A Cure for Cancer...

This is the place for ON or Off topic conversations. Almost anything goes - but be kind, and no trolling.
Forum rules
While the rules in this forum are more relaxed than in other parts of the Expat site, there are still a few things we’d like you to remember: No name calling, no insults – be civil to each other!
User avatar
asgoodasitgets
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:14 am

A Cure for Cancer...

Postby asgoodasitgets » Sat Aug 20, 2011 4:22 pm

....and how the supposed scientists and bureaucrats, and lawyers, and other suits without souls worked like heck to try to squash this.

Burzynski: The Movie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0ibsoqjPac

I was in the bank the other day and I saw this poster that basically said "You have a 100% chance of getting cancer at some time in your life - find out how you can get insurance so you can afford treatment when your time comes". Since when did we come to accept the insurance companies and the cancer treatment industries version of reality: cancer as normal.

Cancer is a business. For me, suppression of medicine that could have saved countless lives: this is absolute genocide, murder, treason of whatever country you are in, abrogation of the Hippocratic oath...

This movie also exposes the hypocrisy and calls into question the integrity and true purposes of many charity organisations, which a lot of people (myself once one of them) blindly give money to. Some of the people behind some of these charities are truly beyond unsavoury to put it mildly.

Find out about the cure and see what alternatives exist before you get conned by a doctor that chemo and radiation is the only option... Even for those who are on chemo and radiation who have chosen that route, there are natural foods and medicines that can greatly reduce the negative side effects of those treatments by supporting the body.


The Foundation of a Free Society is Freedom of Speech.
jude
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:08 am

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby jude » Sat Aug 20, 2011 5:26 pm

How is this even remotely connected to Peru?
User avatar
asgoodasitgets
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:14 am

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby asgoodasitgets » Sat Aug 20, 2011 5:37 pm

jude wrote:How is this even remotely connected to Peru?


Are you serious? You mean people don't get cancer in Peru? I'm pretty sure they do - I know people who've had it here, and I saw a woman who had no hair wearing a scarf in a store the other day... looked pretty obvious that she might been going through cancer "treatment" - and there are childrens cancer wards and cancer hospitals here - aren't there? If they do get cancer here and are not somehow miraculously protected by the borders - don't they want to know about a real cure that exists!?

My grandmother died of cancer, and a close relative battled breast cancer.

I saw a story on the news the other day about a congresswoman who battled cancer, God bless her, but is promoting mammographies which recent studies show is causing the cancer it's supposed to detect (and not doing a good job of detecting it)...

With all due respect, next time why don't you view the referenced article or documentation before making a reply, then you'll be able to comment with some weight otherwise it just looks like you're opposed to something without having looked at it, and saying it's not Peru related is a cheap way of doing that (not saying you are, but if you were...). I live here, these issues affect everyone. Let me ask you, how is it not Peru related? There are kids dying here every day from cancer. Do you think their parents have heard about this cure from their loving doctors and the loving cancer establishment?

Or are you telling me that a cure for cancer is not allowed to be posted here on the living in Peru forum because it wasn't discovered in Peru? :shock:

Besides all of that, this is about academic suppression of health freedom that affects people all over the world, that I happen to think is one of the biggest issues of our time, so excuse me if I wish to discuss it on a forum that is geographically relevant to me. I don't go posting on forums in the US, or Canada, or anywhere else. I post here, because I live here, FYI.

If however the issue is that one wants to censor what I have to say because one doesn't like it, then just come out and say so, don't tip toe around the issue.
The Foundation of a Free Society is Freedom of Speech.
jude
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:08 am

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby jude » Sat Aug 20, 2011 5:47 pm

Obviously people get cancer in Peru.

To be clearly I don't get the connection between Peru and some nutty conspiracy theories about doctors suppressing the cure for cancer. Nor do I get the connection between Peru and the promotion of some wacky alternative cancer treatments.
User avatar
asgoodasitgets
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:14 am

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby asgoodasitgets » Sat Aug 20, 2011 5:56 pm

A case in point is cancer drug pricing in Peru where the disease is the leading cause of adult deaths and the second among children aged 5-14.2 The minority of Peruvians who receive care in the country’s public-health system find limited services and even more limited access to medicines.

http://www.newint.org/features/2003/11/01/cancer/
The Foundation of a Free Society is Freedom of Speech.
User avatar
JoshuS
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 312
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:40 am

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby JoshuS » Sat Aug 20, 2011 5:59 pm

asgoodasitgets wrote:....and how the supposed scientists and bureaucrats, and lawyers, and other suits without souls worked like heck to try to squash this.

Burzynski: The Movie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0ibsoqjPac

I was in the bank the other day and I saw this poster that basically said "You have a 100% chance of getting cancer at some time in your life - find out how you can get insurance so you can afford treatment when your time comes". Since when did we come to accept the insurance companies and the cancer treatment industries version of reality: cancer as normal.

Cancer is a business. For me, suppression of medicine that could have saved countless lives: this is absolute genocide, murder, treason of whatever country you are in, abrogation of the Hippocratic oath...

This movie also exposes the hypocrisy and calls into question the integrity and true purposes of many charity organisations, which a lot of people (myself once one of them) blindly give money to. Some of the people behind some of these charities are truly beyond unsavoury to put it mildly.

Find out about the cure and see what alternatives exist before you get conned by a doctor that chemo and radiation is the only option... Even for those who are on chemo and radiation who have chosen that route, there are natural foods and medicines that can greatly reduce the negative side effects of those treatments by supporting the body.


I've seen this movie before, it's a must see. It shows how corrupt and how the cancer industry has no interest whatsoever in finding a cure, it's there just to preserve cancer big business as a corrupt money making rolling machine. It proves also what I've said before in other treads in the past, how the so called scientific and/or medical "peer reviews" are manipulated and controlled to fit profit and political agendas. There's no such a thing as trustworthy scientific standards. Thank you asgoodasitgets for posting. Unfortunately and sadly I must say there's a lot of ignorance on the subject, just look at the reply you got here. Then again, it's not people's fault (to a point), most people believe anything at prima fascie without any research or questioning. There's no reality, only perception, and if people's facts and information are skewed or wrong then their reality therefore will be wrong as well. This is very well understood by those who control the media who manipulate and control people's perception at all levels.
User avatar
asgoodasitgets
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:14 am

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby asgoodasitgets » Sat Aug 20, 2011 6:00 pm

jude wrote:Obviously people get cancer in Peru.

