“Truth? You can't handle the truth!”

[COMMANDO FORCES]

To be fair, Marmite is filth so banning it got the thumbs up from me.

I love it 

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

I am going make a miniture lifelike Bill Gates effigy and stick pins in it.  

'I see you are making a miniature, lifelike Bill Gates effigy. Would you like some help with that?'

[Jared Katooie]

Bill Gates the [fake] philanthropist

I'm not a fan of Gates- more of the opposite in fact, but this is bullshit. Not only that, I fear it may be libel.
Unless you have evidence that he doesn't actually do things like buy medicine and build schools, then I think you should retract that statement.

What we can't even LIBEL people anymore?!

This is the most depressing thing that's ever happened to me - even worse than that time Michael Keaton shot my cousin...

[Peter Wolf]

Bill Gates the [fake] philanthropist

I'm not a fan of Gates- more of the opposite in fact, but this is bullshit. Not only that, I fear it may be libel.
Unless you have evidence that he doesn't actually do things like buy medicine and build schools, then I think you should retract that statement.

I wasnt saying that Bill Gates doesnt spend money on medicines and schools but i was talking about his interest in vaccines.

Perhaps i worded it wrong and fixation was misread as to the exclusion of everything else.

The Gates foundation do spend on sanitation programmes but going by their own website they say this :


Water and Hygiene:
Over the past several years we have invested significantly in technologies and methods for increasing sustainable access to clean water and hygiene in addition to our funding for sanitation. While our focus is on sanitation, we will continue to provide limited funding to promising clean water and hygiene solutions.

[Dandontdare]

Okay, this thread started as a friendly irreverent discussion of "conspiracy theory" type subjects, and I enjoyed it, but I won't be back after this post as the last few days have seen such a deluge of lies and bullshit that I now realise it's just a safe quarantined part of the board where the usual internet bollox can go on harmlessly without bothering normal folk.

Examples of "last straw" bullshit:

No discussion and no debate and no referendum [direct democracy] about joining the EU which is part of the Bilderberg agenda

Britain held a referendum about joining the EU on 5th June 1975

For example the military intervention in Libya.No discussion and no debate in parliament in the UK

Parliament debated UK military action against Libya on 21st March 2011. Our elected representatives voted 557:13 to take action.

It has been shown that a fair few natural substances such as hemp oil, bicarbonate of soda, peach pits and mistletoe (amongst a fair few others) are very effective in curing cancer*

Despite the weaselly disclaimer attached, this makes me fucking angry. Mankind does not and never has found a way to stop the internal destruction that occurs when natural cellular reproduction goes batshit. If fucking peach pits did this, then "big Pharma" would have been establishing vast peach plantations the second it was proved. Some substances may help to avoid cancer; some substances may slow the effects of cancer, and even so these effects are difficult to prove, but NOTHING we know of will cure it. Anyone who advocates trawling the internet for hemp oil and mistletoe remedies thinking their cancer is going to be cured are simply victims of exploitation (including people I have known), just as much as idiots hooked on big-pharma antibiotics for the solution to all ills. Those who actually promote such bullshit are no better than mediums, faith healers and snake-oil salesman.

As Tim Minchin put it: "What do they call alternative medicine that is proven to actually work?. They call it medicine."

I've got no time for evil big pharma bastards; and I believe the Bildeburg group are a bunch of evil cunts committed to forging policy that ensure that they and their rich pals stay rich and powerful by shitting on the rest of us from a great height.

This is no secret, this is no conspiracy, but when you try to raise awareness through lies and bullshit, you just do more damage than good. Bottom line, "people" are stupid and very easily bought. Why does Saudi Arabia not have the same demos as the rest of the middle East? Cos they can afford to create loads of non-jobs, handouts and low taxation to buy people's complacency. In the Western world, we're living the high life at the expense of the less-developed world - who's going to vote for lower (but fairer) living standards? we're more bothered about who's judging X-factor than who's facing trial in the Hague.

And part of the reason that the majority of people don't engage with these issues is that since the advent of the internet, the debate seems to be dominated by bullshitters and lunatics.

Peace and farewell, this is my last post on this thread.

