RUPERTKBD Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 Everyone keep saying "innocent child".... well, what if the child isn't innocent? Do you guys still step in to save it? What would you postulate that the child in question is "guilty" of? An 11 year old child might be guilty of telling the occasional lie, maybe some petty theft....nothing deserving of the death penalty. Yes. I still step in to save her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 This is fascinating... My girlfriends mom had stage 4 colon cancer, which, at the time meant you were likely to die... She decided to not do chemo, but went through with an insanely healthy diet. She started to juice several pounds of carrots and other healthy foods a day, and cut out any processed foods. Anyway... I guess her body was so rich with healthy foods it fought off the cancer... She ended up surviving with no chemo. It was her choice too, not a bunch of ill informed know it alls on a canucks forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FramingDragon Posted November 16, 2014 Author Share Posted November 16, 2014 This is fascinating... My girlfriends mom had stage 4 colon cancer, which, at the time meant you were likely to die... She decided to not do chemo, but went through with an insanely healthy diet. She started to juice several pounds of carrots and other healthy foods a day, and cut out any processed foods. Anyway... I guess her body was so rich with healthy foods it fought off the cancer... She ended up surviving with no chemo. It was her choice too, not a bunch of ill informed know it alls on a canucks forum.Lmao this guy I guess all my medical genetics and cancer immunology courses are no match for the great Stefan and his postulation that healthy foods "fight off" cancer. With gluten free swords? Mind telling us the entire battery of anti tumor and inflammation medications this woman was on as she had her cleansing diet? It's always nice to leave the inconvenient parts of the story out. On top of that, to compare colon cancer and leukemia is just plain stupid. Of course what you eat will have a marked effect on your colon, the passage where everything you eat passes by. What does that have to do with leukemia? It's almost as silly as saying wearing sunscreen will prevent colon cancer because it prevents skin cancer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robongo Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 A little bit off topic, but since people keep bringing up THC, here's some new research on the use of Cannabis combined with irradiation to treat brain cancer: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141114085629.htm Experts have shown that when certain parts of cannabis are used to treat cancer tumours alongside radio therapy treatment the growths can virtually disappear. The new research by specialists at St George's, University of London, studied the treatment of brain cancer tumours in the laboratory and discovered that the most effective treatment was to combine active chemical components of the cannabis plant which are called cannabinoids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robongo Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 Lmao this guy I suggest you do some research on the power of raw food diets before ridiculing as there are countless testimonials online Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FramingDragon Posted November 16, 2014 Author Share Posted November 16, 2014 I suggest you do some research on the power of raw food diets before ridiculing as there are countless testimonials online Testimonials = anecdotal evidence that is riddled with confounding variables and confirmation bias It's the lowest level of evidence in scientific research that you'll never find in published research. It's the stuff bored housewives see as damning evidence. I'll pass on the offer, thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robongo Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 Testimonials = anecdotal evidence that is riddled with confounding variables and confirmation bias It's the lowest level of evidence in scientific research that you'll never find in published research. It's the stuff bored housewives see as damning evidence. I'll pass on the offer, thanks While I agree to an extent, to completely write off the possibility that it may work, shows how closed minded of an individual you are. I guess the only things that we should believe in are treatments and studies bought and paid for by the same corporations that make billions off of cancer. Really good, eye opening documentary: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/burzynski-the-movie-cancer-is-serious-business/ Burzynski is the story of a medical doctor and Ph.D biochemist named Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski who won the largest and possibly the most convoluted and intriguing legal battle against the Food an Drug Administration in American history. His victorious battles with the United States government were centered on Dr. Burzynski's belief in and commitment to his gene-targeted cancer medicines he discovered in the 1970's called Antineoplastons, which have currently completed Phase II FDA-supervised clinical trials in 2009 and could begin the final phase of testing in 2011-barring the ability to raise the $25 million to fund the first one. When Antineoplastons are approved, it will mark the first time in history a single scientist, not a pharmaceutical company, will hold the exclusive patent and distribution rights on a paradigm-shifting, life-saving medical breakthrough. Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Various cancer survivors are presented in the film that chose his treatment instead of surgery, chemotherapy or radiation - with full disclosure of original medical records to support their diagnosis and recovery. One form of cancer - diffuse, intrinsic, childhood brainstem glioma has never before been cured in any experimental clinical trial in the history of medicine. Antineoplastons hold the first cures in history - dozens of them. Burzynski takes the audience through the treacherous, yet victorious, 14-year journey both Dr. Burzynski and his patients have had to endure in order to obtain FDA-approved clinical trials of Antineoplastons. However, what was revealed a few years after Dr. Burzynski won his freedom, helps to paint a more coherent picture regarding the true motivation of the U.S. government's relentless prosecution of Stanislaw Burzysnki. