to be.
Recently Katherine Sebelius, the Health and Human Services Secretary,
granted legal immunity for vaccine manufacturers during the stage 6
pandemic declared by the WHO. Even more troubling than the new vaccines
or antivirals themselves, is the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA)
declared by the FDA, which enables the use of expired stockpiles of
Tamiflu or Relenza, and non-compliance with label requirements. The EUA
authority will also permit the FDA to allow the use of �unapproved or
uncleared medical products� during an established emergency.
The stock of vaccine the governments purchased, has been fast tracked
for approval by the FDA. Health officials admit that the clinical tests
are about dosage amounts, and not safety. So the new vaccines being
approved for the fall campaign, have the potential to cause severe harm
or death, due to the lack of safety tests.
Looks like pure greed to me. Hype the problem way out of proportion and
then provide the solution, while corporate pharmaceuticals
get rich over nothing.
GreyCloud
Late stage. The problem was her medical insurance... an HMO, that
didn't tell her
that she had thyroid cancer at the first testing. She went back 6
months later for another
test and the doctor claimed he didn't find anything wrong. She got a
second opinion from
another doctor and told her she had late stage thyroid cancer.
>> pain. She went to Mexico and
>> took a Russian cure and her pain left after a couple of days. After two
>> weeks she left cured.
>
> which stage?
>
Very late stage. The cancer was so bad that she had a stoma installed
so she could breath.
>> Unfortunately, her doctor also said she was cured but conned her into
>> taking some vaccines because
>
> con -> conf
>
> -Aut
>
>> she went to Mexico... can't trust them down there being clean he said.
>> Two weeks later she died.
MuahMan
The problem is, we have people like Dave FritzyTitzy the socialist
doing the research. He can't even pick a proper computer, you think
he's gonna find a cure for anything?!?!?!?! Not bloody likely.
Rotten Apple
"MuahMan" <mua...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b3ec4d7e-2246-48b0...@p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Everybody else where he works uses Windows. He's odd man out.
Dave Fritzinger
Again, Brian, I know you can't stand me, mainly because it is so easy
for me to make you look like a fool, but you really shouldn't display
your deficiencies, not to mention your hate, so publicly. You are only
diminishing yourself, if that is indeed possible for you...
MuahMan
No, I love all persons. I just can't stand what people like you stand
for. Your goal in "research" is to ensure that your government funding
continues for as long as possible. Which means NOT finding solutions
for societies ills but rather finding solutions to trick government
officials into continuing funding. Private industry is where one
should turn for cures, as they have the financial and moral motivation
to actually accomplish something. If you fail to make real gains in
business, you go out of business.
Dave Fritzinger
You are truly stupid, Brian. Let me give you a hint, though I doubt
you will understand. If it weren't for government funding of research,
most of the basic discoveries you depend on would never have happened.
This is for 2 reasons, at least. First, companies do not, in general,
fund basic research, since they have to show a profit in the short
term, while basic research makes discoveries in the long term. Second,
the scientists who make the discoveries, in academia, government labs,
and in corporate labs, are all trained in academic labs. And, the vast
majority work in labs that are supported by government grants. You are
very lucky in that the discoveries made during the last 40 years or so
are supporting the US economy now. This includes discoveries that made
the modern pharmaceutical industry and the biotech industry possible.
Finally, Brian, you are a bloody hypocrite, in that you have
complained that we aren't spending enough money on cancer research,
but then complain that we are spending money on cancer research.
If I were you, Brian, I would truly just shut up until you get a clue.
Snit
aa3e8738-b7a9-49de...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com on 10/6/09
2:51 PM:
>> No, I love all persons. I just can't stand what people like you stand
>> for. Your goal in "research" is to ensure that your government funding
>> continues for as long as possible. Which means NOT finding solutions
>> for societies ills but rather finding solutions to trick government
>> officials into continuing funding. �Private industry is where one
>> should turn for cures, as they have the financial and moral motivation
>> to actually accomplish something. �If you fail to make real gains in
>> business, you go out of business.
>
> You are truly stupid, Brian. Let me give you a hint, though I doubt
> you will understand. If it weren't for government funding of research,
> most of the basic discoveries you depend on would never have happened.
> This is for 2 reasons, at least. First, companies do not, in general,
> fund basic research, since they have to show a profit in the short
> term, while basic research makes discoveries in the long term. Second,
> the scientists who make the discoveries, in academia, government labs,
> and in corporate labs, are all trained in academic labs. And, the vast
> majority work in labs that are supported by government grants. You are
> very lucky in that the discoveries made during the last 40 years or so
> are supporting the US economy now. This includes discoveries that made
> the modern pharmaceutical industry and the biotech industry possible.
> Finally, Brian, you are a bloody hypocrite, in that you have
> complained that we aren't spending enough money on cancer research,
> but then complain that we are spending money on cancer research.
>
> If I were you, Brian, I would truly just shut up until you get a clue.
Maybe he should look up what ARPANET was... and who funded it.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
10/6/09 1:42 PM:
...
>>> No, I heard it from my sisters' Dr. when he offered chemo, but said that it
>>> was only 2% effective. He also went on to state that 90% of most people that
>>> use chemo, have a relapse after 5 years if they fall into the 2% success.
>>> I'd get better odds in Vegas. She was in bad pain. She went to Mexico and
>>> took >>> a Russian cure and her pain left after a couple of days. After two
>>> weeks she left cured.
>>>
>> I decided to do a bit of research to prove you wrong about chemo.
>
> No, even chemo has been debated as to whether it even does anything.
>
> http://www.1cure4cancer.com/controlcancer/information/chemo.htm
>
> John Cairns, professor of microbiology at Harvard University, published
> a devastating 1985 critique in Scientific American.
>
> "Aside from certain rare cancers, it is not possible to detect any
> sudden changes in the death rates for any of the major cancers that
> could be credited to chemotherapy. Whether any of the common cancers can
> be cured by chemotherapy has yet to be established."
>
> And this is the problem still present to this day. When one goes in for
> chemo, the body is being badly poisoned by this crap. How can the body stave
> off other bugs while its immune system is under attack? It really makes me
> wonder about doctors when John Cairns says that chemo is basically
> questionable.
I understand the theory behind it - but if it is really as useless as it
seems then it should not be done.
>> Instead this is what I found:
>>
>> <http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/chemotherapy-quotes.html>
>> -----
>> "Two to 4% of cancers respond to chemotherapy...
>> -----
>
> Which is about what I have heard. Between 2 to 4% response. Very poor
> odds.
> We need at least a 98% cure rate.
Cancer is really not one disease - it is a whole class. Finding a cure for
the whole class that gets us that high of a success rate will take a long
time.
>> <http://alternatehealthtips.blogspot.com/2007/10/what-is-success-rate-of-che
>> motherapy.html>
>> -----
>> Even so, the study concluded that overall, chemotherapy contributes
>> just over 2 percent to improved survival in cancer patients!
>> -----
>>
>> I did find a few cancers where this was not the case:
>>
>> <http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/dra
>> matic-improvement-in-chemotherapy-success-rate-400248.html>
>> -----
>> By using the test to select patients, they say chemotherapy
>> could eradicate the tumour in 70 per cent of those treated,
>> compared with 44 per cent now.
>> -----
>
> Most likely not a major cancer.
Breast cancer. A very common (major) one.
>> With that said, when my mother was dying of cancer, she was on chemo not to
>> save her but to slow the progress. It might have. A little. And lead to
>> more suffering - she wisely, I think, decided to stop the chemo after a few
>> experiences with it.
>
> All chemo does is attack the immune system and causes more damage.
Well, the idea is that it stops cells from replicating (dividing). The idea
is that cancer cells will be harmed more.
> But the whole point is, chemo didn't cure her.
Nor was she told it would. She was told it *might* extend her life a few
months.
> One thing I learned from the Mexico clinic is that there are cheap ways of
> eliminating the pain, as it did for my sister. She was on heavy duty pain
> meds and still the pain wasn't totally gone. The mexican doctor detoxed her
> system and the pain left. You won't see any US medical doctors doing a detox
> to get rid of the toxins in peoples systems which is a major cause of disease
> in the first place.
I would like to see research done on the alternative methods. Right now,
research is done mostly on things which are possible to patent and sell...
so if both garlic oil and a patentable drug are thought to possibly help
with some condition, which is the one where the money will go to have it
tested? The answer is obvious and a place where Capitalism fails.
> The current american diet of fast foods and processed foods for convenience is
> one of the big causes here. These industries only care that the food tastes
> good, not whether there is any long term health hazards involved.
And tasting good is a matter of, well, taste. I find most fast food and
other packaged products to be lacking. In a few minutes I will be heading
off to get my weekly allotment from a local coop farm I am a part of.
> They are only interested in making a profit. Most of these processed foods
> have MSG, GMO foods such as corn and soy, and the real biggie is the
> hydrogenated oils put into foods that the FDA says are artery cloggers that
> cause strokes and heart attacks. That is why NYC banned hydrogenated oils in
> restaurant foods.
I eat very little partially hydrogenated oils. I agree... they are nasty
for you.
>>> Unfortunately, her doctor also said she was cured but conned her into taking
>>> some vaccines because she went to Mexico... can't trust them down there
>>> being clean he said. Two weeks later she died.
>>
>> What of? And sorry to hear that, sincerely.
>
> We really aren't sure,
Was there an official cause?
> authority will also permit the FDA to allow the use of �unapproved or
> uncleared medical products� during an established emergency.
>
> The stock of vaccine the governments purchased, has been fast tracked
> for approval by the FDA. Health officials admit that the clinical tests
> are about dosage amounts, and not safety. So the new vaccines being
> approved for the fall campaign, have the potential to cause severe harm
> or death, due to the lack of safety tests.
>
> Looks like pure greed to me. Hype the problem way out of proportion and
> then provide the solution, while corporate pharmaceuticals
> get rich over nothing.
Not sure it is pure greed - though that no doubt plays a part. I think
people are just working to get a treatment for the swine flu very quickly
before it spreads heavily.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ed
arpanet is a bad basis of comparison for what dave is talking about
(basic research).
Snit
19ef05b2-f83d-4944...@k41g2000vbt.googlegroups.com on 10/6/09
4:00 PM:
It is a good example of how government funded research has made a *huge*
difference. There are many other examples, of course, but that one ties
into a technology we are all using.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ed
> ed stated in post
<snip>
> >>> You are truly stupid, Brian. Let me give you a hint, though I doubt
> >>> you will understand. If it weren't for government funding of research,
> >>> most of the basic discoveries you depend on would never have happened.
> >>> This is for 2 reasons, at least. First, companies do not, in general,
> >>> fund basic research, since they have to show a profit in the short
> >>> term, while basic research makes discoveries in the long term. Second,
> >>> the scientists who make the discoveries, in academia, government labs,
> >>> and in corporate labs, are all trained in academic labs. And, the vast
> >>> majority work in labs that are supported by government grants. You are
> >>> very lucky in that the discoveries made during the last 40 years or so
> >>> are supporting the US economy now. This includes discoveries that made
> >>> the modern pharmaceutical industry and the biotech industry possible.
> >>> Finally, Brian, you are a bloody hypocrite, in that you have
> >>> complained that we aren't spending enough money on cancer research,
> >>> but then complain that we are spending money on cancer research.