[The Legendary Shark]

Yes, Sharkey, terrible statistics, but are they solely down to the politicians and corporations and have nothing to do with the decadent Western population?  Perhaps, in future, before we buy our wonderful children/grand children/nieces/nephews their next pointless toy or present, we should think about donating that same money to an African charity that could supply safe drinking water to children of the same age who are dying of diarrhoea, as I'm typing this.

Of course, that won't happen, because we must get our loved ones the latest computer game or their zillionth cuddly toy.  Yeah, go on, blame it all on the politicians and corporations, it'll make you feel better.

It's not about assigning blame - that's the least productive thing to do. It's about understanding the horrendous flaws in the system and working out how to do things better. This is something we are all responsible for - as you rightly allude. I take my part of that responsibility quite seriously as I hope my trying to put my views across demonstrates. I don't for on second believe that I have all the pieces of the puzzle or understand exactly what's going on with any more clarity, authority or understanding than anyone else. Never believe anything I write here, never take my word for it. If what I say piques your interest, then by all means hit Ixquick or Google and satisfy yourself that I'm talking sense/nonsense.

I don't for one minute think that there are rooms full of Big Pharma executives who sit around all day thinking "how many people can we kill today?" (That said, I know that many "elites" do favour population reduction by fair means or foul and people who do subscribe to this view may make business decisions at least coloured by this type of eugenics.) What I do think is that artificial substances like aspartame are engineered to fulfil a purpose (in this case, a sweetener that doesn't make you fat or rot your teeth) without causing harm. The fact that the engineered substance does transpire to cause harm is then either covered up or played down because the development of said substance has a substantial dollar value attached to it which must be recovered. So, if Substance Y causes diabetes in a smallish number of people then it isn't the end of the world for the company who makes Substance Y because they also make Substance X which happens to be a diabetes drug. These things evolve.

Let me just present you with this hypothetical:

Let's imagine that I discover that I've got cancer. In this country, the only legal way to treat cancer is through licensed medicine which is very harsh and destructive.

In reality, I have three choices: Firstly, I could ignore the diagnosis altogether and just live with it. Secondly, I could deliver myself into the hands of modern western medicine which will bombard me with radiation, inject me with toxic chemicals or even slice me open and cut chunks of me away. Thirdly, I could rub a drop of hemp oil into my gums once a day for a month. Given the option, which one should I choose? Which one would you choose?

There are many corporate agendas in the world - sometimes the overlap or coincide and then that can look like a large conspiracy instead of lots of little pockets of corporate self-interest.

BTW, if anyone has Sky TV: Sky Channel 201, Showcase TV (free) is showing the documentary "Cancer: Forbidden Cures" at 10pm this evening.

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

In reality, I have three choices: Firstly, I could ignore the diagnosis altogether and just live with it. Secondly, I could deliver myself into the hands of modern western medicine which will bombard me with radiation, inject me with toxic chemicals or even slice me open and cut chunks of me away. Thirdly, I could rub a drop of hemp oil into my gums once a day for a month. Given the option, which one should I choose? Which one would you choose?

The one that works. Listen to your Doctor. Most of them are decent honest people. At least the ones I know are.

Dentists are bastards though. Now they are definitely up to something. You can indentify anyone from their dental records. Clearly dentists have a huge record of everyone. But it goes deeper, the dentists are in bed with the confectionary and sweeties giants. Coca-Cola owns your dentist. Coca-Cola gives you cavities, dentists give you fillings. When these fillings react with the flouride the dentists insist we should have in our water supply, it sends out an electro-chemical signal with which their spy satellites track you.

[The Legendary Shark]

Mankind does not and never has found a way to stop the internal destruction that occurs when natural cellular reproduction goes batshit. If fucking peach pits did this, then "big Pharma" would have been establishing vast peach plantations the second it was proved.

Peace and farewell, this is my last post on this thread.

As I said, peach plantations would be no good to Big Pharma as they cannot patent naturally occurring substances. They may be able to create, say, "Peach Pit Powders" to treat certain cancers, but their profits from such a thing would be tiny compared to what they can charge for a single chemotherapy pill.

Rene Caisse, a nurse in the first half of the last century, cured hundreds of cancer patients with a mixture of herbs she learned from a Native American healer. The medical establishment refused to even look at her results, let alone test the mixture (which she called Essiac) to prove or disprove its efficacy.

