Main Menu

“Truth? You can't handle the truth!”

Started by The Legendary Shark, 18 March, 2011, 06:52:29 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

TordelBack

This is water I'm not keen on swimming in, but I direct everyone who hasn't already been to Ben Goldacre's blog http://www.badscience.net/, and indeed his excellent book Bad Science.  There you will see someone who actively fights both the claims of Big Pharma, Alternative Medicine and their allies The Meja and the Gubbermint with the tools of science and reason.  

From following Dr. Goldacre for several years now one thing is clear to me:  people become doctors and medical scientists to help people.  Any conspiracy to subvert that aim will be resisted by the best and the brightest.  If there were scientifically demonstrable cures of the kind claimed by the alternative community, the medical profession would be all over them.  And with that endorsement Boots would be selling them by the truckload.  And everyone would win.  Sick people don't earn money, dead people don't spend it:  a long prosperous life is in everyone's interests, profit-based and otherwise.

Richmond Clements

QuoteIts apricot kernels that are thought to cure cancer

Really? All cancers? Everything from melanomas to leukemia? REALLY?

Definitely Not Mister Pops

#302
This thread is becming unhealthy. I prescribe a change of subject.

FIFA have hired Henry Kissenger. Any thoughts?
You may quote me on that.

Peter Wolf

Quote from: Richmond Clements on 10 June, 2011, 11:20:11 PM
QuoteIts apricot kernels that are thought to cure cancer

Really? All cancers? Everything from melanomas to leukemia? REALLY?

[I have been drinking.... :o]

Heres a link to a website with lots of articles about it.If you are interested in Natural* health then this website is the most reliable and its all in one place which makes it all easy rather than trawling thorough endless websites wanting to sell you their products as well as the quacks:

http://www.naturalnews.com/GoogleSearchResults.html?q=vitamin+b17&cx=010579349100583850635%3Aw_kzwe9_yca&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&sa.x=38&sa.y=11&sa=Search&siteurl=www.naturalnews.com%2Fcancer.html#1348

In some cases their is still a case for orthodox cancer treatment in certain cases but having watched a very close relative deteriorate and then die from a rare form of cancer i have mixed feelings on the subject.In some cases like my brother if its in its advanced stages then there is really no alternative to cutting bits out to contain it but its the chemotherapy treatment that i am sceptical of and so was my brother who was convinced he was subjected to the wrong kind of treatment.The consultant/Doctor treating my brother was not a bad guy as himself and others offer what they believe is the best possible treatment possible but that doesnt make them infallible or give them the ability to save a patient 100 percent of the time but it doesnt mean they are Dr Death either.

I dont know if Vit B17 works as a cure apart from what i have read as i have had no direct experience of it but if there is evidence that it does cure cancer then it should be subjected to proper research if it offers an alternative to being pumped full of toxic chemicals while you are in already critcal state of health.

Those are my thoughts on it and everyone is free to think what they like about it as i dont particularly care what others think anyway.

You get good doctors and bad doctors but doctors cant be blamed as they are trained in one school of medicine and if you dont like it then dont go to a doctor as everyone has the choice as its their health and they make their own choices.Your GP only really perscribe in a lot of cases and they act on the info they have been given regarding drugs with the best intentions a lot of the time.

Everything has to black and white to a lot of people but in reality its not like that.

Doctors are not infallible as they get things wrong  and if you are seriously ill then get more than one opinion.A close friend of mine was diagnosed with ME and suffered with it for years and never got a second opinion and then it finally transpired he had a type of Leukemia but by that point it was too late and he was admitted to hospital and went into a coma and then died.

Dont trust orthodox medicine implicitely and dont trust alternative medicine implicitly.Do your own research as the NHS isnt going to do it for you.

Codex Alimentaris is Fascism and denies you choice so Fuck them and as usual with these things it is a trojan horse that is used against you while it is sold as something that is meant to protect you through regulation which it partly does but banning rock salt ????

Denied the right to eat rock salt or to sell it ?

Big govt and the UN care about my health so much that they restrict the sale of all that nasty rock salt that has all those nasty minerals and rare earth elements in it that are so bad for your health as they care about me so much ?

I feel so much more safe and secure without all that nasty rock salt and all those nasty vitamins.

