Whether there is or whether there isn't...

[spidergoat]

The idea that once started, cancer can be stopped by eating health foods is a joke. Sure, it's always a good idea to eat healthy food, but no clinical study has shown that this alone can cure cancer. Some cancers go away on their own, and this correlation is probably what led to the erroneous belief in the first place. Selective attention is also what makes baseball player superstitious, and what makes people believe in miracles.

 

[Lori_7]

The idea that once started, cancer can be stopped by eating health foods is a joke. Sure, it's always a good idea to eat healthy food, but no clinical study has shown that this alone can cure cancer. Some cancers go away on their own, and this correlation is probably what led to the erroneous belief in the first place. Selective attention is also what makes baseball player superstitious, and what makes people believe in miracles.

and who pray tell do you think would fund a clinical study such as this? and who do you think would pay attention to it if someone did? people are so f'ing brainwashed and lazy. the majority of people don't want to do what it takes to be healthy. they would rather have a pill to do that for them.

 

[Lori_7]

The idea that once started, cancer can be stopped by eating health foods is a joke. Sure, it's always a good idea to eat healthy food, but no clinical study has shown that this alone can cure cancer. Some cancers go away on their own, and this correlation is probably what led to the erroneous belief in the first place. Selective attention is also what makes baseball player superstitious, and what makes people believe in miracles.

what cancer goes away on it's own? and why would it? you're suggesting that the cancer itself is it's own cure? that there are cancers, by their very nature, that cause their own demise? is that right?

and you would rather believe that bunch of woo woo, than attribute a cancer recovery to the purposeful removal of toxins from the body?

spider!!! *cyber slap*

 

[Dywyddyr]

as a side note, there actually is a patent on a product called NCD, which is a zeolite. the patent states that it kills cancer cells.

Claims that zeolite can help the body fight cancer (supposedly by removing cancer-causing substances in the stomach) have not been substantiated in human studies.

http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/QAA400526/Is-Zeolite-a-New-Cancer-Cure.html

There is no published literature to prove that cellular zeolite helps prevent cancer in humans. A randomised clinical trial is the only way to properly test whether any new drug or remedy actually works.

http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/about-cancer/cancer-questions/what-is-cellular-zeolite
And in fact:

There is evidence that some types of zeolite may be linked to mesothelioma, cancer of the covering of the lung.

Same source.

what cancer goes away on it's own? and why would it?

It does happen, it's called "spontaneous remission". Which is technical talk for "we don't know why".

it is not fiction

Yes it is:

The Gerson Institute points to observational studies and case reports collected by Gerson himself as anecdotal evidence of the efficacy of the treatment.[6] In his book, Gerson cites the "Results of 50 Cases"; however, the U.S. National Cancer Institute reviewed these 50 cases and was unable to find any evidence that Gerson's claims were accurate.[5] Several retrospective case series have been published in the alternative medical literature; however, these have suffered from signficant methodological flaws.[5]"

An NCI analysis of Dr. Gerson's book A Cancer Therapy: Results of Fifty Cases concluded in 1959 that most of the cases failed to meet the criteria (such as histologic verification of cancer) for proper evaluation of a cancer case [16]. A recent review of the Gerson treatment rationale concluded: (a) the "poisons" Gerson claimed to be present in processed foods have never been identified, (b) frequent coffee enemas have never been shown to mobilize and remove poisons from the liver and intestines of cancer patients, (c) there is no evidence that any such poisons are related to the onset of cancer, (d) there is no evidence that a "healing" inflammatory reaction exists that can seek out and kill cancer cells [17].

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=63165&start=25

Let’s ignore the fact that the American Cancer Society regard it as dangerous; that in two years San Diego county hospitals treated 13 patients with campylobacter sepsis from the Gerson clinic, probably due to the raw calves’ liver injections; that several patients have been admitted comatose with low sodium levels; and that caffeine enemas are jolly dangerous and have been associated with severe colitis, infections and death. No. Let’s focus on the research already done on Gerson. One long-term study of 21 patients (by a naturopath, no less) found that only one was alive five years after treatment. In 1986, researchers found that despite their claims, some patients from the Gerson clinic were not even followed up. There are papers claiming efficacy for nutritional therapy that find a positive effect, but without bothering to give us the figures.

http://www.badscience.net/index.php?s=Gerson

and it is not a coincidence that the rate of cancer diagnoses (which is referred to as an epidemic) has increased proportionately to the amount of toxins we spew into our environment and ingest.

