PDA

View Full Version : Angelina Jolie part of a clever corporate scheme to protect billions in BRCA gene patents, influence


baja
05-16-2013, 10:58 PM
EXPOSED: Angelina Jolie part of a clever corporate scheme to protect billions in BRCA gene patents, influence Supreme Court decision (opinion)
Thursday, May 16, 2013
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...)
Tags: Women, Cancer, Patent


20K
59

(NaturalNews) Angelina Jolie's announcement of undergoing a double mastectomy (surgically removing both breasts) even though she had no breast cancer is not the innocent, spontaneous, "heroic choice" that has been portrayed in the mainstream media. Natural News has learned it all coincides with a well-timed for-profit corporate P.R. campaign that has been planned for months and just happens to coincide with the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court decision on the viability of the BRCA1 patent.

This is the investigation the mainstream media refuses to touch. Here, I explain the corporate financial ties, investors, mergers, human gene patents, lawsuits, medical fear mongering and the trillions of dollars that are at stake here. If you pull back the curtain on this one, you find far more than an innocent looking woman exercising a "choice." This is about protecting trillions in profits through the deployment of carefully-crafted public relations campaigns designed to manipulate the public opinion of women.

The signs were all there from the beginning of the scheme: Angelina Jolie's highly polished and obviously corporate-written op-ed piece at the New York Times, the carefully-crafted talking points invoking "choice" as a politically-charged keyword, and the obvious coaching of even her husband Brad Pitt who carefully describes the entire experience using words like "stronger" and "pride" and "family."

But the smoking gun is the fact that Angelina Jolie's seemingly spontaneous announcement magically appeared on the cover of People Magazine this week -- a magazine that is usually finalized for publication three weeks before it appears on newsstands. That cover, not surprisingly, uses the same language found in the NYT op-ed piece: "HER BRAVE CHOICE" and "This was the right thing to do." The flowery, pro-choice language is not a coincidence.

What this proves is that Angelina's Jolie's announcement was a well-planned corporate P.R. campaign with carefully-crafted messages designed to influence public opinion. But what could Jolie be seeking to influence?

...how about trillions of dollars in corporate profits?

Upcoming U.S. Supreme Court decision to rule on patent viability for BRCA1 gene

Angelina Jolie's announcement and all its carefully-crafted language had four notable immediate impacts:

1) It caused women everywhere to be terrified of breast cancer through the publishing of false statistics that drove fear into the hearts of anyone with breasts. (See below for explanation.)

2) It caused women to rush out and seek BRCA1 gene testing procedures. These tests just happen to be patented by a for-profit corporation called "Myriad Genetics." Because of this patent, BRCA1 tests can cost $3,000 - $4,000 each. The testing alone is a multi-billion-dollar market, but only if the patent is upheld in an upcoming Supreme Court decision (see below).

3) It caused the stock price of Myriad Genetics (MYGN) to skyrocket to a 52-week high. "Myriad's stock closed up 3% Tuesday, following the publication of the New York Times op-ed," wrote Marketwatch.com.

4) It drove public opinion to influence the upcoming U.S. Supreme Court decision to rule in favor of corporate ownership of human genes (see more below).

Women all over the world are being duped into supporting Angeline Jolie, having no idea that what she's really doing is selling out women to the for-profit cancer industry. But to fully understand what's happening, you have to dig deeper...

Myriad Genetics sees stock price skyrocket thanks to Jolie, and Obamacare will funnel billions their way

"Salt Lake City-based Myriad Genetics (MYGN) holds the patent on the test that determined the actress had an 87% chance of developing breast cancer, as well as the genes themselves," wrote MarketWatch.com.

And that's only the beginning. If the U.S. Supreme Court can be influenced to uphold Myriad's patent, it could mean a trillion-dollar industry over just the next few years. Even more, Myriad Genetics is reportedly "ripe for mergers" according to the financial press, because it's part of the super-hot human genome industry.

"The world's largest maker of DNA testing and analysis tools, Life Technologies Corp. said that it is set to be acquired by Thermo Fisher Scientific for a record $13.6 billion," writes MarketWatch.com. "A race that kicked into high gear more than 26 years ago is heating up, with foreign governments and corporations joining the U.S. in funding the quest to map all the human genomes. And even as the recent flurry of mergers and acquisitions in the genomics space has spurred returns, investors still have opportunities to profit from this multibillion-dollar industry."

The higher Myriad's stock price goes, the more profitable a merger becomes for its current owners. So Jolie's P.R. stunt just happened to generate unknown millions of dollars in value for the very people who claim a patent monopoly over the breast cancer genes residing in the bodies of women. Coincidence? Hardly.

Obamacare mandates taxpayers pay for BRCA gene testing: yet another government handout to wealthy corporations

But here's what's even more crooked about all this: You know how Obama likes to talk "free market" but actually engages in so-called "crony capitalism" by handing out money to all his corporate buddies, Wall Street insiders and deep-pocketed campaign donors? Part of Obamacare -- the "Affordable Care Act" -- mandates that taxpayers pay for BRCA1 genetic testing!