To be clearly I don't get the connection between Peru and some nutty conspiracy theories about doctors suppressing the cure for cancer. Nor do I get the connection between Peru and the promotion of some wacky alternative cancer treatments.


Well Jude, I suppose the fact is that a cure for cancer is impossible right? So if one comes along, we can be assured that it is "nutty" and "whacky" and a "conspiracy theory", without looking at it. This saves us time.

Have you watched the video I linked?

The guy is curing cancer in many people, often serious late stage cancer that the official cancer treatment system told to go home and die. That's a scientific fact.

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
-Arthur Schopenhauer

From your response it seems as though you literally believe now that a cancer cure is an impossibility.

Do yourself a favour, watch the documentary, open your mind to the possibility, and then examine the evidence.

Quotes from experts of the past:

http://creatingminds.org/quotes/by_experts.htm
The Foundation of a Free Society is Freedom of Speech.
User avatar
asgoodasitgets
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:14 am

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby asgoodasitgets » Sat Aug 20, 2011 6:05 pm

JoshuS wrote:I've seen this movie before, it's a must see. It shows how corrupt and how the cancer industry has no interest whatsoever in finding a cure, it's there just to preserve cancer big business as a corrupt money making rolling machine. It proves also what I've said before in other treads in the past, how the so called scientific and/or medical "peer reviews" are manipulated and controlled to fit profit and political agendas. There's no such a thing as trustworthy scientific standards. Thank you asgoodasitgets for posting. Unfortunately and sadly I must say there's a lot of ignorance on the subject, just look at the reply you got here. Then again, it's not people's fault (to a point), most people believe anything at prima fascie without any research or questioning. There's no reality, only perception, and if people's facts and information are skewed or wrong then their reality therefore will be wrong as well. This is very well understood by those who control the media who manipulate and control people's perception at all levels.


Well put, and thank you.
The Foundation of a Free Society is Freedom of Speech.
jude
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 12:08 am

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby jude » Sat Aug 20, 2011 8:05 pm

There's not currently a cure for all cancer. It's highly probable that there will be one in the future. It will be a result of rigorous medical and scientific research. It won't be a result of eliminating "toxins" by way of coffee enemas, or through drinking wheatgrass juice, or by meditation or reiki.
User avatar
asgoodasitgets
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:14 am

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby asgoodasitgets » Sat Aug 20, 2011 10:38 pm

jude wrote:There's not currently a cure for all cancer. It's highly probable that there will be one in the future. It will be a result of rigorous medical and scientific research. It won't be a result of eliminating "toxins" by way of coffee enemas, or through drinking wheatgrass juice, or by meditation or reiki.


Jude, watch the documentary, come back, discuss. The cure that the documentary is about was discovered by a doctor, as the result of rigorous medical and scientific research, and the big money in medicine, rigorously and scientifically tried to squash the doctor and his cure. It survived. It's a statement of fact that he has cured people with such malignant cancers that the orthodox medical system told to go home and die, and he has been able to do so with a consistency that makes chemo look like dark ages hocus pocus.

Didn't you ever hear that song "The revolution will not be televised"?

Notwithstanding that the documentary is not really about approaches such as what you have described, when you say "toxins", you don't mean things like, substances that cause cancer do you? So you're saying that by taking out things that cause cancer, this is not a preventative for cancer. Cancer just happens? Like lightening? No cause? (And you say that's a rigorous scientific approach?)That is the WISH of the cancer industry. Luckily, not all wishes come true, especially if you're an evil trillion dollar death machine.

Yesterdays kooky theory is tomorrows everybody knows that. Wait and see if you must. :roll:
The Foundation of a Free Society is Freedom of Speech.
User avatar
asgoodasitgets
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:14 am

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby asgoodasitgets » Sun Aug 21, 2011 3:21 pm

That's right, the multi hundred billion dollar cancer industry does not have any funds to pay for articles and media to be created to lobby their own agenda. None at all.

None of that does anything, once again, to address the facts raised in the documentary, which you obviously still haven't watched. :roll:
The Foundation of a Free Society is Freedom of Speech.
User avatar
rama0929
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1572
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:43 am
Contact:

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby rama0929 » Sun Aug 21, 2011 4:01 pm

asgoodasitgets wrote:That's right, the multi hundred billion dollar cancer industry does not have any funds to pay for articles and media to be created to lobby their own agenda. None at all.


Typical. :roll:

You're as predictable as a sunrise.
renodante
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1228
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: miraflores

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby renodante » Sun Aug 21, 2011 10:27 pm

Burzynski has also been found guilty of fraud, as he claimed reimbursement from a health insurer for an illegally administered cancer treatment. july 28, 1994 united states court of appeals, fifth circuit summary judgment case # 93-2071
Last edited by renodante on Sun Aug 21, 2011 10:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
asgoodasitgets
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:14 am

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby asgoodasitgets » Mon Aug 22, 2011 3:29 pm

rama0929 wrote:
asgoodasitgets wrote:That's right, the multi hundred billion dollar cancer industry does not have any funds to pay for articles and media to be created to lobby their own agenda. None at all.


Typical. :roll:

You're as predictable as a sunrise.


Back atcha.
The Foundation of a Free Society is Freedom of Speech.
User avatar
asgoodasitgets
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:14 am

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby asgoodasitgets » Mon Aug 22, 2011 3:45 pm

renodante wrote:Burzynski has also been found guilty of fraud, as he claimed reimbursement from a health insurer for an illegally administered cancer treatment. july 28, 1994 united states court of appeals, fifth circuit summary judgment case # 93-2071


What part of the evidence didn't you get when people went in with late stage terminal brain cancer and came out cured? I mean is that so hard to understand? Not once, but several unrelated patients? What part of the documentary where the FDA admits they don't, because they can't, dispute the evidence did you not understand?

If you treat someone with a cure one day that is not approved and it works, but the next day your approval arrives, you know you have broken the law right? That's how stupid the system is over there, which I understand is not relevant to us here in Peru, but I'm pointing out that it's a totally corrupt system. What part of the fact, repeat fact that the FDA is FULL of pharma reps in a revolving door scenario - the FDA is RUN by big pharma. What do you think they are going to do for master when something that shuts down their racket comes along. Just what any mafia system does, they release the attack dogs, cover up cover up cover up. Only the truth won't be held back.