Do me a fucking favor.please..... :lol: :crazy:



In the old days alternative medicine was known as complimentary medicine which meant it was complimentary rather than something that is subjected to criminalisation.

I have been drinking but i have really enjoyed this thread and reading the comments and typing the replies and it brightened up an otherwise boring night.

Quote from: pops1983 on 11 June, 2011, 12:09:17 AM
This thread is becming unhealthy. I prescribe a change of subject.

FIFA have hired Henry Kissenger. Any thoughts?

Henry Kissinger is not in Fifa and never has been.This question has been discounted so please choose another............

*Yes i know its all natural anyway...............
Worthing Bazaar - A fete worse than death

Definitely Not Mister Pops

You may quote me on that.

Peter Wolf

Worthing Bazaar - A fete worse than death

The Legendary Shark

Quote from: House of Usher on 10 June, 2011, 10:09:51 PM
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.

Granted. However: Do the doctors administering the drugs know what's in those drugs, or is their impartiality enhanced by not knowing? Whilst doctors do indeed administer and take note, they're basically just acting as glorified Pez dispensers. Furthermore, think about this: It's the drug companies who fund these trials with a view to ending up with a commercially viable product. Which drug company is going to spend £50million testing hemp oil in this way when they won't be able to patent the result? Not only will the drug companies not be able to patent the plant but a positive result will cost them millions, maybe even billions, in cancer drug revenue when it's discovered that a practically free weed does the job of a £5,000 per month artificial, patented drug. This is why you always hear opponents of natural cancer cures (et al) saying things like "there is absolutely no scientific evidence for these claims." There is no scientific evidence because the drug companies refuse to spend the money gathering it. It's a classic Catch 22 situation.

Quote from: Richmond Clements on 10 June, 2011, 10:37:30 PM
Quote"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.

The cheap jibe was my frustration, and you're right - maybe it was wrong of me to say that. However, DDD also said "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." If he'd bothered to Google any of the cancer therapies I've mentioned so far (or the Gerson Therapy, Vitamin B17, Shark Cartilage, Iscador or the role of the fungus Candida Albicans in possibly causing cancers, or watched the documentary "Cancer: The Forbidden Cures", or any number of other things like that) then he'd see that mankind has known how to cure many (not all) cancers for a great many years. There are Indian medical books from 1,000 years ago that describe the efficacy of certain alkalis on hard to cure cancers.

All this he pooh-poohed because, I assume, he just didn't want to think about it or believe that alternatives to conventional, destructive therapies are the Only Way. Then he throws in a quip by a comedian whose job is to make people laugh as if that's somehow a valid argument. So yes, I got frustrated and made that silly comment. You're right, it was a cheap shot. You're also wrong - it would appear that by making that cheap jibe we have proved that I am indeed a stupid man  :lol:

Quote from: The Cosh on 10 June, 2011, 10:56:43 PM
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....

Going back to your hemp oil. If it is effective against my theoretical cancer then how much should I take and how often?

I hope my earlier waffling answered some of this, Cosh.

As to dosage of hemp oil - without looking it up I can only give a brief, rough description of the process. First, you need a large bucket full of bone dry hemp buds, to which you add about two gallons of solvent like pure naphtha or isopropyl alcohol. It's best to soak the buds more than once to extract all the THC from the hemp. The solvent is then gently boiled off (be VERY careful at this stage as the fumes can easily ignite). Eventually, you will be left with a dark brown or amber oil (not much - say enough to fill a modest syringe). A drop of this oil about the same size as a grain of rice rubbed into the gums two to four times a day for a month is enough to cure most internal cancers. For skin cancers, simply rub the same amount into the exposed melanoma. (Another mealy-mouthed disclaimer here - I wrote that from memory so if you want to do it yourself you'd best look it up to be sure.)

Quote from: TordelBack on 10 June, 2011, 11:17:40 PM
...people become doctors and medical scientists to help people.  Any conspiracy to subvert that aim will be resisted by the best and the brightest.  If there were scientifically demonstrable cures of the kind claimed by the alternative community, the medical profession would be all over them.  And with that endorsement Boots would be selling them by the truckload.  And everyone would win.  Sick people don't earn money, dead people don't spend it:  a long prosperous life is in everyone's interests, profit-based and otherwise.