>
> >>> If I were you, Brian, I would truly just shut up until you get a clue.
>
> >> Maybe he should look up what ARPANET was... and who funded it.
>
> > arpanet is a bad basis of comparison for what dave is talking about
> > (basic research).
>
> It is a good example of how government funded research has made a *huge*
> difference. There are many other examples, of course, but that one ties
> into a technology we are all using.
no doubt. but dave was talking about basic discoveries. arpanet
fundamentally doesn't fall into this category, so if you want to point
out something for muahman, you should pick something else. ;D
ed
> > One thing I learned from the Mexico clinic is that there are cheap ways of
> > eliminating the pain, as it did for my sister. She was on heavy duty pain
> > meds and still the pain wasn't totally gone. The mexican doctor detoxed her
> > system and the pain left. You won't see any US medical doctors doing a detox
> > to get rid of the toxins in peoples systems which is a major cause of disease
> > in the first place.
>
> I would like to see research done on the alternative methods. Right now,
> research is done mostly on things which are possible to patent and sell...
> so if both garlic oil and a patentable drug are thought to possibly help
> with some condition, which is the one where the money will go to have it
> tested? The answer is obvious and a place where Capitalism fails.
pffffft, there are plenty of (shady) capitalists willing to promise
you all sorts of benefits from detox and sell you detox treatments.
<snip>
> > They are only interested in making a profit. Most of these processed foods
> > have MSG, GMO foods such as corn and soy, and the real biggie is the
> > hydrogenated oils put into foods that the FDA says are artery cloggers that
> > cause strokes and heart attacks. That is why NYC banned hydrogenated oils in
> > restaurant foods.
>
> I eat very little partially hydrogenated oils. I agree... they are nasty
> for you.
nyc didn't ban hydrogenated oils. they banned trans fats. which
would (mostly) ban *partially* hydrogenated oils.
<snip>
Snit
598d3449-fc07-470d...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com on 10/6/09
4:39 PM:
> Snit wrote:
>> GreyCloud stated in post xr2dncmtI7wDNlbX...@bresnan.com on
> <snip>
>>> One thing I learned from the Mexico clinic is that there are cheap ways of
>>> eliminating the pain, as it did for my sister. She was on heavy duty pain
>>> meds and still the pain wasn't totally gone. The mexican doctor detoxed her
>>> system and the pain left. You won't see any US medical doctors doing a detox
>>> to get rid of the toxins in peoples systems which is a major cause of
>>> disease
>>> in the first place.
>>
>> I would like to see research done on the alternative methods. Right now,
>> research is done mostly on things which are possible to patent and sell...
>> so if both garlic oil and a patentable drug are thought to possibly help
>> with some condition, which is the one where the money will go to have it
>> tested? The answer is obvious and a place where Capitalism fails.
>
> pffffft, there are plenty of (shady) capitalists willing to promise
> you all sorts of benefits from detox and sell you detox treatments.
And you think that is a success? How?
> <snip>
>>> They are only interested in making a profit. Most of these processed foods
>>> have MSG, GMO foods such as corn and soy, and the real biggie is the
>>> hydrogenated oils put into foods that the FDA says are artery cloggers that
>>> cause strokes and heart attacks. That is why NYC banned hydrogenated oils in
>>> restaurant foods.
>>
>> I eat very little partially hydrogenated oils. I agree... they are nasty
>> for you.
>
> nyc didn't ban hydrogenated oils. they banned trans fats. which
> would (mostly) ban *partially* hydrogenated oils.
OK.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
764edf58-0d2a-41e2...@v20g2000vbs.googlegroups.com on 10/6/09
4:30 PM:
It is an example of where MuahMan is wrong. That is good enough for me. :)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ed
> >> GreyCloud stated in post xr2dncmtI7wDNlbXnZ2dnUVZ_oOdn...@bresnan.com on
> > <snip>
> >>> One thing I learned from the Mexico clinic is that there are cheap ways of
> >>> eliminating the pain, as it did for my sister. She was on heavy duty pain
> >>> meds and still the pain wasn't totally gone. The mexican doctor detoxed her
> >>> system and the pain left. You won't see any US medical doctors doing a detox
> >>> to get rid of the toxins in peoples systems which is a major cause of
> >>> disease
> >>> in the first place.
>
> >> I would like to see research done on the alternative methods. Right now,
> >> research is done mostly on things which are possible to patent and sell...
> >> so if both garlic oil and a patentable drug are thought to possibly help
> >> with some condition, which is the one where the money will go to have it
> >> tested? The answer is obvious and a place where Capitalism fails.
>
> > pffffft, there are plenty of (shady) capitalists willing to promise
> > you all sorts of benefits from detox and sell you detox treatments.
>
> And you think that is a success? How?
didn't say it was. just pointing out that the implication that there
isn't research into it because there's nothing to sell is bogus.
people will sell it even without the research. :P
Snit
45c2e2b1-66ea-4805...@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com on 10/6/09
4:55 PM:
> On Oct 6, 4:52 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> ed stated in post
>>> Snit wrote:
>>>> GreyCloud stated in post xr2dncmtI7wDNlbXnZ2dnUVZ_oOdn...@bresnan.com on
>>> <snip>
>>>>> One thing I learned from the Mexico clinic is that there are cheap ways of
>>>>> eliminating the pain, as it did for my sister. She was on heavy duty pain
>>>>> meds and still the pain wasn't totally gone. The mexican doctor detoxed
>>>>> her system and the pain left. You won't see any US medical doctors doing a
>>>>> detox to get rid of the toxins in peoples systems which is a major cause
>>>>> of disease in the first place.
>>>>>
>>>> I would like to see research done on the alternative methods. Right now,
>>>> research is done mostly on things which are possible to patent and sell...
>>>> so if both garlic oil and a patentable drug are thought to possibly help
>>>> with some condition, which is the one where the money will go to have it
>>>> tested? The answer is obvious and a place where Capitalism fails.
>>>>
>>> pffffft, there are plenty of (shady) capitalists willing to promise you all
>>> sorts of benefits from detox and sell you detox treatments.
>>>
>> And you think that is a success? How?
>>
> didn't say it was.
Ok, so you said nothing to counter my claim that this is a failing of
Capitalism (which is not to say Capitalism has nothing to offer!)
> just pointing out that the implication that there isn't research into it
> because there's nothing to sell is bogus. people will sell it even without the
> research. :P
Oh. You missed the point I made and came up with your own "implication"
that was not part of my idea at all. OK.
...
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Dave Fritzinger
*Everything* he says is an example of where Muahman is wrong.
8^)
Snit
5:11 PM:
Well, there is that. :)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ed
also didn't say it was part of your idea, and there was no
implication. just pointing out that the implication that there isn't
ed
> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> > On Oct 1, 11:17 am, GreyCloud <cumu...@mist.com> wrote:
> >> Mayor Of R'lyeh wrote:
> >>> Apparently most 'scientists' prefer sitting at their desks with their
> >>> pants around their ankles to doing research...unless you want to count
> >>> the study of Japanese midget scat videos as 'research'.
> >>>http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18070.html
> >>> Cuss and discuss
> >> The only reason I can figure out why there isn't a main stream cancer
> >> cure is that they can't find an expensive
> >> way to conjure up a cure. A 2% cure rate under chemotherapy is about
> >> the same as playing a slot machine hoping
> >> to hit the jackpot. And of course there are tons of supposedly snake
> >> oil out that that claims to cure cancer.
> >> There are a few MDs out there that can cure it, but are very afraid to
> >> mention it for fear of getting their license
> >> revoked. They have to stay inside the establishments box in order to
> >> practice medicine.
> >> So it looks like these researchers already know that they can't push out
> >> a cancer cure so they just go online
> >> to watch porn videos instead, otherwise out the door they go. Besides,
> >> there seems to be a push on the Eugenics
> >> side of medical care as it is.
>
> > but he would not answer!
>
> The problem is that the vast majority will believe the garbage that
> their doctors tell them and won't trust anyone
> that isn't part of the medical establishment. The Russians have a cure
> tho. Just that you can't get it in the US.
so what's the cure?
Snit
fae15b81-5768-4579...@u36g2000prn.googlegroups.com on 10/6/09
9:17 PM:
> On Oct 6, 5:00�ｿｽpm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> ed stated in post
>> 45c2e2b1-66ea-4805-a50f-33fc64a35...@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com on 10/6/09
>> 4:55 PM:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 6, 4:52 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>> ed stated in post
>>>>> Snit wrote:
>>>>>> GreyCloud stated in post xr2dncmtI7wDNlbXnZ2dnUVZ_oOdn...@bresnan.com on
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>> One thing I learned from the Mexico clinic is that there are cheap ways
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> eliminating the pain, as it did for my sister. �ｿｽShe was on heavy duty
>>>>>>> pain
>>>>>>> meds and still the pain wasn't totally gone. �ｿｽThe mexican doctor detoxed
>>>>>>> her system and the pain left. You won't see any US medical doctors doing
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> detox to get rid of the toxins in peoples systems which is a major cause
>>>>>>> of disease in the first place.
>>
>>>>>> I would like to see research done on the alternative methods. �ｿｽRight now,
>>>>>> research is done mostly on things which are possible to patent and
>>>>>> sell...
>>>>>> so if both garlic oil and a patentable drug are thought to possibly help
>>>>>> with some condition, which is the one where the money will go to have it
>>>>>> tested? �ｿｽThe answer is obvious and a place where Capitalism fails.
>>
>>>>> pffffft, there are plenty of (shady) capitalists willing to promise you
>>>>> all
>>>>> sorts of benefits from detox and sell you detox treatments.
>>
>>>> And you think that is a success? �ｿｽHow?
>>
>>> didn't say it was.
>>
>> Ok, so you said nothing to counter my claim that this is a failing of
>> Capitalism (which is not to say Capitalism has nothing to offer!)
>>
>>> just pointing out that the implication that there isn't research into it
>>> because there's nothing to sell is bogus. people will sell it even without
>>> the
>>> research. �ｿｽ:P
>>
>> Oh. �ｿｽYou missed the point I made and came up with your own "implication"
>> that was not part of my idea at all. �ｿｽOK.
>
> also didn't say it was part of your idea, and there was no implication. just
> pointing out that the implication that there isn't research into it because
> there's nothing to sell is bogus. people will sell it even without the
> research. :P
I agree that people will sell "snake oil". What I would like to see is
research done on the different snake oils, at least those where there is
some preliminary evidence they might do some good. I know there are some
groups doing this - government funded for the most part. They have been
able to find, for example, benefits of garlic oil for ear infections and
the like. Dr. Weil and others have been pushing such research for a
while... and while I do not always agree with Dr. Weil (he can be a bit of
an alarmist), overall he is willing to change his views as new information
is found, and that is to be respected.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Steve Hix
<aa3e8738-b7a9-49de...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Dave Fritzinger <dfri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> You are truly stupid, Brian. Let me give you a hint, though I doubt
> you will understand. If it weren't for government funding of research,
> most of the basic discoveries you depend on would never have happened.
That's sort of kinda true, almost, but only for a fairly short part of
recent history. It's not been true over the long term.
> This is for 2 reasons, at least. First, companies do not, in general,
> fund basic research, since they have to show a profit in the short
> term, while basic research makes discoveries in the long term.