Myriad Genetics, in other words, stands to receive a full-scale windfall of profits mandated by government and pushed into mainstream consciousness through a campaign of "medical terror" fronted by Angelina Jolie and the New York Times. Are you starting to see how this all fits together yet?

This is all one big coordinated corporate sellout of women, and it's all being hidden by playing the "women's power" card and using "choice" language to more easily manipulate women. Angelina Jolie, remember, is a key spokesperson for the United Nations, an organization already caught engaged in child sex slavery and drug running. Although Jolie obviously isn't engage in that sort of behavior, her job is to covertly influence American women into supporting a carefully-planned, plotted and executed corporate profit campaign that turns women's bodies into profits.

Here's why the Supreme Court decision puts trillions of dollars at stake...

Details on the upcoming Supreme Court decision

The ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation filed a lawsuit in 2009, challenging the corporate ownership of human genes. Anyone who believes in women's rights, human rights, civil rights or even the right to eat non-GMO foods should immediately agree that corporations should NOT be able to patent human genes and then use those patents to rake in billions of dollars in profits while stifling scientific research into those genes.

A question to all women reading this: Do you believe a corporation in Utah owns your body? If not, you should be opposed to corporate ownership of human genes. It also means you should oppose Angelina Jolie's P.R. campaign because although she's running a brilliant public relations campaign, behind the scenes her actions are feeding potentially trillions of dollars of profits directly into the for-profit human gene patenting industry that denies human beings ownership over their own genetic code.

The ACLU explains the basics of its lawsuit against Myriad Genetics as follows:

On May 12, 2009, the ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) filed a lawsuit charging that patents on two human genes associated with breast and ovarian cancer, BRCA1 and BRCA2, are unconstitutional and invalid. On November 30, 2012, the Supreme Court agreed to hear argument on the patentability of human genes. The ACLU argued the case before the U.S. Supreme Court on April 15, 2013. We expect a decision this summer.

On behalf of researchers, genetic counselors, women patients, cancer survivors, breast cancer and women's health groups, and scientific associations representing 150,000 geneticists, pathologists, and laboratory professionals, we have argued that human genes cannot be patented because they are classic products of nature. The suit charges that the gene patents violate the First Amendment and stifle diagnostic testing and research that could lead to cures and that they limit women's options regarding their medical care.

Got that? If the Supreme Court rules against Myriad Genetics, it will cause a multi-billion-dollar breast cancer genetic testing industry to collapse virtually overnight. This means a huge loss for not just Myriad, but also many other human gene corporations that wish to exploit the human body -- including the bodies of women -- for monopolistic profits. (All patents are government-granted monopolies.) Ultimately, trillions of dollars in corporate gene patents are at stake here.

Patenting human genes is huge business

Today, about 20 percent of your genes are already patented by corporations and universities. As the ACLU explains, "A gene patent holder has the right to prevent anyone from studying, testing or even looking at a gene. As a result, scientific research and genetic testing has been delayed, limited or even shut down due to concerns about gene patents."

This means that when corporations own patents on human genes, it stifles scientific research while granting that corporation a monopoly over the "intellectual property" encoded in your own DNA! (How criminal is that? You decide...)

What this means is that if the Supreme Court rules against Myriad, it would set a precedent that would dismantle the entire human gene patenting industry, affecting trillions of dollars in future profits.

This, I believe, is the real reason behind Angelina Jolie's announcement. It seems designed to invoke women's emotional reactions and create a groundswell of support for corporate-owned genes, thereby handing these corporations a Supreme Court precedent that will ensure trillions in future profits. It's a for-profit PR stunt that tries to trick women into supporting a corporate system of patents and monopolies that claims, right now, to own portions of the bodies of every woman living today.

While most media outlets have no clue about the patent issues at stake here, the Detroit Free Press took notice, saying:

"The Hollywood star's decision to get tested for a breast cancer gene mutation, undergo a double mastectomy and then write about it calls attention to a case now pending before the court. The justices have just weeks to decide if Myriad Genetics' patent on the two genes that can identify an increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer is legal. Critics complain that the company's monopoly leaves them as the sole source of the $4,000 tests needed to determine each woman's risk."

Lying with statistics: Jolie's 87% risk exaggeration

There's more to this story than just the patents on BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Angelina Jolie is also using blatantly misleading statistics to terrify women into thinking their breasts might kill them.

In the NYT op-ed piece, Jolie claims her doctor told her she has an "87% risk" of developing breast cancer. But what she didn't tell you is that this number doesn't apply to the entire population: it's actually old data derived almost exclusively from families that were previously documented to have very high risks of breast cancer to begin with.

A study published on the National Human Genome Research Institute website and conducted by scientists from the National Institutes of Health reveals that breast cancer risks associated with BRCA1 genes are significantly lower than what's being hyped up by Jolie and the mainstream media.

In fact, in a large room of 600 women, only ONE will likely have a BRCA mutation in her genetic code. The actual incidence is 0.125 to 0.25 out of 100 women, or 1 in 400 to 1 in 800. I used 600 as the average of 400 and 800.