There's a multi hundred billion dollar industry behind this. People have their lives threatened, people disappear over things like this, but you think it's beyond them to instigate, with their mass of wealth and buildings full of lawyers bogus legal proceedings... What part of the documentary are you missing? "Illegally administered" that's just because the FDA says it's not an approved treatment yet! It's so blatant, you seem to be waiting for the criminals that are harassing this guy to come up to the camera and say point blank "Yes we want to stop this cure because it's going to hurt our margins that's why we're doing this". If you say Walnuts are good for preventing cancer they will close down your farm because now you are selling an "unapproved drug" and they will put you in prison for that. (Google it). How does that in any way legitimise what they are doing to that man? You know Hitler rose to power *legally*. They can write a law saying it's ok to kill your neighbour and bury him in your backyard that doesn't make it ok that doesn't mean you're going to go and do it. They can write a law saying that Charles Manson is the new supreme emperor of the world, it doesn't mean you're going to bow down to him.

Sorry, once again neither of you have addressed any of the facts in the documentary, because you can't. You can't prove that the documents presented are somehow a forgery (the FDA and their legal team over many years couldn't!) that he hasn't cured people of cancer, a lot of people - you haven't presented anything to disprove it. You can't disprove that the FDA and the legal attack dogs that have been sent on this guy have come up short and cannot shut him down, they are embarrassingly exposed in that documentary and shown for the enemies of health freedom that they are, and I stand by the topic of the thread: A Cure for Cancer.

You would like to prove otherwise, but you can't. Neither can the FDA.

Hey, if you do, show me, I'm not bigoted, show me the evidence otherwise, I'll look at it - if it's legit, well I change my position when new information arises. But you've not done that. I don't have a big ego attachment my whole paradigm of reality is not going to fall down when shown contrary evidence that is legitimate - all I want is the truth. I used to think like you guys, pretty much exactly like that, but researching into various things rather than accepting the established wisdom of officialdom caused me to change my opinion about many things that's for sure, that and my own life experiences which we've all had.

Without any evidence to actually discredit the fact that he has cured people of cancer and can do so with a high degree of success, that once again, makes traditional cancer treatments look like dark ages hocus pocus, and can repeat this and has all the evidence to prove it, all you're attempting to do is a character assassination on the guy and just looking foolish because you're missing the elephant in the living room: the evidence that he is successfully curing cancer is not overturned. Unapproved just means they haven't approved it yet, it does not mean by their own definition that it doesn't work. The *notion* that only Bayer or Merck can come up with the cure for cancer, just mind bogglingly close minded.

So, while you're trying to shut this down, I hope if anyone does read this who has cancer, they might check it out for themselves and make their own minds up - it may save their lives.
The Foundation of a Free Society is Freedom of Speech.
User avatar
rama0929
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1572
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:43 am
Contact:

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby rama0929 » Mon Aug 22, 2011 4:25 pm

asgoodasitgets wrote:So, while you're trying to shut this down, I hope if anyone does read this who has cancer, they might check it out for themselves and make their own minds up - it may save their lives.


No one's trying to shut anyone down. Just posting alternative viewpoints. Or do they not count if you don't agree with them? :twisted:
User avatar
asgoodasitgets
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:14 am

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby asgoodasitgets » Mon Aug 22, 2011 4:51 pm

rama0929 wrote:
asgoodasitgets wrote:So, while you're trying to shut this down, I hope if anyone does read this who has cancer, they might check it out for themselves and make their own minds up - it may save their lives.


No one's trying to shut anyone down. Just posting alternative viewpoints. Or do they not count if you don't agree with them? :twisted:


It does seem like you're trying to shut it down - because you keep accusing me of opinionated posts when I'm pointing to fact, and you come back with opinion and I say but please address the fact - and in the end it looks like one big bickering contest, and the mods are going to shut it down, and I daresay that will be mission accomplished for you.

You've failed to address the facts terribly.

Is a cure for cancer not relevant to Peruvians? I see the corporate borg system of cancer treatment making a lot of money in Peru, all over the place. I've been affected by it. In my strong opinion based on much research over many years, the mainstream methods of treating cancer amount to fraud. Contrast that with the evidence I've posted about a real cure for cancer, with cure rates that, once again, make normal methods look totally bogus - I'm sorry you have nothing to say to that other than posted links that you admit took you 2 minutes to find? You obviously didn't read them as they did not address the issue. I would like people in Peru to KNOW about this cure, because it seems 100% legitimate to me - and as I said, even the US FDA has ADMITTED that they cannot prove otherwise, they have admitted the cure rates. What more do you want? I see nothing to show this is not legitimate. It is also completely relevant because it shows clearly that there is a medical tyranny going on all over the world including here in Peru, and I'm sick of it personally speaking, I think it's disgusting that people reject out of hand hard evidence to the contrary and just take a bigoted position on things without investigating them. Didn't Einstein say condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance?

I have posted this here because I am angry that people in Peru get no choice in the matter. They are LIED to in my strong opinion by the media and the medical system and the doctors who perpetuate the fraud that chemo and radiation therapy is the only, the best, or even remotely decent method of curing cancer. Just google Sussane Summers as one example of someone who cured their cancer alternatively (not even using the method I have posted about).

So should it be shut down because you've engaged in what amounts to tit for tat bickering without addressing the facts repeatedly - denigrating this issue into a bickering match that is probably annoying for other people to read? I hope not. All *I'm* trying to do *so far* on this side of the situation is to point out that your links that you post simply do not speak to the issues. I am hoping that people will look at the original post for themselves. Without being discouraged from doing so by your retorts that are delivered in an air of authority but which lack any (due to the lack of content!).

The truth is still the truth, even in a minority of one - Ghandi

By extension of that - a lie is still a lie, even if everyone believes it!
The Foundation of a Free Society is Freedom of Speech.
User avatar
Ron
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 171
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 9:46 am
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Contact:

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby Ron » Mon Aug 22, 2011 5:47 pm

As a doctor I feel I can chime in on this. I would just like to say that if this guy would keep great Tx notes on his patient and then publish them, then he would have 8000+ case studies. At that point there would be no one who could disagree with his treatments.

One the money side of things. You bet your a** that if I had a cure for any disease esp. cancer, I would patent it and get it produced. There are loads of venture capitalists that would jump at the chance to get a piece at the cure for cancer. I know I would. Is big pharma trying to keep this guy down? I don't know, but if I was the CEO of one of the major drug companies and I found the cure for cancer, it would be on the market before you could say Jack the Bear. Your profits would skyrocket not to mention your stock prices etc...