Bell Labs. IBM research labs. Texas Instruments. Shockley Labs. Edison.
And that's only U.S. examples.
> Second,
> the scientists who make the discoveries, in academia, government labs,
> and in corporate labs, are all trained in academic labs.
Mostly, but not invariably true, and only mostly true in the fairly
recent past.
> And, the vast
> majority work in labs that are supported by government grants.
They do have their hands on the till, that has to be admitted.
> You are
> very lucky in that the discoveries made during the last 40 years or so
> are supporting the US economy now.
Actually, if you're thinking of basic principles, you'll have to push
that back as much as a century for the necessary foundational work.
> This includes discoveries that made
> the modern pharmaceutical industry and the biotech industry possible.
Pharma is a mixed issue, if for no other reason than that governmental
regulations defining how the process has to be done results in an end
cost to come up with one new significant drug of very nearly a $1B.
There are reasons other than naked greed that some medicines cost as
much as they do.
wetpixel
<cum...@mist.com> wrote:
> Mayor Of R'lyeh wrote:
>
> The only reason I can figure out why there isn't a main stream cancer
> cure is that they can't find an expensive
> way to conjure up a cure. A 2% cure rate under chemotherapy is about
> the same as playing a slot machine hoping
> to hit the jackpot. And of course there are tons of supposedly snake
> oil out that that claims to cure cancer.
> There are a few MDs out there that can cure it, but are very afraid to
> mention it for fear of getting their license
> revoked. They have to stay inside the establishments box in order to
> practice medicine.
> So it looks like these researchers already know that they can't push out
> a cancer cure so they just go online
> to watch porn videos instead, otherwise out the door they go. Besides,
> there seems to be a push on the Eugenics
> side of medical care as it is.
So why, if no one is talking about a real cure, do you figure there is
one?
wetpixel
<cum...@mist.com> wrote:
> And how much money have people donated for a cancer cure?
> And where are the cures for cancer?
Wait -- are you seriously suggesting that the reason there _must_ be a
cure is that people have _tried_ to cure it?
Do you really know that little about disease?
> Do you really think that a 2% cure rate using chemotherapy is a good choice
> when you consider the odds of success are stacked against you?
Well, no, but that's why people aren't happy to get cancer, GC.
If there were a good cure available, we wouldn't really care that much
-- it isn't even contagious.
wetpixel
<cum...@mist.com> wrote:
> No, I heard it from my sisters' Dr. when he offered chemo, but said that
> it was only 2% effective.
> He also went on to state that 90% of most people that use chemo, have a
> relapse after 5 years if they
> fall into the 2% success. I'd get better odds in Vegas.
Yes, you keep making that connotation -- but it wouldn't actually help
your cancer to go to Vegas.
You see, it isn't a matter of choosing which thing you want to do.
> She was in bad
> pain. She went to Mexico and
> took a Russian cure and her pain left after a couple of days. After two
> weeks she left cured.
> Unfortunately, her doctor also said she was cured but conned her into
> taking some vaccines because
> she went to Mexico... can't trust them down there being clean he said.
> Two weeks later she died.
I'm sorry, but that made me laugh a little.
You're sure cancer can be cured, with just a trip to a Maxican doctor
-- but visits to Mexico are fatal and incurable?
Dave Fritzinger
> In article
> <aa3e8738-b7a9-49de-9f07-e61a244ea...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> Dave Fritzinger <dfrit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > You are truly stupid, Brian. Let me give you a hint, though I doubt
> > you will understand. If it weren't for government funding of research,
> > most of the basic discoveries you depend on would never have happened.
>
> That's sort of kinda true, almost, but only for a fairly short part of
> recent history. It's not been true over the long term.
I would say it is pretty true for the last 40 years or so, ever since
the NIH got its "mojo".
>
> > This is for 2 reasons, at least. First, companies do not, in general,
> > fund basic research, since they have to show a profit in the short
> > term, while basic research makes discoveries in the long term.
>
> Bell Labs. IBM research labs. Texas Instruments. Shockley Labs. Edison.
>
> And that's only U.S. examples.
I'm not saying that no basic research goes on in corporate labs.
Indeed, even now a fair amount of basic research goes on in some
Biotech companies, such as Genentech. However, the amount of basic
research that goes on in a corporate setting is dwarfed by that which
goes on in government and academic labs, the majority of which is
government funded. Yes, there are other sources of funding (American
Cancer Society, American Heart Foundation, etc), but the funds they
have available is a fraction of what is needed.
>
> > Second,
> > the scientists who make the discoveries, in academia, government labs,
> > and in corporate labs, are all trained in academic labs.
>
> Mostly, but not invariably true, and only mostly true in the fairly
> recent past.
I don't think that is true. After all, if you are going to get a
Ph.D., you have to get it in an academic setting. I know that when I
got my degree, by far the greatest share of biomedical Ph.D's were
obtained in labs with government funding. And, it was much easier to
get government funding then than it is now.
>
> > And, the vast
> > majority work in labs that are supported by government grants.
>
> They do have their hands on the till, that has to be admitted.
Please remember that, relatively speaking, the amount of money for
research is much less than it was in the past. The NIH budget has been
essentially flat for the last 8 years or so, and success rates for
grant funding are dropping to record lows.
>
> > You are
> > very lucky in that the discoveries made during the last 40 years or so
> > are supporting the US economy now.
>
> Actually, if you're thinking of basic principles, you'll have to push
> that back as much as a century for the necessary foundational work.
Not so much. Many of the very basic discoveries were made in the last
40 years or so. This includes the discovery of restriction enzymes,
which allowed cloning and was the impetus for the biotech industry.
You have to include DNA sequencing, which only became doable in the
last 30 years or so. And, you have to include such basic knowledge as
the existence of RNA tumor viruses that replicate by making DNA copies
of their RNA genomes. This discovery was a paradigm breaking one.
>
> > This includes discoveries that made
> > the modern pharmaceutical industry and the biotech industry possible.
>
> Pharma is a mixed issue, if for no other reason than that governmental
> regulations defining how the process has to be done results in an end
> cost to come up with one new significant drug of very nearly a $1B.
Which has really nothing to do with the point I was making.
>
> There are reasons other than naked greed that some medicines cost as
> much as they do.
No doubt. I am involved in a startup company, and we are looking at
the costs for clinical trial. They are really high. Not in the $
billion range, but certainly in the $100 million dollar range.
Steve Hix
<7a3adb19-d3bc-40c3...@y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Dave Fritzinger <dfri...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 6, 8:32�pm, Steve Hix <se...@NOSPAMmac.comINVALID> wrote:
> > In article
> > <aa3e8738-b7a9-49de-9f07-e61a244ea...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> > �Dave Fritzinger <dfrit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > You are truly stupid, Brian. Let me give you a hint, though I doubt
> > > you will understand. If it weren't for government funding of research,
> > > most of the basic discoveries you depend on would never have happened.
> >
> > That's sort of kinda true, almost, but only for a fairly short part of
> > recent history. It's not been true over the long term.
>
> I would say it is pretty true for the last 40 years or so, ever since
> the NIH got its "mojo".
Was I arguing that it wasn't true in the short term? No.
> > > This is for 2 reasons, at least. First, companies do not, in general,
> > > fund basic research, since they have to show a profit in the short
> > > term, while basic research makes discoveries in the long term.
> >
> > Bell Labs. IBM research labs. Texas Instruments. Shockley Labs. Edison.
> >
> > And that's only U.S. examples.
>
> I'm not saying that no basic research goes on in corporate labs.
I didn't think you were; some lurking innocents might lack the
historical perspective, just giving them a bit of help.
GreyCloud
I agree, but the medical establishment seems to be pressured into doing it.
I have heard that it is a eugenics type of agenda, but I'm not convinced
yet.
To me it looks more like greed and that they could care less.
>
>>> Instead this is what I found:
>>>
>>> <http://www.globalhealingcenter.com/chemotherapy-quotes.html>
>>> -----
>>> "Two to 4% of cancers respond to chemotherapy...
>>> -----
>> Which is about what I have heard. Between 2 to 4% response. Very poor
>> odds.
>> We need at least a 98% cure rate.
>
> Cancer is really not one disease - it is a whole class. Finding a cure for
> the whole class that gets us that high of a success rate will take a long
> time.
Agreed, as per one of the articles I posted.
>
>>> <http://alternatehealthtips.blogspot.com/2007/10/what-is-success-rate-of-che
>>> motherapy.html>
>>> -----
>>> Even so, the study concluded that overall, chemotherapy contributes
>>> just over 2 percent to improved survival in cancer patients!
>>> -----
>>>
>>> I did find a few cancers where this was not the case:
>>>
>>> <http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/dra
>>> matic-improvement-in-chemotherapy-success-rate-400248.html>
>>> -----
>>> By using the test to select patients, they say chemotherapy
>>> could eradicate the tumour in 70 per cent of those treated,
>>> compared with 44 per cent now.
>>> -----
>> Most likely not a major cancer.
>
> Breast cancer. A very common (major) one.
>
Ok. There was a study done by a doctor that had written a book entitled
"Dress to Kill".
His studies have shown that in other third world countries the women do
not wear bras
and have a very low incidence of cancer.
His research concludes that it is the tight fitting bras that cause
breast cancer.
>>> With that said, when my mother was dying of cancer, she was on chemo not to
>>> save her but to slow the progress. It might have. A little. And lead to
>>> more suffering - she wisely, I think, decided to stop the chemo after a few
>>> experiences with it.
>> All chemo does is attack the immune system and causes more damage.
>
> Well, the idea is that it stops cells from replicating (dividing). The idea
> is that cancer cells will be harmed more.
>
That is their theory, but I also believe that it is very hard on the
body as well, considering that
ones hair will fall out and have other problems that go with it.
>> But the whole point is, chemo didn't cure her.
>
> Nor was she told it would. She was told it *might* extend her life a few
> months.
>
Well, this HMO doctor said it would. Not all doctors agree on this however.
>> One thing I learned from the Mexico clinic is that there are cheap ways of
>> eliminating the pain, as it did for my sister. She was on heavy duty pain
>> meds and still the pain wasn't totally gone. The mexican doctor detoxed her
>> system and the pain left. You won't see any US medical doctors doing a detox
>> to get rid of the toxins in peoples systems which is a major cause of disease
>> in the first place.
>
> I would like to see research done on the alternative methods. Right now,
> research is done mostly on things which are possible to patent and sell...
> so if both garlic oil and a patentable drug are thought to possibly help
> with some condition, which is the one where the money will go to have it
> tested? The answer is obvious and a place where Capitalism fails.
>
The Russians did do their research. The web seems to show this.
A lot of people agree that the pharmaceuticals are looking for a very
expensive mainstream cure.
>> The current american diet of fast foods and processed foods for convenience is
>> one of the big causes here. These industries only care that the food tastes
>> good, not whether there is any long term health hazards involved.
>
> And tasting good is a matter of, well, taste. I find most fast food and
> other packaged products to be lacking. In a few minutes I will be heading
> off to get my weekly allotment from a local coop farm I am a part of.
>
To make food taste better the manufacturers use MSG.
>> They are only interested in making a profit. Most of these processed foods
>> have MSG, GMO foods such as corn and soy, and the real biggie is the
>> hydrogenated oils put into foods that the FDA says are artery cloggers that
>> cause strokes and heart attacks. That is why NYC banned hydrogenated oils in
>> restaurant foods.