And out of that 1 in 600 women who has the mutation, her risk of breast cancer is only 56 percent, not 78 percent as claimed by Jolie. But 13 percent of women without the BRCA mutation get breast cancer anyway, according to this scientific research, so the increased risk is just 43 out of 100 women.

So what we're really talking about here is 1 in 600 women having a BRCA gene mutation, then less than half of those getting cancer because of it. In other words, only about 1 in 1200 women will be affected by this.

Yet thanks to people like Jolie and the fear-mongering mainstream media, women all across the nation have been terrified into believing their breasts might kill them and the best way to handle the problem is to cut them off!

This, my friends, is the essence of doomsday fear mongering. This issue affects less than one-tenth of one percent of women but is being riled up into a nationwide fear campaign that just happens to feed profits into the for-profit cancer diagnosis and treatment industry, not to mention the monopolistic human gene patenting cartels.

That's the real story of what's happening here. Don't expect to read this in the New York Times.

Corporate media refuses to mention real prevention and treatment options

As part of the breast cancer fear mongering and treatment scam now being run across the mainstream media, nearly all media sources are prohibiting any mention of holistic or natural options for treatment or prevention.

Sure, the media talks about "options," but all those options just happen to lead back to the for-profit cancer industry. As an example, read this story by ABC News, part of the lying mainstream media that misinforms women and pushes a corporate agenda:

If you do test positive for BRCA, you have options, and you don't necessarily have to go the Jolie route. Some women choose not to have surgery. Instead, they increase cancer surveillance with imaging tests. These include regular mammograms to test for breast cancer, and regular pelvic sonograms and blood-tests to watch for ovarian cancer.

Nowhere in this article does ABC News mention ways to suppress the BRCA1 gene by, for example, eating raw cruciferous vegetables containing Indole-3-Carbinol (I3C), a potent anti-cancer nutrient that halts breast cancer in its tracks. Nowhere does ABC News mention vitamin D which prevents nearly 4 out of 5 cancers of all types, including breast cancer.

Nope, the "options" being pushed by mainstream media are nothing more than mammograms, surgery, radiation and chemotherapy -- all owned and run by the for-profit cancer industry that feeds on women and exploits their bodies for profit.

Nor is their any discussion of the total scam of the "pink ribbons" cancer cure industry which is primarily focused on giving women cancer through "free mammograms." As any scientist or physicist already knows, mammograms cause cancer because they emit ionizing radiation directly into the breast and heart tissues. Get enough mammograms done and sooner or later they will detect breast cancer because they caused it! To date, 1.3 million women have been harmed by mammography.

Thanks, Angelina, for keeping the wool pulled over the eyes of women everywhere while selling out to for-profit, monopolistic, corporate interests that incessantly seek to exploit women for profit.

Photo credit: PEOPLE Magazine cover, used under Fair Use for public commentary and education.


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040365_Angelina_Jolie_gene_patents_Supreme_Court_d ecision.html#ixzz2TWThiaQJ

bpc
05-16-2013, 11:24 PM
Yeah this is a bs op-ed piece. My wife works for Myriad. Great company. They've been developing the technology to test for mutations in your DNA for a long time, along with all the investments in R&D that comes with it. That process is patented and should be protected as it didn't fall out of the sky, it has matured over time.

At the end of the day these tests give women options. It doesn't mean you go have breast surgery but provides risk analysis for patients. If you want to give holistics a try too, so be it. As with Angelina, her mother died from cancer and she is determined to not succumb to the same fate. Knowledge is power and well, if that is her choice, more power to her. Whether its $300 or $3k, the test is compelling to a person's well being and a worthwhile investment in one's self. The impact I've seen has been amazing.

Fedaykin
05-17-2013, 12:41 AM
A woman does an incredibly brave thing, and you pull this kind of this: despicable

Dr. Broncenstein
05-17-2013, 02:01 AM
Wow.

W*GS
05-17-2013, 06:44 AM
Figures. baja is one of the most odious ****-spewers on the OM.

Rohirrim
05-17-2013, 08:36 AM
Hilarious!

DenverBrit
05-17-2013, 09:03 AM
Nowhere in this article does ABC News mention ways to suppress the BRCA1 gene by, for example, eating raw cruciferous vegetables containing Indole-3-Carbinol (I3C), a potent anti-cancer nutrient that halts breast cancer in its tracks. Nowhere does ABC News mention vitamin D which prevents nearly 4 out of 5 cancers of all types, including breast cancer.

Damn, why didn't she think of this?

What a godawful piece of crap of an article. :oyvey:

BroncoBeavis
05-17-2013, 09:47 AM
It all makes perfect sense. Mega-hot, Mega-loaded Hollywood superstar cuts off her famous breasts for a little extra walking-around money. LOL

Pony Boy
05-17-2013, 10:33 AM
I'm not sure on this and maybe Doc B can fill in the blanks but I got a feeling Angelina's "fun bags" will probably look better after the plastic surgery with the different choices of implants available to her.

The question is, will the average woman carrying the BRCA1 gene that chooses to have healthy breast tissue removed under Obama Care get a top notch breast reconstruction on the tax payer’s dime?

baja
05-17-2013, 10:47 AM
A woman does an incredibly brave thing, and you pull this kind of this: despicable

So what did I do besides pull your chain?