Maybe not, it could be that as medicine improves we're better at finding it. Or it could be that your correlation is specious. Got any figures or are you just guessing?

it is not fiction that the fda and the pharmaceutical companies and doctors are in bed together.

Not in the UK.

and we're not talking about an agenda of a holistic health practitioner, we're talking about preventing disease in the first place.

We're talking about a self-promoting quack...

what kind of doctor would ever want or hope for disease prevention that didn't require a trip to their office and a large subsequent fee? seriously, they would have to be out of their mind.

Out of their mind enough to see friends and family ALSO get cancer and not let them have access to this "miracle cure"?
Who hasn't had someone they know, or know of, get cancer?
Yeah, doctors and pharmaceutical scientists - so in love with profit they'll let their loved ones die a horrible death just so they can keep the money rolling in. Get real

 

[Lori_7]

http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/QAA400526/Is-Zeolite-a-New-Cancer-Cure.html

http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/about-cancer/cancer-questions/what-is-cellular-zeolite
And in fact:

Same source.

cancer cells are cancer cells, and there's plenty of human testimony to substantiate the claim. here's a link to the patent...

http://www.zeoliteshealth.com/detox_files/zeolite-NCD-patent-summary.pdf

this is a liquid form of zeolite. there has never been a recommendation to inhale zeolite dust into your lungs.

It does happen, it's called "spontaneous remission". Which is technical talk for "we don't know why".

yeah...it's magic.

Yes it is:


http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=63165&start=25

http://www.badscience.net/index.php?s=Gerson

the american cancer society makes money hand over fist. they do NOT want a cure for cancer. they would go out of business.

Maybe not, it could be that as medicine improves we're better at finding it. Or it could be that your correlation is specious. Got any figures or are you just guessing?

are you serious?

Not in the UK.

well they are here.

We're talking about a self-promoting quack...

toxins are carcinogens. remove the toxins, remove the cause of cancer. it's really quite simple. he was promoting a toxin free diet.

Out of their mind enough to see friends and family ALSO get cancer and not let them have access to this "miracle cure"?
Who hasn't had someone they know, or know of, get cancer?
Yeah, doctors and pharmaceutical scientists - so in love with profit they'll let their loved ones die a horrible death just so they can keep the money rolling in. Get real

yes. that's reality.

 

[Dywyddyr]

and there's plenty of human testimony to substantiate the claim.

Irrelevant: that's why studies are done.
What else was the patient doing at the time?
There could be any number of reasons for the "cure". It may even be zeolite but anecdotes aren't substantive evidence.

here's a link to the patent...

No that's a link to the summary.
Interestingly following up the stated link shows that the "trials" were on a total of 10 mice.
10 is hardly statistically significant and mice aren't humans.
(Your "cancer cells are cancer cells" comment doesn't affect the fact mice do not always respond the same way humans do).

this is a liquid form of zeolite. there has never been a recommendation to inhale zeolite dust into your lungs.

Correct, but if it can cause cancer in the lungs can it cause cancer anywhere else?

yeah...it's magic.

Or it could be that we don't know enough...

the american cancer society makes money hand over fist. they do NOT want a cure for cancer.

Wrong again.

are you serious?

Quite serious. Do you have any actual figures and proven link or are you just making it up?

well they are here.

Beside the point.

toxins are carcinogens. remove the toxins, remove the cause of cancer. it's really quite simple. he was promoting a toxin free diet.

Oh you don't read.

(a) the "poisons" Gerson claimed to be present in processed foods have never been identified,

Some toxins are carcinogens.

yes. that's reality.