>
> I eat very little partially hydrogenated oils. I agree... they are nasty
> for you.
>
>>>> Unfortunately, her doctor also said she was cured but conned her into taking
>>>> some vaccines because she went to Mexico... can't trust them down there
>>>> being clean he said. Two weeks later she died.
>>> What of? And sorry to hear that, sincerely.
>> We really aren't sure,
>
> Was there an official cause?
>
That is where the family has filed a lawsuit. They seem to have enough
hard evidence
to show how and why. Still pending.
From what I've heard, the swine flu vaccine from 1976 fiasco is still
on hand and being repackaged for current use.
I guess that is why the legal system has taken away any liablility off
the medical system. I'm not sure, but I think
the government purchased a lot of 1976 swine flu vaccine and not much
got used due to the many deaths that occurred
from its use. So now, if you do take the swine flu vaccine and die from
it, you can't sue.
GreyCloud
> Snit wrote:
>> GreyCloud stated in post xr2dncmtI7wDNlbX...@bresnan.com on
> <snip>
>>> One thing I learned from the Mexico clinic is that there are cheap ways of
>>> eliminating the pain, as it did for my sister. She was on heavy duty pain
>>> meds and still the pain wasn't totally gone. The mexican doctor detoxed her
>>> system and the pain left. You won't see any US medical doctors doing a detox
>>> to get rid of the toxins in peoples systems which is a major cause of disease
>>> in the first place.
>> I would like to see research done on the alternative methods. Right now,
>> research is done mostly on things which are possible to patent and sell...
>> so if both garlic oil and a patentable drug are thought to possibly help
>> with some condition, which is the one where the money will go to have it
>> tested? The answer is obvious and a place where Capitalism fails.
>
> pffffft, there are plenty of (shady) capitalists willing to promise
> you all sorts of benefits from detox and sell you detox treatments.
>
And which one to use? Do you honestly think you can eat poisons that
toxify your system and
not suffer from the effects?
> <snip>
>>> They are only interested in making a profit. Most of these processed foods
>>> have MSG, GMO foods such as corn and soy, and the real biggie is the
>>> hydrogenated oils put into foods that the FDA says are artery cloggers that
>>> cause strokes and heart attacks. That is why NYC banned hydrogenated oils in
>>> restaurant foods.
>> I eat very little partially hydrogenated oils. I agree... they are nasty
>> for you.
>
> nyc didn't ban hydrogenated oils. they banned trans fats. which
> would (mostly) ban *partially* hydrogenated oils.
Trans fats are hydrogenated oils. Go to the FDA and look it up.
Snit
10/8/09 3:49 PM:
...
>>> I would like to see research done on the alternative methods. Right now,
>>> research is done mostly on things which are possible to patent and sell...
>>> so if both garlic oil and a patentable drug are thought to possibly help
>>> with some condition, which is the one where the money will go to have it
>>> tested? The answer is obvious and a place where Capitalism fails.
>>>
>> pffffft, there are plenty of (shady) capitalists willing to promise you all
>> sorts of benefits from detox and sell you detox treatments.
>
> And which one to use? Do you honestly think you can eat poisons that toxify
> your system and not suffer from the effects?
I would like to see some research done on the detox programs. I have looked
into some of them - the colon cleanses are mostly rubbish: the colon sheds
its "skin" so quickly that it is very, very hard for things to build up..
the gallbladder cleanses that claim to clean out stones do nothing of the
sort - what they tell you to look for is nothing at all like a real
gallstone.
This is not to say that all cleanses are rubbish. Milk thistle, for
example, has been shown to have restorative / "cleansing" properties for the
liver - though more research should be done (or has been and I just do not
know about it!) And just general fasting has been shown to have health
benefits.
>
>> <snip>
>>>> They are only interested in making a profit. Most of these processed foods
>>>> have MSG, GMO foods such as corn and soy, and the real biggie is the
>>>> hydrogenated oils put into foods that the FDA says are artery cloggers that
>>>> cause strokes and heart attacks. That is why NYC banned hydrogenated oils
>>>> in
>>>> restaurant foods.
>>> I eat very little partially hydrogenated oils. I agree... they are nasty
>>> for you.
>>
>> nyc didn't ban hydrogenated oils. they banned trans fats. which
>> would (mostly) ban *partially* hydrogenated oils.
>
> Trans fats are hydrogenated oils. Go to the FDA and look it up.
>
> http://www.bantransfats.com/
>
There are some non-artificially hydrogenated trans fats... but they overlap
quite a lot.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ed
> ed wrote:
<snip>
> > pffffft, there are plenty of (shady) capitalists willing to promise
> > you all sorts of benefits from detox and sell you detox treatments.
>
> And which one to use? Do you honestly think you can eat poisons that
> toxify your system and not suffer from the effects?
yes, you largely can (within the scope of what i believe you're
calling "poisons," but feel free to clarify).
> > <snip>
> >>> They are only interested in making a profit. Most of these processed foods
> >>> have MSG, GMO foods such as corn and soy, and the real biggie is the
> >>> hydrogenated oils put into foods that the FDA says are artery cloggers that
> >>> cause strokes and heart attacks. That is why NYC banned hydrogenated oils in
> >>> restaurant foods.
> >> I eat very little partially hydrogenated oils. I agree... they are nasty
> >> for you.
>
> > nyc didn't ban hydrogenated oils. they banned trans fats. which
> > would (mostly) ban *partially* hydrogenated oils.
>
> Trans fats are hydrogenated oils. Go to the FDA and look it up.
>
> http://www.bantransfats.com/
*partially* hydrogenated oils. there are *fully* hydrogenated oils
that are trans fat free.
GreyCloud
Which odds would you prefer: chemotherapy with about 2% odds or the
Russian drug with claims of 85% odds?
The fact that she did get cured made a believer out of me. And when it
fails, then the controlled media is all over
it like a bass on a june bug claiming the Mexican cures as bogus. Uh-huh.
Don't forget that more people die at the hands of doctors in the US than
people on the highways.
GreyCloud
> In article <d6ydnQzkZoAMGlrX...@bresnan.com>, GreyCloud
> <cum...@mist.com> wrote:
>
>> And how much money have people donated for a cancer cure?
>> And where are the cures for cancer?
>
> Wait -- are you seriously suggesting that the reason there _must_ be a
> cure is that people have _tried_ to cure it?
Many doctors have already found a cure, but have been told not to do it.
If they don't, they get their license yanked. Sounds pretty stupid to me.
You'd think that if he did discover a cure, then peer review should have
been the course of action.
>
> Do you really know that little about disease?
Sounds like you know next to nothing about the disease.
>
>
>> Do you really think that a 2% cure rate using chemotherapy is a good choice
>> when you consider the odds of success are stacked against you?
>
> Well, no, but that's why people aren't happy to get cancer, GC.
> If there were a good cure available, we wouldn't really care that much
> -- it isn't even contagious.
Odd that my sister did get cured by a Russian drug. You won't find this
drug in the US tho.
It has an 85% cure rate vs chemotherapy 2%-4% cure rate. And even the
website that I provided
to snit where the medical researcher doubts that chemotherapy even cures
cancer at all.
GreyCloud
Some Russian drug that is banned in the US. They claim that it has an
85% cure rate.
I sure wish I knew its name.
GreyCloud
Money for one, and there is a cure for another. You could find a real
good doctor
and press his butt up against the wall and demand a cure. Not all
doctors know, but
I know of a few that can and do. There are many different methods.
Don't be too enthralled with the US paradigm of medical research. Money
seems to matter
greatly to them.
Snit
10/8/09 4:43 PM:
> wetpixel wrote:
>> In article <d6ydnQzkZoAMGlrX...@bresnan.com>, GreyCloud
>> <cum...@mist.com> wrote:
>>
>>> And how much money have people donated for a cancer cure?
>>> And where are the cures for cancer?
>>
>> Wait -- are you seriously suggesting that the reason there _must_ be a
>> cure is that people have _tried_ to cure it?
>
> Many doctors have already found a cure, but have been told not to do it.
> If they don't, they get their license yanked. Sounds pretty stupid to me.
> You'd think that if he did discover a cure, then peer review should have
> been the course of action.
I would like to see evidence for this... can you point to a verifiable
example of someone getting their license yanked for this reason? Why is it
doctors have not come out saying this?
>> Do you really know that little about disease?
>
> Sounds like you know next to nothing about the disease.
>
>>
>>
>>> Do you really think that a 2% cure rate using chemotherapy is a good choice
>>> when you consider the odds of success are stacked against you?
>>
>> Well, no, but that's why people aren't happy to get cancer, GC.
>> If there were a good cure available, we wouldn't really care that much
>> -- it isn't even contagious.
>
> Odd that my sister did get cured by a Russian drug. You won't find this
> drug in the US tho.
Any idea what drug it was? Do you know if the cancer death rates are lower
in Russia than they are in the US?
> It has an 85% cure rate vs chemotherapy 2%-4% cure rate. And even the website
> that I provided to snit where the medical researcher doubts that chemotherapy
> even cures cancer at all.
I will say what I found looking to "disprove" your claims about chemotherapy
were anything but encouraging... in the end, seems 2-4% is about what it
offers, though there are exceptions for some types of cancers. Still, the
purpose of chemotherapy is not always to cure someone; sometimes it is
merely there to help prolong life (with added misery!)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ed
> Snit wrote:
<snip>
> Ok. There was a study done by a doctor that had written a book entitled
> "Dress to Kill".
> His studies have shown that in other third world countries the women do
> not wear bras
> and have a very low incidence of cancer.
> His research concludes that it is the tight fitting bras that cause
> breast cancer.
if by "doctor," you mean a man with a b.s. in biology and a m.s. in
anthropology, and his wife, who has an a.s. in behavior science and a
b.a. in environmental studies, and by "study" you mean the info they
put in a self published book with no peer review, no control group, no
proof of their claims, no explanation of how they treated their data
statistically, and no data for others to review, yeah, you have a
point of some sort... :D
<snip>
> >> But the whole point is, chemo didn't cure her.
>
> > Nor was she told it would. She was told it *might* extend her life a few
> > months.
>
> Well, this HMO doctor said it would. Not all doctors agree on this however.
wait, a doctor said chemo *would* cure someone, not *could*? i find
that really hard to believe.
<snip>
> > I would like to see research done on the alternative methods. Right now,
> > research is done mostly on things which are possible to patent and sell...
> > so if both garlic oil and a patentable drug are thought to possibly help
> > with some condition, which is the one where the money will go to have it
> > tested? The answer is obvious and a place where Capitalism fails.
>
> The Russians did do their research.
again, what is this supposed cure?
<snip>
> >>>> Unfortunately, her doctor also said she was cured but conned her into taking
> >>>> some vaccines because she went to Mexico... can't trust them down there
> >>>> being clean he said. Two weeks later she died.
> >>> What of? And sorry to hear that, sincerely.
> >> We really aren't sure,
>
> > Was there an official cause?
>
> That is where the family has filed a lawsuit. They seem to have enough
> hard evidence
> to show how and why. Still pending.
so what was these vaccines that supposedly killed her?
<snip>
ed
> >> their doctors tell them and won't trust anyone
> >> that isn't part of the medical establishment. The Russians have a cure
> >> tho. Just that you can't get it in the US.