That being said, I don't know anything about this guy or what he has done. My advice is to get some case studies published and have an independent reputable lab reproduce your results. After that you are off to the races!
User avatar
asgoodasitgets
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:14 am

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby asgoodasitgets » Mon Aug 22, 2011 6:22 pm

Ron wrote:As a doctor I feel I can chime in on this. I would just like to say that if this guy would keep great Tx notes on his patient and then publish them, then he would have 8000+ case studies. At that point there would be no one who could disagree with his treatments.

One the money side of things. You bet your a** that if I had a cure for any disease esp. cancer, I would patent it and get it produced. There are loads of venture capitalists that would jump at the chance to get a piece at the cure for cancer. I know I would. Is big pharma trying to keep this guy down? I don't know, but if I was the CEO of one of the major drug companies and I found the cure for cancer, it would be on the market before you could say Jack the Bear. Your profits would skyrocket not to mention your stock prices etc...

That being said, I don't know anything about this guy or what he has done. My advice is to get some case studies published and have an independent reputable lab reproduce your results. After that you are off to the races!


Hi Ron, welcome and thanks for bringing your view to this discussion. I just want to qualify that I do not "hate" doctors per se nor do I judge them all - I'm simply speaking from my own experience, which includes having met some really great people who in fact concurred, privately, with many of my own conclusions that I've talked about on the forum, and who told me straight up that if they were to admit to these opinions such as about vaccination and the like in public they would be silenced by a court hearing, however wrong that in their opinion may be. So speaking for myself, I'm not prejudiced, I only care about the facts. I liken it to the story of Dr. Paul Connet who is a highly qualified toxicologist and professor, who thought that the notion that fluoridated water was somehow dangerous was a quote "whacky" conspiracy theory for people who wore tin foil hats. On insistence of his wife he did actually examine the evidence and in his own words what he found "shocked and embarrassed him" and he has now become one of the leading campaigners to end what he calls the "barbaric" practice of fluoridating the population. I believe he still teaches at NYU. (So at least there is some tolerance in the academic institutions for "dissenters"...)

But I'm really curious, did you find time to watch the documentary I posted in the OP in total? I'd be very interested in your opinion after you've seen it - it's quite good I'd venture to say it would be worth your time. I hope you can find the time to watch it in full and let me know what you think.

It's worth pointing out that a plant based cure that cannot by law be patented would not be taken up by the pharmaceutical companies who would not be able to control it - but your point otherwise is well taken.
It seems that the real controversy about this cure is precisely because he does have case studies and proof, and as the documentary shows they tried (past tense) to squash it anyway and failed. It was as much to his surprise as anyone's that not only did he not get support but quite the opposite.

I just feel I have to pre-emptively put in here as well what would be one of my next questions which is how do we bring this treatment to Peru - make people aware of it - get media attention on it - how can we do any of that if we can't even get past square one which is people to at least examine the thing before condemning it. Normally I would get to that later but if I don't say that now, it's going to be deemed OT and shut down which would be a shame as I think it's really important.
The Foundation of a Free Society is Freedom of Speech.
User avatar
rama0929
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1572
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:43 am
Contact:

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby rama0929 » Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:11 pm

asgoodasitgets wrote:So speaking for myself, I'm not prejudiced, I only care about the facts.


All due respect, given your posting history, I'm gonna have to call bs on that one. A person who either cares about facts or presents facts doesn't use the type of emotional, inflammatory rhetoric that you use. Then, when challenged, plays the conspiracy card. "Oh, _____ is trying to suppress the truth because <insert favorite theory here>." Rinse and repeat.

Way to foster intelligent discussion. :roll:
User avatar
asgoodasitgets
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:14 am

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby asgoodasitgets » Tue Aug 23, 2011 9:34 pm

Once again, failing to address the facts.
The Foundation of a Free Society is Freedom of Speech.
User avatar
rama0929
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1572
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:43 am
Contact:

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby rama0929 » Tue Aug 23, 2011 10:25 pm

asgoodasitgets wrote:Once again, failing to address the facts.


FACT: A list of cancer survivors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cancer_survivors
How many of them were patients of Dr. Burzynski?
renodante
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1228
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: miraflores

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby renodante » Tue Aug 23, 2011 10:35 pm

nevermind...
Last edited by renodante on Wed Aug 24, 2011 2:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
renodante
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1228
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: miraflores

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby renodante » Tue Aug 23, 2011 10:37 pm

rama0929 wrote:
asgoodasitgets wrote:Once again, failing to address the facts.


FACT: A list of cancer survivors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cancer_survivors
How many of them were patients of Dr. Burzynski?



let me look into my crystal ball and predict that the list will be called biased and somehow related to the NWO/big Pharma/cancer industry's censorship of the truth.

now if you excuse me i'm going to go drink some fluoridated water, i think i'll make it a double.
hoyce
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 68
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:38 am

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby hoyce » Thu Aug 25, 2011 1:10 am

there is no money in curing cancer, there is money in "treating" cancer. cancer is a profitable industry and big pharma depends upon re-occuring medications. it is not a conspiracy theory, it is a fact. they exist to make a profit just like any other company.

if a cure for cancer did come, it would come from a socialist country where cancer harms the economy. in capitalist countries; cancer is an asset.

those truths might be offensive, but they are still true. the new "aids pill" protects you from aids for one day, and is too expensive to go main stream. oil companies continue to buy all hydrogen based fuel patents. it's how business is run in any industry.
renodante
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1228
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: miraflores

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby renodante » Thu Aug 25, 2011 1:18 am

in capitalist countries; cancer is an asset.


unless you hapen to be the entrepeneur who discovers it, and patents it. then you'd be a billionaire. or the company that patents it, which would make the company billions. there will always be new people who develop cancer. cures for other diseaseses have been developed in capitalist countries.

i mean, you have a dr on mentioned on this thread that supposedly has a cure. he has a clinic, where he charges to cure people, and makes money, right?
User avatar
asgoodasitgets
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:14 am

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby asgoodasitgets » Fri Aug 26, 2011 12:46 am