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jester13 Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 Agreed. We don't need to insulate everyone from making what society considers a poor choice. Tell that to the thousands of people (children) affected by the anti-vaccination campaign Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FramingDragon Posted November 17, 2014 Author Share Posted November 17, 2014 While I agree to an extent, to completely write off the possibility that it may work, shows how closed minded of an individual you are. I guess the only things that we should believe in are treatments and studies bought and paid for by the same corporations that make billions off of cancer. Really good, eye opening documentary: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/burzynski-the-movie-cancer-is-serious-business/ Do not put words into my mouth. I am not denying the positive effects of a balanced and healthy diet free of processed foods. I also said that in the case of colon cancer, it is far more relevant than it would be for leukemia given the colon's role in digesting foods. That's what I said right here: On top of that, to compare colon cancer and leukemia is just plain stupid. Of course what you eat will have a marked effect on your colon, the passage where everything you eat passes by. What does that have to do with leukemia? It's almost as silly as saying wearing sunscreen will prevent colon cancer because it prevents skin cancer I am not going to touch the rest of the post about conspiracies, waste of time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robongo Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Do not put words into my mouth. I am not denying the positive effects of a balanced and healthy diet free of processed foods. I also said that in the case of colon cancer, it is far more relevant than it would be for leukemia given the colon's role in digesting foods. That's what I said right here: I am not going to touch the rest of the post about conspiracies, waste of time Um, your original post was solely "lmao this guy" and then you edited after I posted a response. So anything that doesn't fit your viewpoint is now a conspiracy, even though facts back it up. Good to know, and thanks for not wasting my time by making me read your response on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FramingDragon Posted November 17, 2014 Author Share Posted November 17, 2014 Um, your original post was solely "lmao this guy" and then you edited after I posted a response. So anything that doesn't fit your viewpoint is now a conspiracy, even though facts back it up. Good to know, and thanks for not wasting my time by making me read your response on it. I was editing it as you posted the response. Do you really think what you said in reply had anything to do with my response to him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robongo Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 I was editing it as you posted the response. Do you really think what you said in reply had anything to do with my response to him? Um, you accused me of putting words in your mouth by calling you closed minded, but given your original response which was : "lmao this guy", I inferred that you were writing off what he said as something ridiculous and impossible, so yes. Back to your "lmao this guy" edited post; food that you eat has an affect on the entire body, not just your colon. Your sunscreen analogy deserves another as the sunscreen is just that, sunscreen and only blocks harmful UV rays. No where near the same as consuming nutrient dense food that is absorbed and used by the entire body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VICanucksfan5551 Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 While I agree to an extent, to completely write off the possibility that it may work, shows how closed minded of an individual you are. I guess the only things that we should believe in are treatments and studies bought and paid for by the same corporations that make billions off of cancer. Really good, eye opening documentary: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/burzynski-the-movie-cancer-is-serious-business/ Seeing as we're linking videos: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duodenum Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 While I agree to an extent, to completely write off the possibility that it may work, shows how closed minded of an individual you are. I guess the only things that we should believe in are treatments and studies bought and paid for by the same corporations that make billions off of cancer. Really good, eye opening documentary: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/burzynski-the-movie-cancer-is-serious-business/ Citing Dr. Burzynski has pretty much destroyed any credibility you had. You'll be hard pressed to have anyone take you seriously now. Well, maybe the "alternative" crowd will. Alex Jones gets a huge following with all the garbage he spews. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FramingDragon Posted November 17, 2014 Author Share Posted November 17, 2014 Um, you accused me of putting words in your mouth by calling you closed minded, but given your original response which was : "lmao this guy", I inferred that you were writing off what he said as something ridiculous and impossible, so yes. Back to your "lmao this guy" edited post; food that you eat has an affect on the entire body, not just your colon. Your sunscreen analogy deserves another as the sunscreen is just that, sunscreen and only blocks harmful UV rays. No where near the same as consuming nutrient dense food that is absorbed and used by the entire body. I didn't even read your post until mine was fully edited. Raw food comes with a host of bacteria that is ingested along with the nutrients. The nutrients will be broken down and absorbed by the entire body but the bacteria, depending on the type