>
> > so what's the cure?
>
> Some Russian drug that is banned in the US. They claim that it has an
> 85% cure rate.
> I sure wish I knew its name.
wow, you knew someone who got cured by a russian drug with a 85% cure
rate. and you know the russians have done research on the drug. but
you don't know the name. and you didn't think to ask. weird... also
weird that you would believe the claims and not look into it.
GreyCloud
> GreyCloud stated in post FI-dnQHKOtLA8VPX...@bresnan.com on
> 10/8/09 3:49 PM:
>
> ...
>>>> I would like to see research done on the alternative methods. Right now,
>>>> research is done mostly on things which are possible to patent and sell...
>>>> so if both garlic oil and a patentable drug are thought to possibly help
>>>> with some condition, which is the one where the money will go to have it
>>>> tested? The answer is obvious and a place where Capitalism fails.
>>>>
>>> pffffft, there are plenty of (shady) capitalists willing to promise you all
>>> sorts of benefits from detox and sell you detox treatments.
>> And which one to use? Do you honestly think you can eat poisons that toxify
>> your system and not suffer from the effects?
>
> I would like to see some research done on the detox programs. I have looked
> into some of them - the colon cleanses are mostly rubbish: the colon sheds
> its "skin" so quickly that it is very, very hard for things to build up..
> the gallbladder cleanses that claim to clean out stones do nothing of the
> sort - what they tell you to look for is nothing at all like a real
> gallstone.
>
> This is not to say that all cleanses are rubbish. Milk thistle, for
> example, has been shown to have restorative / "cleansing" properties for the
> liver - though more research should be done (or has been and I just do not
> know about it!) And just general fasting has been shown to have health
> benefits.
>
I'd like to see some research into it as well. Gall bladder purges
isn't a pleasant trip when done properly. The liver is the bodys filter
of a lot of toxins and that is what needs flushing. The liver also has
stones that are build up of poisons like pesticides from eating veggies
that aren't organically grown. I know of a few people that have detoxed
their system and a year later they do look a lot better and look
healthier. They also have a lot more energy to do things, but it seems
to be most beneficial when you are 50 or older. It is hard to tell when
one is young as they already feel well. But there is a doctor that
teaches at UCSD and promotes his own methods of detoxifying the body.
>>> <snip>
>>>>> They are only interested in making a profit. Most of these processed foods
>>>>> have MSG, GMO foods such as corn and soy, and the real biggie is the
>>>>> hydrogenated oils put into foods that the FDA says are artery cloggers that
>>>>> cause strokes and heart attacks. That is why NYC banned hydrogenated oils
>>>>> in
>>>>> restaurant foods.
>>>> I eat very little partially hydrogenated oils. I agree... they are nasty
>>>> for you.
>>> nyc didn't ban hydrogenated oils. they banned trans fats. which
>>> would (mostly) ban *partially* hydrogenated oils.
>> Trans fats are hydrogenated oils. Go to the FDA and look it up.
>>
>> http://www.bantransfats.com/
>>
> There are some non-artificially hydrogenated trans fats... but they overlap
> quite a lot.
>
>
If I recall, it was around the 1920s when margarine was first put out on
the market. It was white back then and had a red blob of dye in it and
you had to massage the bag of margarine for a while to get it to turn
yellow. Around the 1940s is when the majority of heart attacks and
strokes started to rise dramatically. During WWII the defense industry
was looking for a source of lubricating oil for fine instruments and
found that seeds have that property, known then as cottonseed oil.
After WWII the industry was built up pretty well, but then had no more
buyers for the oil so they managed to change it a bit for consumption
just to stay in business. Adding hydrogen to any vegatable oil makes
the oil turn into a solid so that it has a much longer shelf life. So
if the stuff won't melt in your mouth it isn't fit to eat was what I was
told. So, from my perspective, industry did it for its own puposes and
profit rather than for anybodies good health.
GreyCloud
Any hydrogentated oil is unhealthy and clogs the arteries.
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the-dangers-of-partially-hydrogenated-oil.htm
"Partially hydrogenated oil is now often known by the more common name
of trans fats. The oil undergoes a process in which hydrogen is added to
it, which creates solidification to a certain amount. This makes it
desirable as a substitute for things like butter, which are more
expensive and have a tendency to get rancid in packaged foods. For a
long time, it was common to find foods chock full of trans fats because
consumers seemed to prefer them. This is changing quickly, due to the
health risks they pose, and many large-scale food manufacturers are
rushing to replace trans fats with other ingredients."
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-hydrogenated-oil.htm
"Hydrogenated oil is made by forcing hydrogen gas into oil at high
pressure. Both animal and vegetable fats can be and are hydrogenated. In
general, the more solid the oil is, the more hydrogenated it is. Two
common examples of hydrogenated oil are Crisco and margarine. In the
1990s, it was realized that these products might have deleterious health
effects, a tragic irony since they were originally produced and promoted
as being healthier than conventional oils.
The unstable fatty acids in oils happen to be unsaturated fats, which
have been determined to be healthier for consumers, acting to reduce
cholesterol in some cases. When hydrogenated oil is made, these healthy
fats are converted into a new type of fatty acid, known as a trans fat.
Trans fats are not at all good for one's health. In some highly
hydrogenated oils like margarine, trans fats can make up almost half of
the total fat content.
Trans fatty acids work to increase LDL, or "bad" cholesterol, and they
also decrease HDL cholesterol, which is "good" cholesterol. This means
that the fats in hydrogenated oil are far more damaging than even
saturated fats, which medical professionals have already determined to
be harmful. There is also evidence to suggest that trans fatty acids may
bioaccumulate in the body, because the digestive system has difficulty
figuring out what to do with them. As a result, a diet high in trans
fats will result in weight gain."
So the only difference between partially hydrogenated oils and
hydrogenated oils are the amount of hydrogen that has been pressured
into the oil. Both are not healthy.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16051436/
New York City passes trans fat ban
Restaurants must eliminate artery-clogging ingredient by July 2008
GreyCloud
> On Oct 8, 3:46 pm, GreyCloud <cumu...@mist.com> wrote:
>> Snit wrote:
> <snip>
>> Ok. There was a study done by a doctor that had written a book entitled
>> "Dress to Kill".
>> His studies have shown that in other third world countries the women do
>> not wear bras
>> and have a very low incidence of cancer.
>> His research concludes that it is the tight fitting bras that cause
>> breast cancer.
>
> if by "doctor," you mean a man with a b.s. in biology and a m.s. in
> anthropology, and his wife, who has an a.s. in behavior science and a
> b.a. in environmental studies, and by "study" you mean the info they
> put in a self published book with no peer review, no control group, no
> proof of their claims, no explanation of how they treated their data
> statistically, and no data for others to review, yeah, you have a
> point of some sort... :D
Guffaw!!! One with an M.D. tacked onto his name. More than likely he
got ostracized from being a toady for the big drug companies. Happens a
lot.
But then, you believe in their hyped up methodology that really doesn't
work all that well. What you are describing above is a politicized
procedures to keep their own lackeys in line.
>
> <snip>
>>>> But the whole point is, chemo didn't cure her.
>>> Nor was she told it would. She was told it *might* extend her life a few
>>> months.
>> Well, this HMO doctor said it would. Not all doctors agree on this however.
>
> wait, a doctor said chemo *would* cure someone, not *could*? i find
> that really hard to believe.
>
You have had to have known this clown called a doctor. He worked for
the HMO and this particular HMO is notorious for not spending any money
on expensive procedures. They'd rather let you die.
Group Health, better known to their users as Group Death, is another one
of these HMOs that will drop you after a certain amount of funds are
used up.
> <snip>
>>> I would like to see research done on the alternative methods. Right now,
>>> research is done mostly on things which are possible to patent and sell...
>>> so if both garlic oil and a patentable drug are thought to possibly help
>>> with some condition, which is the one where the money will go to have it
>>> tested? The answer is obvious and a place where Capitalism fails.
>> The Russians did do their research.
>
> again, what is this supposed cure?
A Russian drug.
Not found here in the US.
>
> <snip>
>>>>>> Unfortunately, her doctor also said she was cured but conned her into taking
>>>>>> some vaccines because she went to Mexico... can't trust them down there
>>>>>> being clean he said. Two weeks later she died.
>>>>> What of? And sorry to hear that, sincerely.
>>>> We really aren't sure,
>>> Was there an official cause?
>> That is where the family has filed a lawsuit. They seem to have enough
>> hard evidence
>> to show how and why. Still pending.
>
> so what was these vaccines that supposedly killed her?
>
> <snip>
I wish I knew. One of them had Thimersol in it... a mercury based
solution that is supposed to kill bacteria. Of course mercury is a
known neuro-toxin.
GreyCloud
I really don't remember the name. Do you find that odd, or are you just
being obnoxious as usual?
ed
> ed wrote:
> > On Oct 8, 3:46 pm, GreyCloud <cumu...@mist.com> wrote:
> >> Snit wrote:
> > <snip>
> >> Ok. There was a study done by a doctor that had written a book entitled
> >> "Dress to Kill".
> >> His studies have shown that in other third world countries the women do
> >> not wear bras
> >> and have a very low incidence of cancer.
> >> His research concludes that it is the tight fitting bras that cause
> >> breast cancer.
>
> > if by "doctor," you mean a man with a b.s. in biology and a m.s. in
> > anthropology, and his wife, who has an a.s. in behavior science and a
> > b.a. in environmental studies, and by "study" you mean the info they
> > put in a self published book with no peer review, no control group, no
> > proof of their claims, no explanation of how they treated their data
> > statistically, and no data for others to review, yeah, you have a
> > point of some sort... :D
>
> Guffaw!!! One with an M.D. tacked onto his name. More than likely he
> got ostracized from being a toady for the big drug companies. Happens a
> lot.
nope, no m.d. neither on the book, nor his website. he makes no
claims to being a doctor.
> But then, you believe in their hyped up methodology that really doesn't
> work all that well. What you are describing above is a politicized
> procedures to keep their own lackeys in line.
or you just assumed something based on the subject matter, when the
author themselves don't claim to be doctors.
<snip>
> > <snip>
> >>> I would like to see research done on the alternative methods. Right now,
> >>> research is done mostly on things which are possible to patent and sell...
> >>> so if both garlic oil and a patentable drug are thought to possibly help
> >>> with some condition, which is the one where the money will go to have it
> >>> tested? The answer is obvious and a place where Capitalism fails.
> >> The Russians did do their research.
>
> > again, what is this supposed cure?
>
> A Russian drug.
> Not found here in the US.
yeah, you've said that- but what is it?
<snip>
> > so what was these vaccines that supposedly killed her?
>
> > <snip>
>
> I wish I knew.
wait- you don't even know what it is, but you somehow know it killed
her? you don't do much questioning, do you?
> One of them had Thimersol in it... a mercury based
> solution that is supposed to kill bacteria. Of course mercury is a
> known neuro-toxin.
so somehow you don't know what the doctor had her take, but you know
the antiseptic agent in it? we're supposed to find that believable?
this is a *big* problem with many of your posts greycloud- you believe
a lot of things without any support whatsoever (the "doctor" who did
the breast cancer study..., chinese going to take over money supply in
nyc, a cure for cancer w/ 85% success rate (but you can't even provide
a name for it)), and then you go off and are sceptical of all sorts of
things that *do* have support. you're a loon dude.