"As Tim Minchin put it: "What do they call alternative medicine that is proven to actually work?. They call it medicine.""

Tim Minchin the comedian? Oh well, that's me sold. If Mr Minchin is satisfied that there is not one single naturally occurring substance on Earth that is effective against cancer then who am I to argue?

Farewell, DDD - go in peace. I certainly wasn't trying to convince you or recruit you and my "mealy mouthed disclaimer" that I may be wrong about what I've learned was meant respectfully to all. That admission is more than you'll get from a modern oncologist, though.

[The Legendary Shark]

Listen to your Doctor. Most of them are decent honest people. At least the ones I know are.

You are absolutely right; the overwhelming majority of doctors are decent, honest and caring people. Your GP, though, probably does not undertake medical research. Drugs companies do most of the research and tell the doctors what they've discovered - which is generally that they've invented a new drug which is good for this or that. No matter how decent and honest a doctor is, if he or she is being given skewed data to begin with then he or she can only pass on skewed data to their patients in good faith.

Not every artificial remedy is bad, poisonous or evil - but most of them are expensive. Wherever possible, I firmly believe that natural remedies are preferable but in recent times we seem to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Why invent something that costs $300 a pill when you could, say, grind a couple of wild seeds to powder instead?


Edit: Rene Caisse obituary: http://www.essiacinfo.org/caisse_pop_4.htm

[House of Usher]

Drugs companies do most of the research and tell the doctors what they've discovered - which is generally that they've invented a new drug which is good for this or that. No matter how decent and honest a doctor is, if he or she is being given skewed data to begin with then he or she can only pass on skewed data to their patients in good faith.

You can't conduct a clinical trial without the help of doctors. After a drug has been given to healthy people (Phase I) to demonstrate that it is at least non-fatal and reasonably safe and the known side-effects are acceptable, Phase III of a clinical trial - the last before commercialization - is to administer the drug to patients. You can't administer drugs to people without the help of doctors. Doctors are responsible for collecting the data during psae II and Phase III of a clinical trial. If doctors are at all misled about the benefits of a drug, then other doctors further up the chain are at least partly responsible.

[Peter Wolf]

You shouldnt get annoyed about it all as its just comments on the internet.

Chill .Peace to you brother  

In any event people should check things out for themselves and be their own judge.

The EEC/EU referendum in 1975 was for continued membership of the EEC which is something else entirely to the EU as it is now as it was a trading bloc so the voters in the UK voted yes on the basis of staying in a trading bloc but they didnt vote on being a member of the EU as it is now as it didnt exist then in practice.

We were promised a referendum and the new labour govt renaged on its promise and Cameron also promised a referendum [pre-election] and for a short while afterwards and then nothing as the topic is off the menu and they later presented the AV referendum as something of a distraction.



As for the UK govt voting on Libya they were voting on something that had already begun and the matter was put to the vote in a very short space of time and there was no emergency session held regarding this as far as i know.The case for it [partly after the event] was made to be compelling as it was sold on humanitarian grounds and the enforcement of a no fly zone if a no fly zone means one that involves NATO fighter planes.They just sat round for a day while debating other topics such as the lowering of the drink drive limit and all the while the UK was launching Tomahawk missiles from submarines at Libya and then this all the while knowing that the UK military was massing outside Libya in preperation for this which had been going on for weeks yet there was no discussion about this and then all of a sudden a UN resolution was passed and the UK being a member of the UN Security Council was obliged to uphold the resolution.

The UK in its UN capacity pushed for the resolution which it got and then the govt voted on the resolution that the UK was already committed to or else it wouldnt have pushed for it so its not as if there was ever going to be a majority against it and even if there was it wouldnt have made any difference at all as the UN has assumed authority over the UK govt with the UK being a memeber of the Security Council so it was a foregone conclusion with any debate and vote being a complete farce.

Not much dissent there and if there was it wouldnt have made any difference and if the vote did make any difference then they obviously think voting for an open ended offensive that will cost billions and billions is somehow beneficial to the people of the UK.

They were all probably compelled to vote in favor as there is a lot of compelling that goes on in govt.