Did I write it? No.

Did I defend it? No.

Do I think it is true? I have no idea.

Do I think it is an insane choice to remove perfectly healthy breasts? Yes I do.

Rohirrim
05-17-2013, 10:58 AM
I'm not sure on this and maybe Doc B can fill in the blanks but I got a feeling Angelina's "fun bags" will probably look better after the plastic surgery with the different choices of implants available to her.

The question is, will the average woman carrying the BRCA1 gene that chooses to have healthy breast tissue removed under Obama Care get a top notch breast reconstruction on the tax payer’s dime?

Man! You just never give it a rest, do you? Ha!

Rohirrim
05-17-2013, 10:59 AM
So what did I do besides pull your chain?

Did I write it? No.

Did I defend it? No.

Do I think it is true? I have no idea.

Do I think it is an insane choice to remove perfectly healthy breasts? Yes I do.

Her mother died from it and with that gene, she had an 87% chance of getting it. Insane?

baja
05-17-2013, 11:15 AM
Her mother died from it and with that gene, she had an 87% chance of getting it. Insane?


I know that. I think there are other strategies she could have taken as a preventive measure. Such as a green living food diet. I know what you think of that but your lack of knowledge on diet and disease does not change it's effectiveness.

Fedaykin
05-17-2013, 11:20 AM
So what did I do besides pull your chain?

Did I write it? No.

Did I defend it? No.

Do I think it is true? I have no idea.

You fully endorse the bull**** that Mike Adams is trying to promote by exploiting this story. Don't ****ing try to bull**** your way out by claiming you don't lap up everything that idiot has to say.


Do I think it is an insane choice to remove perfectly healthy breasts? Yes I do.

If you faced a 90% chance of getting a deadly disease would you not sacrifice a completely expendable mass of tissue to reduce that risk to 5%?

This is the actual situation being faced here -- a choice between almost certain disease and almost certain continued lack of that disease.

Fedaykin
05-17-2013, 11:26 AM
I know that. I think there are other strategies she could have taken as a preventive measure. Such as a green living food diet. I know what you think of that but your lack of knowledge on diet and disease does not change it's effectiveness.

There is no evidence for what you claim. Just the typical bull**** woo. Better diet helps and is always a good thing, but it's not the miracle cure you woo-meisters are always claiming it is.

Eating orange zest us not a miracle cure for cancer, sorry:

(http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=105635)

Fedaykin
05-17-2013, 11:28 AM
Also, the characterization of the breasts of someone with this gene as being 'perfectly healthy' is idiotic.

W*GS
05-17-2013, 11:29 AM
Exhibit 1 against "alternative" medicine: Steve Jobs.

Rohirrim
05-17-2013, 11:34 AM
I know that. I think there are other strategies she could have taken as a preventive measure. Such as a green living food diet. I know what you think of that but your lack of knowledge on diet and disease does not change it's effectiveness.

I don't think we know enough. On the one hand, we know things like the Mediterranean Diet improve longevity, but then on the other, the oldest living woman in the world, who died last year in France, said she had one cigarette a day, some wine, and rode her bicycle. Genes probably play a much bigger role than diet.

baja
05-17-2013, 11:48 AM
You fully endorse the bull**** that Mike Adams is trying to promote by exploiting this story. Don't ****ing try to bull**** your way out by claiming you don't lap up everything that idiot has to say.



If you faced a 90% chance of getting a deadly disease would you not sacrifice a completely expendable mass of tissue to reduce that risk to 5%?

This is the actual situation being faced here -- a choice between almost certain disease and almost certain continued lack of that disease.

Oh OK Thanks for setting me straight on what i believe. You sure are one smart dude.

Fedaykin
05-17-2013, 12:16 PM
Oh OK Thanks for setting me straight on what i believe. You sure are one smart dude.

I'm glad to see you're finally realize your beliefs are bull**** -- otherwise you wouldn't be offended that I'm calling them out.

Progress!

houghtam
05-17-2013, 12:27 PM
Typical.

Start a thread. Post a story.

When someone points out what crap it is, distance yourself from same.

Pony Boy
05-17-2013, 12:41 PM
Also, the characterization of the breasts of someone with this gene as being 'perfectly healthy' is idiotic.

I'm pretty sure her breasts were perfectly healthy, so please explain what part of the removed tissue was different or unhealthy?

Pony Boy
05-17-2013, 12:45 PM
Typical.

Start a thread. Post a story.

When someone points out what crap it is, distance yourself from same.

Did I miss something, who pointed out the story was crap?

baja
05-17-2013, 01:05 PM
Did I miss something, who pointed out the story was crap?

We share a forum with quite a few reactionary slow thinkers that like a monkey attracted to a shiny object they attack the messenger. They look to each other to see what their opinion should be. You can see this on thread after thread, sad really.

Fedaykin
05-17-2013, 01:11 PM
I'm pretty sure her breasts were perfectly healthy, so please explain what part of the removed tissue was different or unhealthy?