GreyCloud
> GreyCloud stated in post p8-dneDW27dn5VPX...@bresnan.com on
> 10/8/09 4:43 PM:
>
>> wetpixel wrote:
>>> In article <d6ydnQzkZoAMGlrX...@bresnan.com>, GreyCloud
>>> <cum...@mist.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And how much money have people donated for a cancer cure?
>>>> And where are the cures for cancer?
>>> Wait -- are you seriously suggesting that the reason there _must_ be a
>>> cure is that people have _tried_ to cure it?
>> Many doctors have already found a cure, but have been told not to do it.
>> If they don't, they get their license yanked. Sounds pretty stupid to me.
>> You'd think that if he did discover a cure, then peer review should have
>> been the course of action.
>
> I would like to see evidence for this... can you point to a verifiable
> example of someone getting their license yanked for this reason? Why is it
> doctors have not come out saying this?
It'll take a bit of time to find it, but I will do my best to provide
it. But there are doctors out there that have had their licenses
revoked. Dr. Deagle on some talk show circuits seems to be one of them.
I'm sure that there are others.
>
>>> Do you really know that little about disease?
>> Sounds like you know next to nothing about the disease.
>>
>>>
>>>> Do you really think that a 2% cure rate using chemotherapy is a good choice
>>>> when you consider the odds of success are stacked against you?
>>> Well, no, but that's why people aren't happy to get cancer, GC.
>>> If there were a good cure available, we wouldn't really care that much
>>> -- it isn't even contagious.
>> Odd that my sister did get cured by a Russian drug. You won't find this
>> drug in the US tho.
>
> Any idea what drug it was? Do you know if the cancer death rates are lower
> in Russia than they are in the US?
No, I don't know what their rates are over there or what the drug was.
All I know was that it was a russian made drug and not available in the US.
>
>> It has an 85% cure rate vs chemotherapy 2%-4% cure rate. And even the website
>> that I provided to snit where the medical researcher doubts that chemotherapy
>> even cures cancer at all.
>
> I will say what I found looking to "disprove" your claims about chemotherapy
> were anything but encouraging... in the end, seems 2-4% is about what it
> offers, though there are exceptions for some types of cancers. Still, the
> purpose of chemotherapy is not always to cure someone; sometimes it is
> merely there to help prolong life (with added misery!)
>
I suppose what they are looking for is remission. But as the article
had stated, after a few years the patient can have a relapse.
Now some people claim that keeping your system on the alkaline side will
keep cancer from getting a foot hold. I don't know much about that.
Something to do with eating more raw veggies or something.
ed
i find it *really* odd that you wouldn't know the name of a super
duper 85% successful cancer drug that cured your sister but is being
withheld from the u.s. i'd be telling *everyone* about it, AND
pointing to the russian research. hell, i'd start importing it- you'd
make a killing AND help people- what more could you ask for? well, at
the very least, i'd jot it down for future reference just in case *I*
got cancer.
Snit
10/8/09 10:51 PM:
Not pleasant, but also completely useless at getting rid of gallstones.
Might have other benefits, but that is not one of them.
> The liver is the bodys filter of a lot of toxins and that is what needs
> flushing. The liver also has stones that are build up of poisons like
> pesticides from eating veggies that aren't organically grown. I know of a few
> people that have detoxed their system and a year later they do look a lot
> better and look healthier. They also have a lot more energy to do things, but
> it seems to be most beneficial when you are 50 or older. It is hard to tell
> when one is young as they already feel well. But there is a doctor that
> teaches at UCSD and promotes his own methods of detoxifying the body.
I would like to see evidence that they do benefit people. So far I have
seen little. Also have not done much research on it.
>>>> <snip>
>>>>>> They are only interested in making a profit. Most of these processed
>>>>>> foods
>>>>>> have MSG, GMO foods such as corn and soy, and the real biggie is the
>>>>>> hydrogenated oils put into foods that the FDA says are artery cloggers
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> cause strokes and heart attacks. That is why NYC banned hydrogenated oils
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> restaurant foods.
>>>>> I eat very little partially hydrogenated oils. I agree... they are nasty
>>>>> for you.
>>>> nyc didn't ban hydrogenated oils. they banned trans fats. which
>>>> would (mostly) ban *partially* hydrogenated oils.
>>> Trans fats are hydrogenated oils. Go to the FDA and look it up.
>>>
>>> http://www.bantransfats.com/
>>>
>> There are some non-artificially hydrogenated trans fats... but they overlap
>> quite a lot.
>>
>>
>
> If I recall, it was around the 1920s when margarine was first put out on
> the market. It was white back then and had a red blob of dye in it and
> you had to massage the bag of margarine for a while to get it to turn
> yellow.
I thought the blob was yellow - but only from what I have read... no
memories of the 1920s. :)
> Around the 1940s is when the majority of heart attacks and strokes started to
> rise dramatically. During WWII the defense industry was looking for a source
> of lubricating oil for fine instruments and found that seeds have that
> property, known then as cottonseed oil. After WWII the industry was built up
> pretty well, but then had no more buyers for the oil so they managed to change
> it a bit for consumption just to stay in business. Adding hydrogen to any
> vegatable oil makes the oil turn into a solid so that it has a much longer
> shelf life. So if the stuff won't melt in your mouth it isn't fit to eat was
> what I was told. So, from my perspective, industry did it for its own puposes
> and profit rather than for anybodies good health.
Whether they knew then or not, they know now. The stuff is horrid for you
and should not be produced or sold.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
10/9/09 1:30 PM:
> Snit wrote:
>> GreyCloud stated in post p8-dneDW27dn5VPX...@bresnan.com on
>> 10/8/09 4:43 PM:
>>
>>> wetpixel wrote:
>>>> In article <d6ydnQzkZoAMGlrX...@bresnan.com>, GreyCloud
>>>> <cum...@mist.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And how much money have people donated for a cancer cure?
>>>>> And where are the cures for cancer?
>>>> Wait -- are you seriously suggesting that the reason there _must_ be a
>>>> cure is that people have _tried_ to cure it?
>>> Many doctors have already found a cure, but have been told not to do it.
>>> If they don't, they get their license yanked. Sounds pretty stupid to me.
>>> You'd think that if he did discover a cure, then peer review should have
>>> been the course of action.
>>
>> I would like to see evidence for this... can you point to a verifiable
>> example of someone getting their license yanked for this reason? Why is it
>> doctors have not come out saying this?
>
> It'll take a bit of time to find it, but I will do my best to provide
> it.
Thank you.
> But there are doctors out there that have had their licenses
> revoked. Dr. Deagle on some talk show circuits seems to be one of them.
> I'm sure that there are others.
>
>>
>>>> Do you really know that little about disease?
>>> Sounds like you know next to nothing about the disease.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Do you really think that a 2% cure rate using chemotherapy is a good
>>>>> choice
>>>>> when you consider the odds of success are stacked against you?
>>>> Well, no, but that's why people aren't happy to get cancer, GC.
>>>> If there were a good cure available, we wouldn't really care that much
>>>> -- it isn't even contagious.
>>> Odd that my sister did get cured by a Russian drug. You won't find this
>>> drug in the US tho.
>>
>> Any idea what drug it was? Do you know if the cancer death rates are lower
>> in Russia than they are in the US?
>
> No, I don't know what their rates are over there or what the drug was.
> All I know was that it was a russian made drug and not available in the US.
I suspect it should not be hard to find ballpark figures on cure rates...
and if they were significantly different there would be research as to why.
>>> It has an 85% cure rate vs chemotherapy 2%-4% cure rate. And even the
>>> website
>>> that I provided to snit where the medical researcher doubts that
>>> chemotherapy
>>> even cures cancer at all.
>>
>> I will say what I found looking to "disprove" your claims about chemotherapy
>> were anything but encouraging... in the end, seems 2-4% is about what it
>> offers, though there are exceptions for some types of cancers. Still, the
>> purpose of chemotherapy is not always to cure someone; sometimes it is
>> merely there to help prolong life (with added misery!)
>>
>
> I suppose what they are looking for is remission. But as the article
> had stated, after a few years the patient can have a relapse.
> Now some people claim that keeping your system on the alkaline side will
> keep cancer from getting a foot hold. I don't know much about that.
> Something to do with eating more raw veggies or something.
I have heard that from a number of sources - not just about cancer but other
health issues. Have also recently read info on the number of cancers which
spring up and the body heals from... it turns out it is a lot higher than
people thought. Turns out that finding them real early is not as much of a
benefit as it used to be seen as... which is not to say people should not be
screened.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
95e179de-6ccb-46e5...@f21g2000vbm.googlegroups.com on 10/9/09
1:30 PM:
>>>> The Russians did do their research.
>>
>>> again, what is this supposed cure?
>>
>> A Russian drug.
>> Not found here in the US.
>
> yeah, you've said that- but what is it?
He has repeatedly said he does not know the name.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
GreyCloud
Hehe. I can remember my mother having to massage that crap. I tried it
and didn't like the smell of it.
But my father ate it along with the crisco cooking oil, if that is what
they call that white pasty stuff. He
purchased those vending machine pies, hostess twinkies, etc. that had a
lot of hydrogenated oils in them.
Guess that's why the stuff never rotted inside the machines even on a
hot day. But time took its toll on him
and he suffered a nasty stroke. The doctors at HarborView Hospital had
to operate on his main arteries in his
neck and scrapped out a lot of this gunk. In 1976 he took the swine flu
vaccine in the fall. He then came down
with cancer and died in the spring. Autopsy showed that he had mercury
poisoning that damaged his brain pretty bad.
The chemical in that particular vaccine was thimersol that has mercury
in it. This caused a big stink back then and
the government had to remove it from the market. Now it is back again.
And the big WHY is what I don't know.
>
>> Around the 1940s is when the majority of heart attacks and strokes started to
>> rise dramatically. During WWII the defense industry was looking for a source
>> of lubricating oil for fine instruments and found that seeds have that
>> property, known then as cottonseed oil. After WWII the industry was built up
>> pretty well, but then had no more buyers for the oil so they managed to change
>> it a bit for consumption just to stay in business. Adding hydrogen to any
>> vegatable oil makes the oil turn into a solid so that it has a much longer
>> shelf life. So if the stuff won't melt in your mouth it isn't fit to eat was
>> what I was told. So, from my perspective, industry did it for its own puposes
>> and profit rather than for anybodies good health.
>
> Whether they knew then or not, they know now. The stuff is horrid for you
> and should not be produced or sold.
>
I reasoned a long time ago, after my fathers stroke, that the human body
had never seen this stuff before so
could not digest it properly. Butter has been around for thousands of
years.
I quit buying any food that had this stuff in it back in the early 70s
and a couple of years ago, thru the urgings of my
doctor, took the treadmill test that utilizes some kind of radioactive
dye to trace where any blockages could be found.
They couldn't find any blockages, so it looks like I'm in fine shape by
using butter instead of margarine.
There are a lot of other new food additives out there that are also
suspect. One of them being Aspartame.
High Fructose Corn Syrup, from what I've read, can also contain small
amounts of mercury, yet when the local
game and fisheries do their survey of mercury in fish they say to not
eat the fish you catch due to mercury levels
being too high. They are blaming this increase in mercury levels on the
Chinese coal fired power plants.