can either have an inflammatory effect on the gut or an anti inflammatory effect. How it impacts the mucosal immune system can have far downstream effects on the regulation of the tumour by other immune cells. You sound like you're just repeating mantra to be honest. I doubt you can explain to me what you mean by "nutrient dense food absorbed and used by the entire body", such vague and wishy washy nonsense. Talk to me in molecular terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dral Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 What would you postulate that the child in question is "guilty" of? An 11 year old child might be guilty of telling the occasional lie, maybe some petty theft....nothing deserving of the death penalty. Yes. I still step in to save her. You've misunderstood my point - I'm not accusing the child of being guilty of anything... I was pointing out the loaded language people are using to invoke an emotional response and that their opinion is morally superior. Also, if it doesn't matter if it's a guilty child or "innocent", where do you actually draw the line? 17 year olds? 18 year olds? If you've actually spent a few years outside of high school, you'll know that just because someone is in their 20's doesn't mean they are an 'adult'. But what about innocent adults who have a very positive impact on society but have just simply been taught a few bad lessons? Should we turn our backs on them and condemn them to "the death penalty" because they grew up in a home full of superstitious nonsense through no fault of their own? Don't we have a responsibility to protect them as well? Why not argue that anyone who makes this choice for themselves is obviously not mentally capable of making the right choices and should become a ward of the state as well? What about mentally handicapped adults? Where do you draw the line on who the government can force to take specific treatments? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUPERTKBD Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 You've misunderstood my point - I'm not accusing the child of being guilty of anything... I was pointing out the loaded language people are using to invoke an emotional response and that their opinion is morally superior. Also, if it doesn't matter if it's a guilty child or "innocent", where do you actually draw the line? 17 year olds? 18 year olds? If you've actually spent a few years outside of high school, you'll know that just because someone is in their 20's doesn't mean they are an 'adult'. But what about innocent adults who have a very positive impact on society but have just simply been taught a few bad lessons? Should we turn our backs on them and condemn them to "the death penalty" because they grew up in a home full of superstitious nonsense through no fault of their own? Don't we have a responsibility to protect them as well? Why not argue that anyone who makes this choice for themselves is obviously not mentally capable of making the right choices and should become a ward of the state as well? What about mentally handicapped adults? Where do you draw the line on who the government can force to take specific treatments? I don't have to "draw the line". It is done for me. The law states that I am responsible for the well-being of my children, up to a certain age, after which, they should be able to make such decisions for themselves. 11 years old is clearly within those parameters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 You've misunderstood my point - I'm not accusing the child of being guilty of anything... I was pointing out the loaded language people are using to invoke an emotional response and that their opinion is morally superior. Also, if it doesn't matter if it's a guilty child or "innocent", where do you actually draw the line? 17 year olds? 18 year olds? If you've actually spent a few years outside of high school, you'll know that just because someone is in their 20's doesn't mean they are an 'adult'. But what about innocent adults who have a very positive impact on society but have just simply been taught a few bad lessons? Should we turn our backs on them and condemn them to "the death penalty" because they grew up in a home full of superstitious nonsense through no fault of their own? Don't we have a responsibility to protect them as well? Why not argue that anyone who makes this choice for themselves is obviously not mentally capable of making the right choices and should become a ward of the state as well? What about mentally handicapped adults? Where do you draw the line on who the government can force to take specific treatments? By your logic there should be an infinite number of lines? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Lmao this guy I guess all my medical genetics and cancer immunology courses are no match for the great Stefan and his postulation that healthy foods "fight off" cancer. With gluten free swords? Mind telling us the entire battery of anti tumor and inflammation medications this woman was on as she had her cleansing diet? It's always nice to leave the inconvenient parts of the story out. On top of that, to compare colon cancer and leukemia is just plain stupid. Of course what you eat will have a marked effect on your colon, the passage where everything you eat passes by. What does that have to do with leukemia? It's almost as silly as saying wearing sunscreen will prevent colon cancer because it prevents skin cancer A little presumptuous aren't we. I left out nothing. I never said anything about gluten free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 This is fascinating... My girlfriends mom had stage 4 colon cancer, which, at the time meant you were likely to die... She decided to not do chemo, but went through with an insanely healthy diet. She started to juice several pounds of carrots and other healthy foods a day, and cut out any processed foods. Anyway... I guess her body was so rich with healthy foods it fought off the cancer... She ended up surviving with no chemo. It was her choice too, not a bunch of ill informed know it alls on a canucks forum. Care to explain your "rich with healthy foods" connection to curing cancer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.