[Richmond Clements]

"As Tim Minchin put it: "What do they call alternative medicine that is proven to actually work?. They call it medicine.""

Tim Minchin the comedian? Oh well, that's me sold. If Mr Minchin is satisfied that there is not one single naturally occurring substance on Earth that is effective against cancer then who am I to argue?

Now that's just fucking silly. You're not a stupid man- you know he neither said nor meant that, so why the cheap jibe?

And I do find it curious that you question his opinion (or rather the spin you chose to put on it) because it was stated by a comedian, but are will to accept the word of someone on the internet over that of a fire fighter or metallurgist when the reasons for the collapse of the twin towers are explained.

[I, Cosh]

"As Tim Minchin put it: "What do they call alternative medicine that is proven to actually work?. They call it medicine.""

Tim Minchin the comedian? Oh well, that's me sold. If Mr Minchin is satisfied that there is not one single naturally occurring substance on Earth that is effective against cancer then who am I to argue?

I'm not inclined to defend large drug companies who I'm sure are only interested in drug research as a means to maximise profits, who are definitely guilty of profiteering and immoral behaviour and who I think are increasingly engaged in a project to peddle medical solutions to non-existent social problems. However, I also think proper testing and regulation are essential in something as potentially harmful as medicine. You appear to have (I assume deliberately) misinterpreted DDD's point. If a "naturally occuring substance" is proven to have observable, verifiable effects measured in recognised trials against any condition and is subsequently used as the basis of treatment then it is a medicine. Simple as that.

To answer your question about what treatment I'd choose having been diagnosed with cancer. That's also simple. The regime which has a wealth of documented and empiric evidence for its efficacy in the amelioration of my symptoms.

I may be misreading, but you appear to be afflicted with the old "natural good, synthetic bad" malaise. Here's the thing. Nature is made of chemicals. Radiation is a natural process. Chemicals combine and react with each other in unpredictable ways all the time. Humans have been taking naturally ocurring substances (let's take flint as an example) for thousands of years and through various refining processes (let's say hammering, shaving and sharpening the initially shapeless, useless block of stone) synthesising something more concentrated and useful (let's say an arrowhead.) Refinement and standardisation of chemicals to make drugs is surely just an extension of this same, admirable, process.

Going back to your hemp oil. If it is effective against my theoretical cancer then how much should I take and how often? The problem with naturally occuring substances is that they don't naturally occur in uniform quanitities or concentrations. In order to ensure a standarised dosage you need refinement and quality control. As far as I'm concerned, proper legal regulation of this process is an absolute necessity. If you're making health-giving claims for your product then you most definitely have to be able to assure me I'm getting a certain amount in a certain way. When you mentioned it not being legal to provide other treatments, I think (could be wrong) you were talking about this. As far as I know (again, you're probably better informed on this) you can sell whatever you like, you just can't make claims about it's medicinal properties if it hasn't actually been tested and licenced. Why's this a big deal for the suppliers? Because you can charge more and sell more if people believe it's good for them. There's just as much vile profiteering from other people's misery in the snake oil industry as there is in the pharmaceutical industry. Possibly more, given that they actually know they're lying.

[Peter Wolf]

Its apricot kernels that are thought to cure cancer or the soft substance inside them and the active ingredient is Vitamin B17.

Now supposing this is proven to be a fact then the drug companies could produce a cancer cure that is 100 percent effective but they cant patent the active ingredient but they could still sell the cure and they would have to be able to produce enough of the active ingredient but this would make the rest of cancer treatment industry redundant apart from that which would be researching vit B17 so there would be a massive loss to the majority of the cancer research industry as it is a billion $$$$$$$$$$$$$ plus industry so think of the implications of that.

Also one company would not have the monopoly of the market either as anyone can produce the active ingredient so competition would be based on costs and its a cheap ingredient so in terms of profitability if you are a drug company then its easy to see that there isnt much cash to be made out of it.

Add that to the losses and collapse of the cancer research industry.

If you were motivated by cash and you had a billion dollar fortune 500 company with shareholders all wanting their share of the goose that lays the golden egg what would you be thinking  

Think about it.

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

Yeah, that's why alchemical research into the Philosopher's stone has halted.

Laughter is the best medicine. Bigfoot told me so.