So I see a conflict of interest here in the processed food industry.
Again, I doubt that these companies could care less
about our health and more interested in making a lot of money.
GreyCloud
I wasn't there. But my niece and nephew were there.
>> One of them had Thimersol in it... a mercury based
>> solution that is supposed to kill bacteria. Of course mercury is a
>> known neuro-toxin.
>
> so somehow you don't know what the doctor had her take, but you know
> the antiseptic agent in it? we're supposed to find that believable?
>
What part of mercury being a known neuro-toxin do you not understand?
Here we find that state game and fisheries depts. survey the fish for
mercury contamination and say that the
fish are not safe to eat, yet you'll take a vaccine that is loaded with
Thimersol. Seems to me that there is a conflict of
interest here in the big drug companies. All I see it as greed on their
part. I really doubt that they would have
anybodies good health in mind, but more worry about their making money
hand over fist.
> this is a *big* problem with many of your posts greycloud- you believe
> a lot of things without any support whatsoever (the "doctor" who did
> the breast cancer study..., chinese going to take over money supply in
> nyc, a cure for cancer w/ 85% success rate (but you can't even provide
> a name for it)), and then you go off and are sceptical of all sorts of
> things that *do* have support. you're a loon dude.
And *you* are totally clueless and would believe anything the big drug
corporations will tell you that it is safe to eat.
Guffaw!!!
Keep drinking your flouridated soft drinks.
GreyCloud
At least you looked into it as I have and I don't blame you one bit for
questioning me. :-)
GreyCloud
You aren't following the thread too well there ed. This drug is NOT
available in the US.
Neither will your insurance company pay for it. My sister had to pay
out of pocket for her treatment.
The fact that she came back cured is enough for me.
Being too skeptical is just as bad as being too gullible.
ed
> ed stated in post
> 95e179de-6ccb-46e5-a05d-358f85706...@f21g2000vbm.googlegroups.com on 10/9/09
> 1:30 PM:
>
> >>>> The Russians did do their research.
>
> >>> again, what is this supposed cure?
>
> >> A Russian drug.
> >> Not found here in the US.
>
> > yeah, you've said that- but what is it?
>
> He has repeatedly said he does not know the name.
yeah, you don't think that's odd given what he does "know" about it,
and the circumstances that he came to know about it? if your sistem
had cancer that the system said couldn't be cured, but then your
sister found something with a 85% success rate, wouldn't you want to
know what it was? and it'd be pretty memorable i'd bet...
ed
> >>> so what was these vaccines that supposedly killed her?
> >>> <snip>
> >> I wish I knew.
>
> > wait- you don't even know what it is, but you somehow know it killed
> > her? you don't do much questioning, do you?
>
> I wasn't there. But my niece and nephew were there.
so again, you don't know. you never seem to know *any* relevant
details of the conspiracy theories you spew. i wonder why that is?
> >> One of them had Thimersol in it... a mercury based
> >> solution that is supposed to kill bacteria. Of course mercury is a
> >> known neuro-toxin.
>
> > so somehow you don't know what the doctor had her take, but you know
> > the antiseptic agent in it? we're supposed to find that believable?
>
> What part of mercury being a known neuro-toxin do you not understand?
oh, i understand mercury is bad- what i DON'T understand is how you
know what antiseptic is used in the vaccine your sister took when you
don't even know what vaccine it was?
<snip>
ed
> ed wrote:
> > On Oct 9, 1:15 pm, GreyCloud <m...@cumulus.com> wrote:
> >>> wow, you knew someone who got cured by a russian drug with a 85% cure
> >>> rate. and you know the russians have done research on the drug. but
> >>> you don't know the name. and you didn't think to ask. weird... also
> >>> weird that you would believe the claims and not look into it.
> >> I really don't remember the name. Do you find that odd, or are you just
> >> being obnoxious as usual?
>
> > i find it *really* odd that you wouldn't know the name of a super
> > duper 85% successful cancer drug that cured your sister but is being
> > withheld from the u.s. i'd be telling *everyone* about it, AND
> > pointing to the russian research. hell, i'd start importing it- you'd
> > make a killing AND help people- what more could you ask for? well, at
> > the very least, i'd jot it down for future reference just in case *I*
> > got cancer.
>
> You aren't following the thread too well there ed. This drug is NOT
> available in the US.
i'm following just fine- you're apparently not- i said "hell, i'd
start importing it- you'd make a killing AND help people- what more
could you ask for?" and for myself, well, i could drive my butt down
to mexico myself and get cured if i knew what it was, no?
> Neither will your insurance company pay for it. My sister had to pay
> out of pocket for her treatment.
> The fact that she came back cured is enough for me.
so you didn't even ask what it was? wouldn't you have wanted to know
in case you got cancer (it does run in families)?
> Being too skeptical is just as bad as being too gullible.
no, being gullible is much worse. being skeptical, if you had even the
most basic info (like a name), i could look into it myself; if it's
good, it's good. being too gullible, well, you just get taken.
Snit
cb162ce0-b033-453a...@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com on 10/9/09
4:03 PM:
Sure he would want to know... but he might not. Have you ever tried to
remember the name of a foreign drug in the midst of a family crisis?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ed
> >>> yeah, you've said that- but what is it?
>
> >> He has repeatedly said he does not know the name.
>
> > yeah, you don't think that's odd given what he does "know" about it,
> > and the circumstances that he came to know about it? if your sistem
> > had cancer that the system said couldn't be cured, but then your
> > sister found something with a 85% success rate, wouldn't you want to
> > know what it was? and it'd be pretty memorable i'd bet...
>
> Sure he would want to know... but he might not. Have you ever tried to
> remember the name of a foreign drug in the midst of a family crisis?
crisis was done. she was cured.
and you better believe i know what drugs go into my body.
Snit
10/9/09 3:57 PM:
I do not hide the fact I do not agree with you fully... but you speak about
your views in a respectful way... and even if we never come to full
agreement we can learn from each other. Far too much name calling and the
like in CSMA.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
57a055e5-b450-4ba8...@s6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com on 10/9/09
5:07 PM:
What are the the names of the chemicals / drugs in the foods you are today?
In the last week? The list need not be alphabetical nor chronological -
just the order you think of them.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ed
>
> What are the the names of the chemicals / drugs in the foods you are today?
> In the last week? The list need not be alphabetical nor chronological -
> just the order you think of them.
obviously you're out of context, but just for kicks, here's what i ate
today (i drank water):
lunch: chicken (organic) burrito w/ tomatillo, cilantro, and cholula
(Water, peppers (arbol and piquin), salt, vinegar, spices and xanthan
gum). and an apple.
Snit
ae913cac-21fc-4fdf...@g31g2000vbr.googlegroups.com on 10/9/09
5:37 PM:
The point I was making is most people have very little idea what chemicals
they are putting in their bodies... heck, I ate out at a restaurant today -
who knows what was in the food.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ed
> ed stated in post
> > On Oct 9, 5:19 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> ed stated in post
> > <snip>
> >>> and you better believe i know what drugs go into my body.
>
> >> What are the the names of the chemicals / drugs in the foods you are today?
> >> In the last week? The list need not be alphabetical nor chronological -
> >> just the order you think of them.
>
> > obviously you're out of context, but just for kicks, here's what i ate
> > today (i drank water):
> > lunch: chicken (organic) burrito w/ tomatillo, cilantro, and cholula
> > (Water, peppers (arbol and piquin), salt, vinegar, spices and xanthan
> > gum). and an apple.
>
> The point I was making is most people have very little idea what chemicals
> they are putting in their bodies... heck, I ate out at a restaurant today -
> who knows what was in the food.
yes, i know the point you were making. but as i said, that's a
totally different context- chemicals widely accepted as safe for use
in food is very different than a cancer miracle destroying drug (or
drugs, generally). hell, forget wanting to know what it is if your
family's been cured by the miracle drug- if there's ANYONE out there
who knows of this miracle drug, *I* want to know what it is.
seriously. that's good info to know. and lots of people to be
helped. and good money to be made. :D
Snit
527c8e62-4663-43c5...@v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com on 10/9/09
6:19 PM:
Oh, I have no argument with you wanting to know what med he is talking
about... but he has said he does not recall the name. If you ask him again,
do you think it will help him recall it?
> seriously. that's good info to know. and lots of people to be
> helped. and good money to be made. :D
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ed
i don't believe i've asked him again since he said he didn't know (i
did ask him in different parts of this thread though)- i asked him how
is it that he doesn't know what it is, but knows other facts about
it. i also asked him how it is he claims a vaccine killed his sister,
but he doesn't know what vaccine it is. and yet knows the antiseptic
in this unknown vaccines.
Snit
1d73ea1b-375d-472c...@a37g2000prf.googlegroups.com on 10/9/09
7:15 PM:
Other than a believed cure rate percentage, what facts has he said about it?
> i also asked him how it is he claims a vaccine killed his sister,
> but he doesn't know what vaccine it is. and yet knows the antiseptic
> in this unknown vaccines.
Many vaccines use mercury based components... his recalling that the one his
sister took had it does not seem that outlandish.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
ed
> > did ask him in different parts of this thread though)- i asked him how
> > is it that he doesn't know what it is, but knows other facts about
> > it.
>
> Other than a believed cure rate percentage, what facts has he said about it?
off the top of my head:
from russia.
the russians have done studies on it.
it's not available in the states.
> > i also asked him how it is he claims a vaccine killed his sister,
> > but he doesn't know what vaccine it is. and yet knows the antiseptic
> > in this unknown vaccines.
>
> Many vaccines use mercury based components... his recalling that the one his
> sister took had it does not seem that outlandish.
it's not outlandish that he claims to knows his sister took a vaccine
with a mercury based component in it. it IS outlandish that he claims
to know it has a mercury based component in it when he doesn't even
know what the vaccine(s) is (not even what it's for) AND claims it
killed his sister without knowing what it is.
Snit
3561331e-c49f-4ab4...@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com on 10/9/09
7:47 PM:
> On Oct 9, 7:20�pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> ed stated in post
> <snip
>>> i don't believe i've asked him again since he said he didn't know (i
>>> did ask him in different parts of this thread though)- i asked him how
>>> is it that he doesn't know what it is, but knows other facts about
>>> it. �
>>
>> Other than a believed cure rate percentage, what facts has he said about it?
>
> off the top of my head:
> from russia.
> the russians have done studies on it.
> it's not available in the states.
So he believes it was a drug from Russia where studies have shown it to be
amazingly affective... and it is not in the US and he cannot recall the
name.
OK.
>>> i also asked him how it is he claims a vaccine killed his sister,
>>> but he doesn't know what vaccine it is. �and yet knows the antiseptic
>>> in this unknown vaccines.
>>
>> Many vaccines use mercury based components... his recalling that the one his
>> sister took had it does not seem that outlandish.
>
> it's not outlandish that he claims to knows his sister took a vaccine
> with a mercury based component in it. it IS outlandish that he claims
> to know it has a mercury based component in it when he doesn't even
> know what the vaccine(s) is (not even what it's for) AND claims it
> killed his sister without knowing what it is.
I believe he said it was merely his belief it was likely the cause... and
being relatively sure it had mercury is not that outlandish.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
GreyCloud
Gawd your are dense. It ain't for sale in the US.