The defective gene gave her a 90% chance of developing breast cancer and a greatly elevated risk of ovarian cancer. That's not "completely healthy".

bpc
05-17-2013, 01:20 PM
So what did I do besides pull your chain?

Did I write it? No.

Did I defend it? No.

Do I think it is true? I have no idea.

Do I think it is an insane choice to remove perfectly healthy breasts? Yes I do.

You're eliminating risk. Can you see cancer in most regards? Nope. This becomes greater when considering ovarian cancer which isn't as easily detected by physical examination as breast cancer. Eliminate the culprit or wait around long enough to leave it open to opportunity.

baja
05-17-2013, 01:35 PM
You're eliminating risk. Can you see cancer in most regards? Nope. This becomes greater when considering ovarian cancer which isn't as easily detected by physical examination as breast cancer. Eliminate the culprit or wait around long enough to leave it open to opportunity.


By that logic one should consider killing themselves now because we know there is a 100% chance of dying some day so why not chose a painless method of death now rather than wait of the unknown and possibly painful death that the future is sure to bring.

She is healthy now and there are diet strategies that are know to turn off cancer causing genes. If she is prone to cancer isn't it likely the cancer will find a home in another part of her body?

Fedaykin
05-17-2013, 01:48 PM
By that logic one should consider killing themselves now because we know there is a 100% chance of dying some day so why not chose a painless method of death now rather than wait of the unknown and possibly painful death that the future is sure to bring.


:eyeroll:


She is healthy now and there are diet strategies that are know to turn off cancer causing genes. If she is prone to cancer isn't it likely the cancer will find a home in another part of her body?

No, she is not healthy. She has a genetic disease.

And there are no dietary solutions to that disorder.

baja
05-17-2013, 02:41 PM
:eyeroll:



No, she is not healthy. She has a genetic disease.

And there are no dietary solutions to that disorder.


Only a blow hard such as yourself would be so sure of that statement

and she has a propensity to a disease not a disease.

Fedaykin
05-17-2013, 02:47 PM
Only a blow hard such as yourself would be so sure of that statement


LMAO go ahead, show me the objective, scientific evidence of your claim. I've asked before, and the best you've done is post bull****.


and she has a propensity to a disease not a disease.

No, she has a genetic disease. Period. That disease can ALSO cause others.

chadta
05-17-2013, 03:05 PM
The defective gene gave her a 90% chance of developing breast cancer and a greatly elevated risk of ovarian cancer. That's not "completely healthy".

so when is she getting her ovaries removed ?

seems kind of silly to take such a drastic step, and only go halfway with it

Fedaykin
05-17-2013, 03:09 PM
so when is she getting her ovaries removed ?

seems kind of silly to take such a drastic step, and only go halfway with it

Breasts serve no biological function other than feeding babies. Removing them has no known health consequences (other than the risks of the operation itself).

Ovaries do serve a biological function (many, and not limited to reproduction).

chadta
05-17-2013, 04:16 PM
Breasts serve no biological function other than feeding babies. Removing them has no known health consequences (other than the risks of the operation itself).

Ovaries do serve a biological function (many, and not limited to reproduction).

many eh ? like what ?

Pony Boy
05-17-2013, 04:38 PM
The defective gene gave her a 90% chance of developing breast cancer and a greatly elevated risk of ovarian cancer. That's not "completely healthy".

One more time ........ Try to say with me, the breast tissue she had removed was healthy, can you really not understand this? This was a choice she made, to remove healthy tissue that might someday be affected by the BRCA1 gene.

Fedaykin
05-17-2013, 04:43 PM
many eh ? like what ?

I'm not here to teach you bio 101. I've give you a starting point though: hormone regulation.

Fedaykin
05-17-2013, 04:49 PM
One more time ........ Try to say with me, the breast tissue she had removed was healthy, can you really not understand this? This was a choice she made, to remove healthy tissue that might someday be affected by the BRCA1 gene.

There's a reason the gene is called the breast cancer susceptibility gene. Because breast tissue with that gene is more susceptible to cancer.

What part of that don't YOU understand?

IHaveALight
05-17-2013, 04:53 PM
http://www.markusrothkranz.com/angelina/angelina.html

Another perspective. Should go well here.

chadta
05-17-2013, 05:28 PM
I'm not here to teach you bio 101. I've give you a starting point though: hormone regulation.

There's a reason the gene is called the breast cancer susceptibility gene. Because breast tissue with that gene is more susceptible to cancer.

Then why does he get the bio 101 ?

anyhow she could live a normal life without them, she got implants to replace her breasts, she could take hormones to replace her ovaries.

so what exactly is it that she needs them for ?

Fedaykin
05-17-2013, 08:56 PM
Then why does he get the bio 101 ?

anyhow she could live a normal life without them, she got implants to replace her breasts, she could take hormones to replace her ovaries.[/quote]

As I said, there are many reasons. Quit being a lazy bum and go ask google.

so what exactly is it that she needs them for ?[/QUOTE]

Gee, I can't imagine why a woman would want to keep her ability to children. That's just CRAZY TALK!