Wikipedia functions as far as I'm aware, as a no holds barred democracy. That means by definition it is highly questionable as an accurate source, more so as one goes into controversial areas where the majority of people hold a wrong opinion on something, contrary to fact. Like any democracy run amok, it squashes out the minorities. Democracy is mob rule - the law of might is right. This is confirmed by rather intelligent minds of history and today, including Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, among many others. You'll note that the USA for one example was set up as a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Democracy, it was said, is a wolf and two sheep voting on what's for dinner... The idea that the people were able to vote but that what they voted on - the government - had strictly limited powers - limited to the political arena, not private property, not life and liberty, was the key to the success of the original republic. Wikipedia has none of that, as far as I'm aware. I mention this because democracy is a much touted word in the political arenas of the last decades, and people are often ignorant that it is not in and of itself good automatically and to believe so is simply to be not aware of the nature of it. Therefore on wikipedia the prevailing myth will triumph in the face of alternative information - via the law of mob rule. As a source, it can be "ok" for many average things, and it's always easy to reach for. But, when issues of controversy, particularly that include complications of money and power, particularly large amounts of money and power, and long intrenched paradigms involving careers and very entrenched areas of study and academia, it is almost guaranteed to range between questionable to completely useless for reasons that can be logically deduced. Like turning the Titanic, large issues will take a long time to register changes. In my opinion one needs to look to the alternative media - and a variety of sources within it - in order to garner a true perspective of the world today, especially large issues of significance, not least the cancer issue we are discussing.

http://pyropus.ca/personal/writings/wikipedia.html

http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/ ... t01212006/

Until one has looked at the documentary.... one is not in even the beginning position of being able to refute it, on anything even resembling solid ground.

"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance" A. Einstein.
The Foundation of a Free Society is Freedom of Speech.
User avatar
asgoodasitgets
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:14 am

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby asgoodasitgets » Fri Aug 26, 2011 1:02 am

hoyce wrote:there is no money in curing cancer, there is money in "treating" cancer. cancer is a profitable industry and big pharma depends upon re-occuring medications. it is not a conspiracy theory, it is a fact. they exist to make a profit just like any other company.

if a cure for cancer did come, it would come from a socialist country where cancer harms the economy. in capitalist countries; cancer is an asset.

those truths might be offensive, but they are still true. the new "aids pill" protects you from aids for one day, and is too expensive to go main stream. oil companies continue to buy all hydrogen based fuel patents. it's how business is run in any industry.


+1

Couldn't have said it better myself - and this is just basic common sense. If a cure for cancer were found, pretty soon nobody would have cancer. Then there wouldn't be any money left in it. Treatment is preferable to cure when one is a corporation with a duty to shareholders to produce profits. Corporations are in this for the long haul, they are not in it for a quick buck and they aren't about to kill the goose that lays the golden egg so they can "cash in". In Japan it is normal for a company to factor losses for over a decade on products that they know they will eventually make a gain on - long term strategy. Why would the cancer business be any different. Right now a cure for cancer is like somebody inventing a water powered car is for the oil industry. No war, no military industrial complex, no more political pay offs - no more *control* based on oil. The amount of money that cancer treatment can suck out of a person before they die - is absolutely unbelievable. When you look at some of the free! treatments people have been using it's really eye opening. In my opinion there are many cures for cancer, not least the notion that when the body is liberated from things that are harmful and carcinogenic to it, and supplied with all the things it needs to function properly (liberating it from malfunction) it tends to do an awesome job at healing itself - it is an awesome miracle of life - the human body - in fact it's been shown in many studies that simple healthy amounts of sunlight exposure - which synthesizes vitamin d on the skin for free can kill up to 80% of cancers. That's not a conspiracy either: in fact some researchers in New Zealand recently proved a link between Vitamin C and successful treatment of cancer. Just as poisons can cause cancer, nutrients and other beneficial things can stop it, reverse it, cure it. It only makes sense. The notion that only a pharmaceutical product can ever achieve this is silly and childish. I simply posted about this one particular cure as it's a doctor, with proven results, that the FDA *tried* to shut down, but failed because, by their OWN admission: they cannot deny it works. Can you believe that?

I'd be willing to bet that a smart entrepreneur could license and set up this guys technology in Peru and provide cheaper alternative for South Americans to receive the same treatment - come to Peru to get it done - and give the same quality of care.

Can you imagine a world where cancer cure did not involve dangerous chemo and radiation? Hair falling out? Vomiting? Muscle wasting? and where the side effects include... cancer!?

It's all in the documentary I posted a link to in the OP.

Peace everyone.
The Foundation of a Free Society is Freedom of Speech.
renodante
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1228
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: miraflores

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby renodante » Fri Aug 26, 2011 5:32 am

That means by definition it is highly questionable as an accurate source,
Clearly, Natural News and Infowars are much more reliable....
User avatar
Kelly
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 3871
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 9:28 pm
Location: Lima, Peru
Contact:

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby Kelly » Fri Aug 26, 2011 11:53 am

This is another post that has absolutely nothing to do with Peru. The fact that people here get cancer too isn't a sufficient tie in.
User avatar
asgoodasitgets
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:14 am

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby asgoodasitgets » Fri Aug 26, 2011 6:24 pm

Kelly wrote:This is another post that has absolutely nothing to do with Peru. The fact that people here get cancer too isn't a sufficient tie in.


Hi Kelly, I think that in your earnest effort to ensure that the forum remains Peru relevant you are not noticing that you are actually excluding things that *are* relevant because they are also relevant in other places. Just because something is relevant somewhere else does not make it not relevant here. That makes absolutely no sense and is illogical.

Are you saying that this thread about a cure for cancer is not relevant to Peru because it IS relevant also in other countries other than Peru? Because that would make no sense. The forum is called "Living in Peru" not "Travelling in Peru". If it was "Travelling in Peru" I could understand. But this is "Living in Peru". If you live in Peru, do you want to know about cures for cancer? I do!

???

It's perfectly relevant, notwithstanding that others would like to debate the *fact* of the thread, the relevance, if proven factual, is clear - at least to me...

Circumstantial to this discussion it's also relevant to discuss the operation of the cancer industry - how they work, various treatments, their merits for and against, and things that we haven't even gotten to like if it would even be possible to import a treatment like the one mentioned in the OP to Peru.

It's a major social issue. It may be in the rest of the world: in a sense, that isn't relevant. That it is so here: that IS relevant to this forum.

I mean is this not a forum where expats can come and discuss living in Peru? How is cancer treatment not relevant when statistics for Peru are now that 100% of people will get cancer at some time in their life! Again, notwithstanding that there are those here who insist that the treatment I have posted about is not in fact a cure even though the documentary they seem to refuse to watch and the documents you can verify yourself that it presents prove that it is, in terms of relevance, given that it's not *disproven* as some fraud (it is not - watch the documentary I posted) - it is relevant. To debate it's merits is what the thread is about, the relevance of the thread in the first place - I don't think it's under question.
The Foundation of a Free Society is Freedom of Speech.
User avatar
asgoodasitgets
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:14 am

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby asgoodasitgets » Fri Aug 26, 2011 7:02 pm

renodante wrote:
That means by definition it is highly questionable as an accurate source,
Clearly, Natural News and Infowars are much more reliable....