All you have to do is get a passport, birth certificate, and head south
of San Diego till you are in Mexico.
Then locate Oasis of Hope.
GreyCloud
> ed stated in post
> cb162ce0-b033-453a...@a6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com on 10/9/09
> 4:03 PM:
>
>> On Oct 9, 3:33 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> ed stated in post
>>> 95e179de-6ccb-46e5-a05d-358f85706...@f21g2000vbm.googlegroups.com on 10/9/09
>>> 1:30 PM:
>>>
>>>>>>> The Russians did do their research.
>>>>>> again, what is this supposed cure?
>>>>> A Russian drug.
>>>>> Not found here in the US.
>>>> yeah, you've said that- but what is it?
>>> He has repeatedly said he does not know the name.
>> yeah, you don't think that's odd given what he does "know" about it,
>> and the circumstances that he came to know about it? if your sistem
>> had cancer that the system said couldn't be cured, but then your
>> sister found something with a 85% success rate, wouldn't you want to
>> know what it was? and it'd be pretty memorable i'd bet...
>
> Sure he would want to know... but he might not. Have you ever tried to
> remember the name of a foreign drug in the midst of a family crisis?
>
>
He won't buy into that. He is way too skeptical to believe anything
that might be of help to him in the future.
And I wasn't there to look after her, but her kids were. I've got
enough on my plate keeping an eye on
my other sisters nursing home and looking out for my mother as well.
GreyCloud
> On Oct 9, 5:19 pm, Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> ed stated in post
> <snip>
>>> and you better believe i know what drugs go into my body.
>> What are the the names of the chemicals / drugs in the foods you are today?
>> In the last week? The list need not be alphabetical nor chronological -
>> just the order you think of them.
>
> obviously you're out of context, but just for kicks, here's what i ate
> today (i drank water):
which most likely had sodium flouride added into it.
> lunch: chicken (organic) burrito w/ tomatillo, cilantro, and cholula
> (Water, peppers (arbol and piquin), salt, vinegar, spices and xanthan
> gum). and an apple.
>
And salt, by law according to the codex alimentarius, has sodium
flouride added and does not have to be
included on any label.
And if your apple isn't organic it most likely has Alar in it.
--
Cremation: Thinking outside the box.
GreyCloud
The autopsy report said it was mercury poisoning.
GreyCloud
> On Oct 9, 3:56 pm, GreyCloud <cumu...@mist.com> wrote:
>> ed wrote:
> <snip>
>>> <snip>
>>>>> so what was these vaccines that supposedly killed her?
>>>>> <snip>
>>>> I wish I knew.
>>> wait- you don't even know what it is, but you somehow know it killed
>>> her? you don't do much questioning, do you?
>> I wasn't there. But my niece and nephew were there.
>
> so again, you don't know. you never seem to know *any* relevant
> details of the conspiracy theories you spew. i wonder why that is?
>
What conspiracy theories are those, ed? It seems that you use that ploy
to minimalize other peoples
experience, and know nothing of what I do claim to know. Do you think I
made this up about my sister?
It appears you are the whack job here.
>>>> One of them had Thimersol in it... a mercury based
>>>> solution that is supposed to kill bacteria. Of course mercury is a
>>>> known neuro-toxin.
>>> so somehow you don't know what the doctor had her take, but you know
>>> the antiseptic agent in it? we're supposed to find that believable?
>> What part of mercury being a known neuro-toxin do you not understand?
>
> oh, i understand mercury is bad- what i DON'T understand is how you
> know what antiseptic is used in the vaccine your sister took when you
> don't even know what vaccine it was?
>
> <snip>
Autopsy report stated it was mercury poisoning. I had to call up my
niece to find out.
GreyCloud
> GreyCloud stated in post K_6dnY8C7uvFAFLX...@bresnan.com on
> 10/9/09 1:30 PM:
>
>>> GreyCloud stated in post p8-dneDW27dn5VPX...@bresnan.com on
>>> 10/8/09 4:43 PM:
>>>
>>>> wetpixel wrote:
>>>>> In article <d6ydnQzkZoAMGlrX...@bresnan.com>, GreyCloud
>>>>> <cum...@mist.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> And how much money have people donated for a cancer cure?
>>>>>> And where are the cures for cancer?
>>>>> Wait -- are you seriously suggesting that the reason there _must_ be a
>>>>> cure is that people have _tried_ to cure it?
>>>> Many doctors have already found a cure, but have been told not to do it.
>>>> If they don't, they get their license yanked. Sounds pretty stupid to me.
>>>> You'd think that if he did discover a cure, then peer review should have
>>>> been the course of action.
>>> I would like to see evidence for this... can you point to a verifiable
>>> example of someone getting their license yanked for this reason? Why is it
>>> doctors have not come out saying this?
>> it.
>
> Thank you.
>
>> But there are doctors out there that have had their licenses
>> revoked. Dr. Deagle on some talk show circuits seems to be one of them.
>> I'm sure that there are others.
>>
>>>>> Do you really know that little about disease?
>>>> Sounds like you know next to nothing about the disease.
>>>>
>>>>>> Do you really think that a 2% cure rate using chemotherapy is a good
>>>>>> choice
>>>>>> when you consider the odds of success are stacked against you?
>>>>> Well, no, but that's why people aren't happy to get cancer, GC.
>>>>> If there were a good cure available, we wouldn't really care that much
>>>>> -- it isn't even contagious.
>>>> Odd that my sister did get cured by a Russian drug. You won't find this
>>>> drug in the US tho.
>>> Any idea what drug it was? Do you know if the cancer death rates are lower
>>> in Russia than they are in the US?
>> All I know was that it was a russian made drug and not available in the US.
>
> I suspect it should not be hard to find ballpark figures on cure rates...
> and if they were significantly different there would be research as to why.
>
>>>> It has an 85% cure rate vs chemotherapy 2%-4% cure rate. And even the
>>>> website
>>>> that I provided to snit where the medical researcher doubts that
>>>> chemotherapy
>>>> even cures cancer at all.
>>> I will say what I found looking to "disprove" your claims about chemotherapy
>>> were anything but encouraging... in the end, seems 2-4% is about what it
>>> offers, though there are exceptions for some types of cancers. Still, the
>>> purpose of chemotherapy is not always to cure someone; sometimes it is
>>> merely there to help prolong life (with added misery!)
>>>
>> had stated, after a few years the patient can have a relapse.
>> Now some people claim that keeping your system on the alkaline side will
>> keep cancer from getting a foot hold. I don't know much about that.
>> Something to do with eating more raw veggies or something.
>
> I have heard that from a number of sources - not just about cancer but other
> health issues. Have also recently read info on the number of cancers which
> spring up and the body heals from... it turns out it is a lot higher than
> people thought. Turns out that finding them real early is not as much of a
> benefit as it used to be seen as... which is not to say people should not be
> screened.
>
Interesting. I didn't know that. I always screen with the PSA blood
test, but even now I wonder
if that test is just for the doctors and clinics to make more money.
GreyCloud
I agree there. In my beginning of going to usenet, I thought I'd find
out more detailed information
about a lot of things. But to my chagrin, I found nothing but massive
ego trips going on.
I almost left and figured that usenet was nothing more than a big mosh
pit, till I started coming
into contact with truly knowledgable people that were also quite civil.
GreyCloud
> On Oct 9, 3:59 pm, GreyCloud <cumu...@mist.com> wrote:
>> ed wrote:
>>> On Oct 9, 1:15 pm, GreyCloud <m...@cumulus.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>>>>> wow, you knew someone who got cured by a russian drug with a 85% cure
>>>>> rate. and you know the russians have done research on the drug. but
>>>>> you don't know the name. and you didn't think to ask. weird... also
>>>>> weird that you would believe the claims and not look into it.
>>>> I really don't remember the name. Do you find that odd, or are you just
>>>> being obnoxious as usual?
>>> i find it *really* odd that you wouldn't know the name of a super
>>> duper 85% successful cancer drug that cured your sister but is being
>>> withheld from the u.s. i'd be telling *everyone* about it, AND
>>> pointing to the russian research. hell, i'd start importing it- you'd
>>> make a killing AND help people- what more could you ask for? well, at
>>> the very least, i'd jot it down for future reference just in case *I*
>>> got cancer.
>> You aren't following the thread too well there ed. This drug is NOT
>> available in the US.
>
> i'm following just fine- you're apparently not- i said "hell, i'd
> start importing it- you'd make a killing AND help people- what more
> could you ask for?" and for myself, well, i could drive my butt down
> to mexico myself and get cured if i knew what it was, no?
>
And you'd be eventually caught and prosecuted and thrown into prison too.
>> Neither will your insurance company pay for it. My sister had to pay
>> out of pocket for her treatment.
>> The fact that she came back cured is enough for me.
>
> so you didn't even ask what it was? wouldn't you have wanted to know
> in case you got cancer (it does run in families)?
>
It was a couple of years ago... the name of this drug still eludes me,
and my niece can't seem to find the name of that drug either.
So you are going to persecute me for not remembering? Totally absurd.
Cancer does not run down thru families like doctors would like you to
think. That would imply faulty genetics, as cancer is a virus.
>> Being too skeptical is just as bad as being too gullible.
>
> no, being gullible is much worse. being skeptical, if you had even the
> most basic info (like a name), i could look into it myself; if it's
> good, it's good. being too gullible, well, you just get taken.
A skeptical person would miss too many things. Like throwing the baby
out with the bath water.
A good scientist would at least put it on the back shelf for later review.
And the odd part... my sister wasn't taken by the Mexican medical
community, but by the US medical community.
Mostly doctors that do not upgrade their education and are usually about
30 years behind the times.
ed
> >>> He has repeatedly said he does not know the name.
> >> yeah, you don't think that's odd given what he does "know" about it,
> >> and the circumstances that he came to know about it? if your sistem
> >> had cancer that the system said couldn't be cured, but then your
> >> sister found something with a 85% success rate, wouldn't you want to
> >> know what it was? and it'd be pretty memorable i'd bet...
>
> > Sure he would want to know... but he might not. Have you ever tried to
> > remember the name of a foreign drug in the midst of a family crisis?
>
> He won't buy into that. He is way too skeptical to believe anything
> that might be of help to him in the future.
wait- you don't know / remember the name of a super duper cancer
curing drug, and *i'm* the one that's not interested in stuff that
"might of help to" me in the future? hahaha!
<snip>
Snit
10/10/09 6:49 PM:
>>> I suppose what they are looking for is remission. But as the article
>>> had stated, after a few years the patient can have a relapse.
>>> Now some people claim that keeping your system on the alkaline side will
>>> keep cancer from getting a foot hold. I don't know much about that.
>>> Something to do with eating more raw veggies or something.
>>
>> I have heard that from a number of sources - not just about cancer but other
>> health issues. Have also recently read info on the number of cancers which
>> spring up and the body heals from... it turns out it is a lot higher than
>> people thought. Turns out that finding them real early is not as much of a
>> benefit as it used to be seen as... which is not to say people should not be
>> screened.
>>
>
> Interesting. I didn't know that.
I just did a quick search for an article on it... did not find it. If I run
into it again I will share.
> I always screen with the PSA blood test, but even now I wonder if that test is
> just for the doctors and clinics to make more money.
They are also torn in that if they do not offer the test and someone is ill,
they can be sued for not detecting it.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]