Something you seem to have little grasp on.
At what point are doctors inducted into this conspiracy?
Do you seriously believe that every single doctor and health professional would rather let loved ones die from cancer than lose money?
I knew you were delusional but I hadn't, before now, quite grasped the depth and extent of that delusion.
I'd like to extend my sympathy and the sincere wish that you get better soon.

 

[Lori_7]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

http://www.bigpicture.tv/videos/watch/38b3eff8b

 

[John99]

That right as long as you want to be healthy and people are not supposed to die and 'they' could cure every disease if 'they' wanted to.

Here is a secret video on it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHIFMkmhDY0

 

[Dywyddyr]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...ez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.bigpicture.tv/videos/watch/38b3eff8b

Yes I see you didn't understand the question.
All from your first link:

and may therefore account for the growing incidence of cancer

Chemicals related to environmental pollution appear to be of critical importance

In addition, carcinogenic metals and metalloids, pharmaceutical medicines and cosmetics may be involved

Although the risk fraction attributable to environmental factors is still unknown, this long list of carcinogenic and especially mutagenic factors supports our working hypothesis according to which numerous cancers may in fact be caused by the recent modification of our environment.

Note the words "working hypothesis": in other words he thinks there may be a link but it hasn't been established.

 

[Lori_7]

yes, let's nix the links i posted and address the twilight zone shall we? something that is very rarely if ever addressed on a science forum, and by those in denial of the obvious, and that is sense. why do we need a clinical trial for everything? it's probably because we have no sense.

do we want sense? no. we generally want to be greedy, lazy, and gluttonous, and then take a pill to make it all work out ok. or, to just completely ignore the effects, or to seek to deny any causal relationships, that are just plain obvious to anyone who willingly seeks the truth.

what do we know about nature? that there's a balance? that it's self-sustaining? that if you interfere with that balance it results in a correction?

what do we know about the environment? that it's polluted?
what do we know about people? that many, many, many are sick?
what do we know about capitalism? i know that it's driven by greed, with absolutely no regard for health. i've spent over a decade in big business finance, so don't bother arguing with me. it's not about earning enough. it's about earning as much as possible. and it's not about having enough to go around. it's about having more than someone else. and the cost of which is basically anything we can get away with.

the fact is that nature gives us everything we need to live in it's perfect form. and a lack of appreciation for that is why people are sick. which i'm pretty sure is the point of this thread.

 

[Dywyddyr]

yes, let's nix the links i posted and address the twilight zone shall we?

You mean "ignore the woo woo factor"?

why do we need a clinical trial for everything? it's probably because we have no sense.

How else do you prove what does what?
I might as well claim that the rise cancer is caused by the increase in date. Adding one to the number of the year has (since you claim that the incidence of cancer is rising) a correlation with cancer proliferation.
So now we have two possible causes: the ever-increasing "stuff" we produce and the equally ever-increasing date.
Let's get rid of all calendars and call it "Year 1" forever. That might stop it.

to just completely ignore the effects, or to seek to deny any causal relationships, that are just plain obvious to anyone who willingly seeks the truth.

Ah you see: you claim that the causal relationships are "obvious". That's an assumption until proven otherwise.
For example are you aware that there's a relationship between storks and new-born babies?
A direct correlation?
Are you going to suggest that storks cause babies, or vice-versa?
Until clinical trials are done you can't say what's causal, what's correlation and what's simply coincidence.

I'll just ignore the rest of your largely insupportable rant.

 

[Forceman]

Referring to an earlier post about spiritual truths becoming a basis for law codes in ancient societies and the latter one made on causality & cause and effect, there is a Latin phrase (which I can't recall at the moment) that states if there is a result that correlates to some type of cause (a magic ritual, religious ceremony, etc...) and that result happens quite frequently with that ritual or ceremony, there must be some reasoning and rationality behind the ritual. How can priests heal if, objectively, there is a sickness (not mental or psychological) and holy water or what not actually brings about effects. With statistics, you can finally make a definitive answer to the skeptics concerning the frequency of the results. Whether it's a god bringing about the results or whether there's a scientific explanation behind all this that ignorant humanist scientists of modern ignorance can't explain, no one will never know because of an arrogance that wants to put away anything that is Aristotelian, Platonic or open-minded, WISE, and intelligible for that matter!