Once again, you are contesting fact with opinion. How about prove to me that I'm wrong about wikipedia: I'm perfectly ready to be shown I'm wrong. Maybe I missed something in their disclaimer, how they operate, maybe I just don't understand how it works. I'm ready to learn. I'm being genuine - seriously - I'm not being sarcastic. If I'm wrong, I'll acknowledge it. I'm no expert on wikipedia that's for sure, but that was my understanding of it - that it is a democracy - and that is my understanding of a democracy as applied in today's world. You have come back at my calling wikipedia a democracy with an opinion about another news source. How does that further the discussion - are you saying "Yes wikipedia is inaccurate, but yours is worse than mine"? This is repeatedly degenerating into he said she said. Please contest fact with fact or concede the point, you can't argue fact with opinion and then call the other guy a kook. Are you conceding what I said about wikipedia is accurate? And then in the same breath saying that Naturalnews is inaccurate? Those are two separate things. Admitting wikipedia is inaccurate and flawed does not entitle you to say "but at least it's better than NaturalNews" or insert whatever publication you wish to disparage.

It seems you have conceded that wikipedia is inaccurate as I have described - for the specific reasons I have described. Unless you have information to prove otherwise I'm fine to leave that one there. As I said, I'm ready to be proven wrong.

Now please go on to prove with examples how the publications you disparage are inaccurate, not with opinions, name calling or labels or other derogatory means, (somebody else doing so under the label of a large corporate publication also doesn't count) but with actual examples, if you have any. For example here would be a good one "X news paper said that X doctor was a quack in 2008, but actually they knew of information that contradicted what now amounts to a slander campaign because of X document sent to them from the department of X, showing that the test results he claimed were X were indeed X". Otherwise you're not entitled to call out those sources as being totally bogus as you have. You can say you don't like them, but you can't with integrity conflate them with "the enquirer". You may not like their *opinion* that they enter in around those studies, or their conclusions that they base on those studies, or their style of writing, or their journalistic or health philosophy - that is your right of course, but that does not make them dishonest, or quacks as you have levelled. Because I happen to think they are some of the best journalists on the planet specifically because of their honesty - even if they don't get it 100% right all the of the time, they are absolutely honest and not bought out journalists. You may not agree, but that is MY opinion. I've also met high paid busy MD's who have privately confided to me a similar opinion. One said to me "Don't tell anybody I told you this, but you're on the right track". Of course I'm not divulging his name. As to opinions, I respect yours, you should respect mine. That being *obvious* and not needing to be said, what is left is to discuss the facts. There we may advance this to a greater point of understanding... either this cure is real or it is not. If it is, what does that mean for people in Peru who unknowingly go on being treated by a very unsuccessful and dangerous orthodox treatment system consisting of hardcore poisons and radiation "therapy" a side effect of which is... cancer... - if it is real - why has the media not mentioned it here yet? Why is the local medical establishment not working to learn about it and bring it here? Why are they so beholden to their present methods of treatment? Why as was asked earlier wouldn't people WANT this if it's legitimate - and what kind of a person/people would be so evil as to favour a horrible treatment over a relatively extremely safe cure - simply for the benefit of their corporate bottom line? Why so slow to change when people's lives are at stake? Isn't the health of the individual the primary goal? What else is more important? Again, please don't contest the fact of the cure unless you have decent evidence to disprove that given on the guys website and in the documentary. Opinion doesn't count as fact.

Which brings me back to the bottom line here: which is that you still haven't in any way shape or form come up with any decent evidence to show that the cure that Burzynski has used on a lot of people successfully is not what is claimed it is: a cure - at least to a high degree of success. You can't fake the blood tests and the people that are still alive who were told they would be dead in some cases within weeks, and in some cases that all treatment would be useless.

In fact, if you watch the documentary you will see that in some cases, the only reason he was allowed to try these treatments on his patients was because everything else had failed and they were going to die anyway.
The Foundation of a Free Society is Freedom of Speech.
renodante
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1228
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: miraflores

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby renodante » Fri Aug 26, 2011 7:29 pm

How about prove to me that I'm wrong about wikipedia:


you're not wrong, everyone knows that about wiki. it's just ironic that you're questioning the validity of a source when infowars and natural news are you most cited sources.

as to providing counter-sources, i know not to bother because of your history, you'll just chalk it up to disinformation or a conspiracy. i once gave you chemo success stats and you dismissed them on grounds like that. you're a true believer, no sense arguing.
User avatar
rama0929
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1572
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:43 am
Contact:

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby rama0929 » Fri Aug 26, 2011 7:59 pm

asgoodasitgets wrote:
+1

Couldn't have said it better myself - and this is just basic common sense.


Basic common sense is that there is a metric sh!t-ton of money to be made in the cure. Fame and fortune, to say nothing of the halo effect of being the _____ that discovered the cure to cancer. "Big pharma" will go on to the next latest and greatest thing; after all there is no shortage of sick people.
User avatar
asgoodasitgets
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:14 am

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby asgoodasitgets » Fri Aug 26, 2011 8:31 pm

renodante wrote:
How about prove to me that I'm wrong about wikipedia:


you're not wrong, everyone knows that about wiki. it's just ironic that you're questioning the validity of a source when infowars and natural news are you most cited sources.

as to providing counter-sources, i know not to bother because of your history, you'll just chalk it up to disinformation or a conspiracy. i once gave you chemo success stats and you dismissed them on grounds like that. you're a true believer, no sense arguing.


Lol. Seriously - you can't tell the difference between a democratically community driven encyclopaedia and a held to account journalist outlet? If you are going to hear something in contrary wisdom to Wikipedia for example where do you think you will hear it - on wikipedia? It may be your *opinion* that those news sources are not favourable: you don't like their philosophical slant, or their sources. You cannot dispute on the facts that they are less credible in providing truthful reportage of testimony and current events than their corporate counterparts. I don't care what your opinion is on that last bit, I mean you can't PROVE it. Therefore it IS only opinion, therefore the sources ARE valid. And I have quoted many other sources, and often I have linked to infowars or prisonplanet because they have linked / aggregated the story from another source, and it is simply personal choice that I do that - and that this is the case on those occasions is readily visible on the page linked to. They report truth precisely because they are not beholden to the corporations who control what they report and when they report it.