Anyway, do you have some point? She decided to only (for now) do the mastectomy. Why do you have a beef with that? Do you envision some nefarious purpose ala the resident woomeister OP?

baja
05-17-2013, 09:07 PM
anyhow she could live a normal life without them, she got implants to replace her breasts, she could take hormones to replace her ovaries.

As I said, there are many reasons. Quit being a lazy bum and go ask google.

so what exactly is it that she needs them for ?[/QUOTE]

Gee, I can't imagine why a woman would want to keep her ability to children. That's just CRAZY TALK!

Anyway, do you have some point? She decided to only (for now) do the mastectomy. Why do you have a beef with that? Do you envision some nefarious purpose ala the resident woomeister OP?[/QUOTE]


Why yes just the other day I noticed a women on a sofa doing childrening.


BTW You telling someone to do their own research is priceless

Fedaykin
05-17-2013, 10:11 PM
BTW You telling someone to do their own research is priceless

:rofl:

Your idea of research is lapping up whatever bull**** fullfills your confirmation bias.

Fedaykin
05-17-2013, 10:13 PM
Why yes just the other day I noticed a women on a sofa doing childrening.

Complaining about typos: the last refuge of people who's real stupidity is exposed on a regular basis.

IHaveALight
05-17-2013, 10:45 PM
How about this... http://www.secretsofthefed.com/exposed-angelina-jolie-part-of-a-clever-corporate-scheme-to-protect-billions-in-brca-gene-patents-influence-supreme-court-decision/

BowlenBall
05-17-2013, 10:52 PM
Yeah this is a bs op-ed piece. My wife works for Myriad. Great company. They've been developing the technology to test for mutations in your DNA for a long time, along with all the investments in R&D that comes with it. That process is patented and should be protected as it didn't fall out of the sky, it has matured over time.

At the end of the day these tests give women options. It doesn't mean you go have breast surgery but provides risk analysis for patients. If you want to give holistics a try too, so be it. As with Angelina, her mother died from cancer and she is determined to not succumb to the same fate. Knowledge is power and well, if that is her choice, more power to her. Whether its $300 or $3k, the test is compelling to a person's well being and a worthwhile investment in one's self. The impact I've seen has been amazing.

I'm sure Myriad is a great company to work for, and that they do lots of good things, but the part of your post that I've highlighted in red is the real issue here.

If these types of tests can be patented, and a monopoly on life-saving procedures can be obtained by corporations, then all kinds of issues can arise. What if the real cost of the procedure is $30, but the company charges $30,000? If it's your wife or your daughter's life at stake, you've got no choice but to pony up the cash, regardless of what they charge.

I know that the counter-argument is that "these companies need to recoup their development costs", but do I also need to subsidize their massive CEO salaries and the millions of lobbying dollars they spend every year? I say no.

baja
05-17-2013, 10:56 PM
How about this... http://www.secretsofthefed.com/exposed-angelina-jolie-part-of-a-clever-corporate-scheme-to-protect-billions-in-brca-gene-patents-influence-supreme-court-decision/

But she's hot...

baja
05-17-2013, 10:58 PM
Of course the timing is a complete coincidence...

chadta
05-18-2013, 02:46 AM
She decided to only (for now) do the mastectomy. Why do you have a beef with that? Do you envision some nefarious purpose ala the resident woomeister OP?

so for now it is a job done in a half asses manner, like i said, and you argued, but now seem to agree with.

in other words you were arguing just for the sake of arguing.

anyhow, off to cedar point to ride some roller coasters, on this fine first long weekend of the year, have a good one

Fedaykin
05-18-2013, 04:25 AM
so for now it is a job done in a half asses manner, like i said, and you argued, but now seem to agree with.

in other words you were arguing just for the sake of arguing.

anyhow, off to cedar point to ride some roller coasters, on this fine first long weekend of the year, have a good one

Are you stoned? The only one who seems to be arguing for the sake of arguing is who who came out of left field asking why she did one and not other other -- as if it's some big mystery why a person would choose to get rid of biologically useless tissue and not the useful bits.

If you're worried about "arguing for the sake or arguing" you should check your own damn reflection in the mirror dumbass.

baja
05-19-2013, 08:27 AM
Conventional medicine openly admits to confusion over BRCA1 gene
Saturday, May 18, 2013 by: Jonathan Landsman
Tags: Cancer, BRCA1, Women


3,803
15

(NaturalNews) By now, I'm sure you've heard the news about Angelina Jolie testing positive for the BRCA1 gene mutation and the decision to remove her breasts. This decision has been touted as a brave and reasonable choice, considering the assumed high risk for breast cancer.

But, as an educated guess, I'll bet Angelina Jolie has NOT been told the whole truth about the BRCA1 gene or her risk for getting breast cancer.

I say this respectfully - that if Angelina Jolie or any other woman wants to read the rest of this article (and has had 1 or 2 breasts removed due to the BRCA1 gene mutation) - you should be prepared to get very angry!

I want to make one thing perfectly clear. I will always respect the decision of any woman to care for her body - any way she sees fit. But, when a woman is asked to make life and death decisions with fraudulent, unscientific information, that's when I take exception. In fact, I think, those healthcare professional giving out flawed data, to their patients, should go to jail.