 

[John99]

EXEGI monumentum aere perennius
regalique situ pyramidum altius,
quod non imber edax, non Aquilo impotens
possit diruere aut innumerabilis

 

[Thoreau]

EXEGI monumentum aere perennius
regalique situ pyramidum altius,
quod non imber edax, non Aquilo impotens
possit diruere aut innumerabilis

Um... English?

 

[John99]

No, Latin.

 

[John99]

ah, its a poem.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Referring to an earlier post about spiritual truths

You mean supposed spiritual truths.

Whether it's a god bringing about the results or whether there's a scientific explanation behind all this that ignorant humanist scientists of modern ignorance can't explain, no one will never know because of an arrogance that wants to put away anything that is Aristotelian, Platonic or open-minded, WISE, and intelligible for that matter!

Rubbish, of course.
You forgot, in the list "Aristotelian, Platonic or open-minded, WISE, and intelligible", to add "vastly out of date" and "in many cases plain wrong".

 

[Lori_7]

You mean "ignore the woo woo factor"?

i don't see how referencing a link to a commentary on toxins by an expert on toxins is woo. i do however see an abundance of woo in the following quotes.

How else do you prove what does what?
I might as well claim that the rise cancer is caused by the increase in date. Adding one to the number of the year has (since you claim that the incidence of cancer is rising) a correlation with cancer proliferation.
So now we have two possible causes: the ever-increasing "stuff" we produce and the equally ever-increasing date.
Let's get rid of all calendars and call it "Year 1" forever. That might stop it.

well, you might claim that if you're a complete idiot who has no sense. but if you're not a complete idiot, and you do have some common sense, then you would realize, even without some clinical study, that flooding our food, water, and air supply with toxins (poisonous substances) would surely have an adverse affect on health. and then capitalizing on your sense even further, you would realize that the inverse would be true...to remove those toxins from our bodies would have a positive affect on our health.

i also have enough sense to realize, that most people aren't really stupid enough to not be able to make this connection. but would rather eat unhealthy food and make money, and ignore the cost. scapegoat = no clinical study.

Ah you see: you claim that the causal relationships are "obvious". That's an assumption until proven otherwise.
For example are you aware that there's a relationship between storks and new-born babies?
A direct correlation?
Are you going to suggest that storks cause babies, or vice-versa?
Until clinical trials are done you can't say what's causal, what's correlation and what's simply coincidence.

it would be obvious to anyone who ever had a baby, or even knew someone who did.

I'll just ignore the rest of your largely insupportable rant.

lots of people ignore lots of things.

 

[spidergoat]

If getting bit by a rattlesnake is bad for my health, does that mean that not getting bit by a rattlesnake would reverse the damage?

 

[Dywyddyr]

i don't see how referencing a link to a commentary on toxins by an expert on toxins is woo. i do however see an abundance of woo in the following quotes.

Correction: you posted a link to another link - which showed a hypothesis. After I'd asked for supporting data for your claim.
Am I to assume that's the best you've got? I.e. no data, just a working guess?

well, you might claim that if you're a complete idiot who has no sense. but if you're not a complete idiot, and you do have some common sense, then you would realize, even without some clinical study, that flooding our food, water, and air supply with toxins (poisonous substances) would surely have an adverse affect on health. and then capitalizing on your sense even further, you would realize that the inverse would be true...to remove those toxins from our bodies would have a positive affect on our health.

And until the study is done we won't know
A) what the effects are or
B) how to remove the toxins.

i also have enough sense to realize, that most people aren't really stupid enough to not be able to make this connection. but would rather eat unhealthy food and make money, and ignore the cost. scapegoat = no clinical study.

Also wrong.
Clinical studies are required to ascertain exactly what is happening and exactly what has what effect.

it would be obvious to anyone who ever had a baby, or even knew someone who did.

What is "obvious" to one person isn't necessarily obvious to another: or even true.
And it still doesn't explain the actual link between storks and new-borns.

lots of people ignore lots of things.

Like the way you ignore reality and prefer to go with unsubstantiated "common sense"?