Now I'll agree this has nothing to do with Peru now. But what am I supposed to do - my sources are getting baselessly attacked based on a learned prejudice from competing sources... if you can believe that.

Your chemo success stats are heavily disputed heavily fiddled, non-independent numbers.

You're giving me Tobacco company science studies showing that cigarettes don't cause cancer. Nice one.
The Foundation of a Free Society is Freedom of Speech.
User avatar
asgoodasitgets
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:14 am

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby asgoodasitgets » Fri Aug 26, 2011 8:33 pm

rama0929 wrote:
asgoodasitgets wrote:
+1

Couldn't have said it better myself - and this is just basic common sense.


Basic common sense is that there is a metric sh!t-ton of money to be made in the cure. Fame and fortune, to say nothing of the halo effect of being the _____ that discovered the cure to cancer. "Big pharma" will go on to the next latest and greatest thing; after all there is no shortage of sick people.


I agree that on the face of it that would absolutely make sense wouldn't it. That's why I brought this documentary to your attention = precisely because for some amazingly bizarre reason the opposite is occurring. Why don't you look at it and tell me what you think
The Foundation of a Free Society is Freedom of Speech.
User avatar
rama0929
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1572
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:43 am
Contact:

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby rama0929 » Fri Aug 26, 2011 9:02 pm

asgoodasitgets wrote:
rama0929 wrote:
asgoodasitgets wrote:
+1

Couldn't have said it better myself - and this is just basic common sense.


Basic common sense is that there is a metric sh!t-ton of money to be made in the cure. Fame and fortune, to say nothing of the halo effect of being the _____ that discovered the cure to cancer. "Big pharma" will go on to the next latest and greatest thing; after all there is no shortage of sick people.


I agree that on the face of it that would absolutely make sense wouldn't it. That's why I brought this documentary to your attention = precisely because for some amazingly bizarre reason the opposite is occurring. Why don't you look at it and tell me what you think


I already told you what I thought, that it's a load of hooey.

No one's stifling "the cure" because there's no need to, there's no reason to. There is no "amazingly bizarre reason the opposite is occurring." There isn't enough of a case to be made. Had there been, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Big picture stuff, instead of cherry picked examples.
User avatar
asgoodasitgets
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:14 am

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby asgoodasitgets » Sat Aug 27, 2011 4:45 pm

rama0929 wrote:
asgoodasitgets wrote:
rama0929 wrote:
asgoodasitgets wrote:
+1

Couldn't have said it better myself - and this is just basic common sense.


Basic common sense is that there is a metric sh!t-ton of money to be made in the cure. Fame and fortune, to say nothing of the halo effect of being the _____ that discovered the cure to cancer. "Big pharma" will go on to the next latest and greatest thing; after all there is no shortage of sick people.


I agree that on the face of it that would absolutely make sense wouldn't it. That's why I brought this documentary to your attention = precisely because for some amazingly bizarre reason the opposite is occurring. Why don't you look at it and tell me what you think


I already told you what I thought, that it's a load of hooey.

No one's stifling "the cure" because there's no need to, there's no reason to. There is no "amazingly bizarre reason the opposite is occurring." There isn't enough of a case to be made. Had there been, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Big picture stuff, instead of cherry picked examples.


You didn't watch it did you. There's absolute proof there that he's succeeding in curing people without radiation and chemo.
The Foundation of a Free Society is Freedom of Speech.
User avatar
JoshuS
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 312
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:40 am

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby JoshuS » Sat Aug 27, 2011 7:33 pm

hoyce wrote:there is no money in curing cancer, there is money in "treating" cancer. cancer is a profitable industry and big pharma depends upon re-occuring medications. it is not a conspiracy theory, it is a fact. they exist to make a profit just like any other company.

if a cure for cancer did come, it would come from a socialist country where cancer harms the economy. in capitalist countries; cancer is an asset.

those truths might be offensive, but they are still true. the new "aids pill" protects you from aids for one day, and is too expensive to go main stream. oil companies continue to buy all hydrogen based fuel patents. it's how business is run in any industry.


You hit it right on the nail. This is what most people fail to grasp and comprehend (like the fish analogy, if you could ask a fish what is the most obvious fact in its bowl, the last thing it would say is: water) that this for profit system (taken for granted at that) needs to create problems to keep the game going, there is no money in poverty, in finding a cure for most serious illnesses like cancer, in creating sustainability, etc. That the economic paradigm we live in is a Ponzi scheme based on debt, monopolized to siphon money up to the top of the pyramid at a will. Right on statement Hoyce.
renodante
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1228
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: miraflores

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby renodante » Sat Aug 27, 2011 8:01 pm

Burzynski is your evidence against this "no money in a cure" idea/conspiracy theory. He supposedly has a cure, and he's making money off it.

Thanks for playing.

another take on Burzynski http://www.houstonpress.com/2009-01-01/ ... t-a-quack/

i watched (mostly listened to) the whole burzynski movie. it's propaganda that has all the elements of a movie, a hero, villains, spooky music. it's full of anecdotes, that's about it.
User avatar
JoshuS
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 312
Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 9:40 am

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby JoshuS » Sat Aug 27, 2011 10:29 pm

renodante wrote:Burzynski is your evidence against this "no money in a cure" idea/conspiracy theory. He supposedly has a cure, and he's making money off it.

Thanks for playing.

another take on Burzynski http://www.houstonpress.com/2009-01-01/ ... t-a-quack/

i watched (mostly listened to) the whole burzynski movie. it's propaganda that has all the elements of a movie, a hero, villains, spooky music. it's full of anecdotes, that's about it.


I guess I need to be more specific to those who don't get it. "There's no money in cure" for the pharma drug industrial corporate business, to find an alternate cure/treatment off their system is a threat to their establishment, which would mean the collapse of their huge money making rolling machine. Burzynski is one of those successful alternate cure/treatments which the pharma/drug establishment inexorably tries to destroy by any means necessary. Those links provided, demonization and slandering are just that, the survival mechanism of such huge profit rolling machine. What else is new.
renodante
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1228
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: miraflores

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby renodante » Sat Aug 27, 2011 10:58 pm

Those links provided, demonization and slandering are just that


50 bucks you didn't read it. that article goes into great detail regarding his methodology, and refers to the studies done so far regarding antineoplastons.

to those who don't get it


yes, you know us sheeple are usually quite dense.

just so i'm sure i got it, when big business makes money off of medicine--bad. when "alternative" doctors, companies, entrepeneurs etc make money off medicine--inherently good and selfless?

good guys verses bad guys. good for movies, and conspiracy theories. deliciously simple and easy to digest. the "the pharma drug industrial corporate business" is a unified monolithic entity?
User avatar
rama0929
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1572
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:43 am
Contact:

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby rama0929 » Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:09 pm

renodante wrote:the "the pharma drug industrial corporate business" is a unified monolithic entity?