Don't remove your breasts until you read this "NCI disclaimer"...

Many of us have heard the conventional talking points that refer to an "87% higher risk for breast cancer" - if one tests positive for the BRCA1 gene mutation. But, I'm here to tell you, that this is a complete fabrication of the medical truth.

I'll be honest - when I read this statement by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) - I nearly fell off my chair. Even if you test positive for the BRCA1 gene mutation - your risk of getting breast cancer may still be caused by other factors.

In other words, the BRCA1 gene may not really be the cause of breast cancer.

Read for yourself what the National Cancer Institute says about BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutations...

"It is important to note, however, that most research related to BRCA1 and BRCA2 has been done on large families with many individuals affected by cancer. Estimates of breast and ovarian cancer risk associated with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations have been calculated from studies of these families. Because family members share a proportion of their genes and, often, their environment, it is possible that the large number of cancer cases seen in these families may be due in part to other genetic or environmental factors. Therefore, risk estimates that are based on families with many affected members may not accurately reflect the levels of risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers in the general population. In addition, no data are available from long-term studies of the general population comparing cancer risk in women who have harmful BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations with women who do not have such mutations. Therefore, the percentages given above are estimates that may change as more data become available."

I hope you understand the magnitude of what you've just read. The NCI has openly admitted that your risk for breast cancer stems from a wide variety of "genetic or environmental factors".

Simply put, the NCI really doesn't know (scientifically) how much of any risk factor causes cancer - including the presence of a BRCA1 mutation.

If you have any doubt about what you just read ... check it out yourself - at the National Cancer Institute website link: www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/BRCA

How the conventional cancer industry profits from your ignorance

The cancer industry would like you to believe that you are a victim of your genes with very little power to control your own health.

Let's be clear, we are not victims of our genes. Even conventional science admits that our environment is a major risk factor for developing cancer. Our lifestyle has everything to do with the health (and expression) of our genes.

In fact, the research is so strong that they will do everything in their power to suppress this information and focus on disseminating fraudulent propaganda that makes you feel helpless and disempowered.

They know if the truth came out they would be out of business.

If you're looking for positive, self-empowering answers in dealing with cancer - be sure to join us for the NaturalNews Healing Summit - starting Mon. May 20.

One of the summit speakers, John Aspley, MD(E), ND, DC had this to say about our genes and cancer prevention:

"What folks need to know is that genes can only express what they are fed. If they are fed a polluted diet from a toxic immediate environment (milieu), they will express disease."

"With proper diet and a detoxified milieu, genes will almost always express resilient, thriving cells, never cancerous cells. Unless we learn this, we will end-up amputating most body parts by the end of this century. My heart aches for Angelina, and I wish her the best."

Discover natural ways to counter the BRCA1 mutation

Research published in The Journal of Cell Biology, from a team led by Susana Gonzalo, Ph.D., illustrates our ability to dramatically reduce the risk of breast cancer - even with a BRCA1 gene mutation, without the need for surgery.

The so called breakthrough of this study is something we already know - vitamin D plays a significant role in turning off a pathway that would cause an activation of the mutated BRCA1 gene.

In other words, vitamin D can provide a safe and cost-effective way to prevent cancer. But, vitamin D is not the only nutrient with cancer-fighting properties.

A study in the medical journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention looked at the benefits of dietary selenium supplements for women who have mutations in the BRCA1 gene.

The study was conducted in Poland, specifically for people who have a high risk of cancer due to their family history or genetic tests. The researchers used women who had the mutation and a relative that did not have the BRCA1 mutation.

The researchers collected a blood sample from each pair of women to find out how the blood may be damaged in a way that could lead to cancer. These samples were exposed to a chemical, which can cause cell damage. This was done to see how much damage occurs in the cells of women with and without the BRAC1 mutation.

For the second phase of this study, researchers gave a selenium supplement that provided 276 micrograms of selenium per day, for the duration of one to three months. Then, they had new blood samples taken after the women had taken the dietary selenium supplements.

Can you guess what happened next?


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040394_BRCA1_breast_cancer_gene_mutations.html#ixz z2TkTuHYxx

misturanderson
05-19-2013, 08:57 AM
"It is important to note, however, that most research related to BRCA1 and BRCA2 has been done on large families with many individuals affected by cancer. Estimates of breast and ovarian cancer risk associated with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations have been calculated from studies of these families. Because family members share a proportion of their genes and, often, their environment, it is possible that the large number of cancer cases seen in these families MAY be due in part to other genetic or environmental factors. Therefore, risk estimates that are based on families with many affected members MAY NOT accurately reflect the levels of risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers in the general population. In addition, no data are available from long-term studies of the general population comparing cancer risk in women who have harmful BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations with women who do not have such mutations. Therefore, the percentages given above are estimates that may change as more data become available."

I hope you understand the magnitude of what you've just read. The NCI has openly admitted that your risk for breast cancer stems from a wide variety of "genetic or environmental factors".


Poor reading comprehension/misrepresentation much (yes I understand that you didn't write it)?