Drug companies do want you to live long lives - long, unhealthy lives. If the drugs they made cured people, their own business Model would destroy them. Drug companies fund medical schools, research, advertising. They send doctors freebies and gifts right from Day 1 of medical school. Doctors have to be clever to learn all they need to learn but just stop and think for a minute; when you go to the doctor's, 90% of the time, what do you come out with? A prescription. The other 10% of the time you come out with a referral to another doctor who is a specialist in a certain area of issuing prescriptions. It is how the doctors have been taught. As for Boots selling "complimentary medicines" - that's what kicked this discussion off: Codex Alimentarius - an attempt to make natural "scientifically unproven" (see above) medicines and additives illegal.

Quote from: Richmond Clements on 10 June, 2011, 11:20:11 PM
QuoteIts apricot kernels that are thought to cure cancer

Really? All cancers? Everything from melanomas to leukemia? REALLY?

Peter's right - although I think peach pits also contain VB17.

Some cancers hare harder to cure than others, but all seem to be curable.The hardest cancer to cure is bone cancer because bones receive very little blood and it is therefore hard to use the bloodstream to administer any treatments.

Jeez - that turned into a bit of a novel, didn't it! Sorry about that!
[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




Definitely Not Mister Pops

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 11 June, 2011, 12:48:50 AM
Do the doctors administering the drugs know what's in those drugs, or is their impartiality enhanced by not knowing?

No, not if they're doing a double blind test. They do have protocols for these things. Imperical method and all that. Control groups and suchlike. It may not be perfect, but it's fairly rigorous.
You may quote me on that.

The Legendary Shark

Let me just state for the record that I'm sure many artificial drugs are perfectly efficacious. If they don't work, they won't make money. If they kill people, they won't make money. If they cause massive side-effects, they won't make money. However, if they cause slight side-effects then they actually make more money because then they can be sold along with other drugs to alleviate the side-effects. What Big Pharma is essentially doing is trying to re-invent the wheel for profit. If any industry should be nationalized, it's the drugs companies. A government would be much better placed to thoroughly test the efficacy of the above mentioned cures and treatments as governments don't need to make a profit. Indeed, government run pharmacological production would probably welcome these much cheaper options leading to, perversely, probably the exact opposite of the situation we have now where they'd rather test dandelions than highly complex chemicals to save money.

All we need is a bit of common sense. A bit of balance.
[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




The Legendary Shark

[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




Hoagy

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


Are you trying to pull the piss out of me Pete?

Because on this forum, I've 'ad th' best.


I've 'ad Rennie, Spurrior, Timson, Teague, the best, Molcher, Wyatt, you hear me... Not to mention the best o' th' rest ?
"bULLshit Mr Hand man!"
"Man, you come right out of a comic book. "
Previously Krombasher.

https://www.deviantart.com/fantasticabstract

Richmond Clements

QuoteHeres a link to a website with lots of articles about it.If you are interested in Natural* health then this website is the most reliable and its all in one place which makes it all easy rather than trawling thorough endless websites wanting to sell you their products as well as the quacks:

http://www.naturalnews.com/GoogleSearchResults.html?q=vitamin+b17&cx=010579349100583850635%3Aw_kzwe9_yca&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&sa.x=38&sa.y=11&sa=Search&siteurl=www.naturalnews.com%2Fcancer.html#1348

So I then looked up this Wonder drug on other sites and found this:
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/laetrile.html

QuoteLaetrile is the trade name for laevo-mandelonitrile-beta-glucuronoside, a substance allegedly synthesized by Ernst T. Krebs, Jr., and registered with the U.S. Patent Office for the treatment of "disorders of intestinal fermentation." This compound is chemically related to amygdalin, a substance found naturally in the pits of apricots and various other fruits... It was tried as an anticancer agent in Germany in 1892, but was discarded as ineffective and too toxic for that purpose. During the early 1950s, Ernst T. Krebs, Sr., M.D., and his son Ernst, Jr., began using a "purified" form of amygdalin to treat cancer patients. Since that time scientists have tested substances called "Laetrile" in more than 20 animal tumor models as well as in humans and found no benefit either alone or together with other substances.

Who needs 'Big Pharma' when you have these fucking con men ripping off the poor, scared and desperate, eh?