Depends on whether or not the conspiracy crowd agrees with them ^_^

I'm amused by the logic that big pharma's paying to stifle a cure, when a cure will net them untold wealth. Hell, if anything, they can team up with Montsanto, giving people cancer and then giving them the cure. :P
renodante
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1228
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 12:44 pm
Location: miraflores

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby renodante » Sat Aug 27, 2011 11:18 pm

I'm amused by the logic that big pharma's paying to stifle a cure, when a cure will net them untold wealth.


imagine if a corporation could have as its slogan "the people who brought you the cure for cancer?" hmmm, how much would their stock be worth? how trusted would anything they produced after that be?
User avatar
asgoodasitgets
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:14 am

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby asgoodasitgets » Sun Aug 28, 2011 12:25 am

Well this just proves that you both just have not thought it out very much at all.

Why don't you add up the average money to big pharma and the medical establishment that they get on average for TREATING cancer. (Remember they often return a second time, double bucks)

Then why don't you add up the cost of curing cancer, particularly by removing the causes by the way which is a whole separate issue, ONE TIME (in most cases) using for example we can stick to Burzinskis treatment.

What is it - 100:1?

Orthodox cancer treatment is excessively expensive.

Now look at something else. Once people know there is a decent cure available, do you think they'll be prepared to fork out as much as they do for health insurance without the specter of cancer as a virtual death sentence? - don't just think like Americans now (if you are) - many countries in the world have a thriving private health insurance industry as well as the government systems that get big tax dollars paid into them.

And let me point out as well, we're talking about Burzinskis method here don't you think it would become incredibly CHEAP once it was industrialized? I think you would find that the ratio of money extracted per incident of disease from a sick person would actually be closer to 1000:1 or even 10,000:1.

And you think the pharmaceutical companies don't know this?

You think they're going to destroy their customer base? Why make $1000 when you can make $100,000.

There are a myriad of other health complications that stem from chemo and radiation - one of them is cancer of course, but many others - they also cost money to treat.

We don't even need to get into eugenics and politically oppressing a population - the money is enough.

What will be left? If the conspiracy theorists are right about heart disease and diabetes then it's all over for the big pharma dogs! They must be shaking in their boots. I bet they'd do anything to stop the truth from coming out!

The guy is curing with a phenomenally high cure rate, many types of cancers, including late stage brain cancers. You haven't been able to refute that other than with anecdotes and opinion. You can't disprove that.
Last edited by asgoodasitgets on Sun Aug 28, 2011 12:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Foundation of a Free Society is Freedom of Speech.
User avatar
rama0929
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1572
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:43 am
Contact:

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby rama0929 » Sun Aug 28, 2011 12:29 am

You seem to ignore that there have been other diseases that have been cured. Big pharma didn't go out of business. They went on to the next thing. The same will happen if a cure for cancer is found. They will go on to something else.
User avatar
asgoodasitgets
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 572
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 4:14 am

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby asgoodasitgets » Sun Aug 28, 2011 12:37 am

rama0929 wrote:You seem to ignore that there have been other diseases that have been cured. Big pharma didn't go out of business. They went on to the next thing. The same will happen if a cure for cancer is found. They will go on to something else.


Hello my serially argumentative friend :lol:

Well that makes no sense.

If everyone was cured of heart disease, diabetes, and cancer - what else is left? That's a big slice of the pie gone *forever*.

In other words you are arguing that they have no incentive no motive to want to stop something that will end an otherwise ongoing piece of business. How much money is garnered over a 10 year period from cancer treatment - a Trillion dollars? More? I don't have the figures on hand, but I'd guess that's conservative - we're talking worldwide. Now say you have stock in a pharmaceutical company - a lot of stock - billions of dollars worth and you leverage that stock and create derivatives. How much money do you think those are worth - and what can you buy up and leverage with that? I'm just speculating more now - but I'm pointing simply to motive. Isn't money like the second biggest motive for crime next to revenge or is it the other way around?

Otherwise what you're saying is that once cancer is cured, another disease will take it place - therefore humanity is infinitely destined to be largely ill and killed off from one disease or another - whatever it may be we might as well accept cancer as "it" since "better the devil you know" and that health is ultimately unattainable due to fate?

Haha, I know you're not saying that. But that's what you said.

And remember that scurvy discussion... the cure for scurvy was ignored for about 80 years! causing many deaths and much suffering to say the least. All because of establishment arrogance in that case (it seems). Oh, and scurvy which was like the cancer of it's day, and like rickets, also a terrible "disease" were actually deficiencies (vehemently denied by allopathic doctrine) - cured by citris fruits and sunshine (synthesizes vitamin d). Wow. And do we learn?

It's like Osteoperosis (literally: bones with holes). Everyone has heard that calcium is important and that's why we need to drink dairy. But most dairy products: heavens especially in Peru with the UHT type milk most people use: actually suck calcium out of the bones and cause the very demineralization process we're lead to believe it will prevent. Anyway you can drink all the calcium / dairy you want calcium *cannot* enter the bones without vitamin D3 which is free from sunlight. Dairy does contain some vitamin D in it's raw state, I believe from memory there's nearly none if not none in the processed kind, but it's Vitamin D2 which is still good but harder for the body to use. D3 is readily absorbed / used. Magnesium is also actually more important for healthy bones (and also has radio protective qualities) than calcium by the way. Magnesium has also shown strong anti-cancer benefits, as has Vitamin D3. Magnesium is a cheap supplement, D3 is free from sunlight...
Last edited by asgoodasitgets on Sun Aug 28, 2011 12:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Foundation of a Free Society is Freedom of Speech.
User avatar
rama0929
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1572
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 8:43 am
Contact:

Re: A Cure for Cancer...

Postby rama0929 » Sun Aug 28, 2011 12:45 am

asgoodasitgets wrote:
If everyone was cured of heart disease, diabetes, and cancer - what else is left? That's a big slice of the pie gone *forever*.


Polio, typhoid, measles, tubercolosis, malaria... It's always something

Return to “Expat Conversations”

cron

Login  •  Register