House of Usher

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 11 June, 2011, 12:48:50 AMWhich drug company is going to spend £50million testing hemp oil in this way when they won't be able to patent the result? Not only will the drug companies not be able to patent the plant but a positive result will cost them millions, maybe even billions, in cancer drug revenue when it's discovered that a practically free weed does the job of a £5,000 per month artificial, patented drug. This is why you always hear opponents of natural cancer cures (et al) saying things like "there is absolutely no scientific evidence for these claims." There is no scientific evidence because the drug companies refuse to spend the money gathering it. It's a classic Catch 22 situation.

In pharmaceuticals development, £50 million is chickenfeed, and if you thought that Big Pharma wasn't dipping its toes in the cannabinoid pharmaceuticals market you'd be wrong.

http://www.gwpharm.com/release-sativex-launch.aspx
STRIKE !!!

The Legendary Shark

Sativex Oromucosal Spray

QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE COMPOSITION
Each ml contains: 38-44 mg and 35-42 mg of two extracts (as soft extracts) from Cannabis sativa
L., folium cum flore (Cannabis leaf and flower) corresponding to 27 mg delta-
9-tetrahydrocannabinol and 25 mg cannabidiol.
Extraction solvent: Liquid carbon dioxide.


Each 100 microlitre spray contains:
2.7 mg delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and 2.5 mg cannabidiol (CBD).
Each 100 microlitre spray also contains up to 0.04 g alcohol.

List of excipients: Ethanol anhydrous, Propylene glycol, Peppermint oil.

And the cost?  3x10ml Vial = £480.00

Seems a tad expensive for what's in it.
[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




Peter Wolf

Quote from: Richmond Clements on 11 June, 2011, 09:57:45 AM
QuoteHeres a link to a website with lots of articles about it.If you are interested in Natural* health then this website is the most reliable and its all in one place which makes it all easy rather than trawling thorough endless websites wanting to sell you their products as well as the quacks:

http://www.naturalnews.com/GoogleSearchResults.html?q=vitamin+b17&cx=010579349100583850635%3Aw_kzwe9_yca&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&sa.x=38&sa.y=11&sa=Search&siteurl=www.naturalnews.com%2Fcancer.html#1348

So I then looked up this Wonder drug on other sites and found this:
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/laetrile.html

QuoteLaetrile is the trade name for laevo-mandelonitrile-beta-glucuronoside, a substance allegedly synthesized by Ernst T. Krebs, Jr., and registered with the U.S. Patent Office for the treatment of "disorders of intestinal fermentation." This compound is chemically related to amygdalin, a substance found naturally in the pits of apricots and various other fruits... It was tried as an anticancer agent in Germany in 1892, but was discarded as ineffective and too toxic for that purpose. During the early 1950s, Ernst T. Krebs, Sr., M.D., and his son Ernst, Jr., began using a "purified" form of amygdalin to treat cancer patients. Since that time scientists have tested substances called "Laetrile" in more than 20 animal tumor models as well as in humans and found no benefit either alone or together with other substances.

Who needs 'Big Pharma' when you have these fucking con men ripping off the poor, scared and desperate, eh?




Fair enough as there is very little evidence that proves it cures cancer and the strongest case for it is that there are tribes of people who live in remote areas whose diets are high in B17 where there are no instances of cancer.

Anyway forget apricot kernels as Turmeric seems to be far more effective in treating cancer and even Cancer Research are talking about it:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:NP_RfoLKzl0J:www.cancerhelp.org.uk/about-cancer/cancer-questions/can-turmeric-prevent-bowel-cancer+turmeric+cancer+cure&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.co.uk

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8328377.stm

I have experience of this myself and while it doesnt prove turmeric cures cancer its interesting given the fact it is being studied.I had a mole that appeared out of nowhere that grew in size and seemed to have similarities to a Melanoma.I had this when i was at the HI-EX.I went to a GP about it who said it wasnt "sinister" but no tests were done and it was left at that.I didnt bother going to see a specialist.It was itchy and had a scabby surface to it.I didnt know it was cancer for sure but it felt like there was something wrong.

Back in december i started taking a very small amount of ground turmeric daily as a detox and i noticed that what i thought was Melanoma as in the mole started to fade and shrink in size to the point now where there is a very faint trace of the mole and its returning to normal skin as it was before the mole appeared.
Worthing Bazaar - A fete worse than death