Regardless, given the fact that Jolie's mother did in fact die from breast cancer, her choice is absolutely justified based on current research.

baja
05-19-2013, 09:14 AM
Poor reading comprehension/misrepresentation much (yes I understand that you didn't write it)?

Regardless, given the fact that Jolie's mother did in fact die from breast cancer, her choice is absolutely justified based on current research.

One should not mutilate one's body based on inconclusive science.

W*GS
05-19-2013, 09:19 AM
One should not mutilate one's body based on inconclusive science.

Because it would displease the reptilians, eh?

baja
05-19-2013, 09:24 AM
Because it would displease the reptilians, eh?

Actually if they do in fact exist human self mutilation would please them greatly.

W*GS
05-19-2013, 09:27 AM
Actually if they do in fact exist human self mutilation would please them greatly.

I just snickered.

myMind
05-19-2013, 01:43 PM
Actually if they do in fact exist human self mutilation would please them greatly.

So you feel comfortable with your knolwedge of the likes and dislikes of a "species" that doesn't exist huh?

misturanderson
05-19-2013, 01:43 PM
One should not mutilate one's body based on inconclusive science.

What part of it was inconclusive? The question was whether the statistics could be applied to the general population. There wasn't really any question of increased cancer risk if a person grew up in a family where someone with the gene died of breast cancer.

If I were in her shoes, doing a risk benefit analysis of surgically removing the breast tissue vs dying a slow, agonizing death due to metastatic cancer, I'd personally choose the surgery. It's lucky for her that she has enough money to afford the procedure and a good doctor to perform it.

baja
05-19-2013, 01:47 PM
What part of it was inconclusive? The question was whether the statistics could be applied to the general population. There wasn't really any question of increased cancer risk if a person grew up in a family where someone with the gene died of breast cancer.

If you want to cut off body parts because of what MIGHT happen go for it.

baja
05-19-2013, 01:48 PM
So you feel comfortable with your knolwedge of the likes and dislikes of a "species" that doesn't exist huh?

When conversing with Wags you have already entered the world of the absurd

misturanderson
05-19-2013, 01:48 PM
If you want to cut off body parts because of what MIGHT happen go for it.

I think you mean "probably will happen." That is if 87% means what I think it means.

houghtam
05-19-2013, 01:52 PM
If you had an 87% chance of getting into a car accident, would you continue to drive? Why would you criticize someone else's choice not to?

baja
05-19-2013, 01:54 PM
I think you mean "probably will happen." That is if 87% means what I think it means.

If you had a gene that limited studies told you there was a 90% chance of contracting cancer would you cut your dick off?

What the hell is wrong with you people.

misturanderson
05-19-2013, 02:02 PM
If you had a gene that limited studies told you there was a 90% chance of contracting cancer would you cut your dick off?

What the hell is wrong with you people.

Considering that isn't an equivalent choice (dick =/= breasts) it's not an apples to apples comparison.

That being said, I might if I believed that study was legitimate and was repeatable. I probably wouldn't make that choice until later in life, based on the statistics. I've seen people die of cancer eating them away from the inside over months, being pumped full of drugs just to try to keep them from being in perpetual agony. I'd rather avoid that if at all possible.

I'm still torn as to whether or not I would commit suicide if I ever became afflicted with a terminal cancer. Euthanasia should be legal.

baja
05-19-2013, 02:09 PM
Considering that isn't an equivalent choice (dick =/= breasts) it's not an apples to apples comparison.

That being said, I might if I believed that study was legitimate and was repeatable. I probably wouldn't make that choice until later in life, based on the statistics. I've seen people die of cancer eating them away from the inside over months, being pumped full of drugs just to try to keep them from being in perpetual agony. I'd rather avoid that if at all possible.

I'm still torn as to whether or not I would commit suicide if I ever became afflicted with a terminal cancer. Euthanasia should be legal.

Yup never figured that one out either. Women are legally allowed to abort their babies based on the right to decide what happens to their bodies yet it is against the law for one to decide when to leave their body no matter the circumstances

baja
05-19-2013, 02:15 PM
Considering that isn't an equivalent choice (dick =/= breasts) it's not an apples to apples comparison.

That being said, I might if I believed that study was legitimate and was repeatable. I probably wouldn't make that choice until later in life, based on the statistics. I've seen people die of cancer eating them away from the inside over months, being pumped full of drugs just to try to keep them from being in perpetual agony. I'd rather avoid that if at all possible.

I'm still torn as to whether or not I would commit suicide if I ever became afflicted with a terminal cancer. Euthanasia should be legal.

Oh and why is your dick more valuable that a woman's breast you know the gland that feeds her new born.

misturanderson
05-19-2013, 02:19 PM
Oh and why is your dick more valuable that a woman's breast you know the gland that feeds her new born.

Because there are replacements for breast milk (either from another woman or formula) for one. Also because losing the breast tissue doesn't mean that the sensation is lost from the breast and there are implants to replace the tissue removed from an aesthetic standpoint.

If you could retain the sensation of my dick and just take out tissue in the middle while replacing it with a synthetic material, there would be no question that I would do the surgery you are proposing if it dropped my cancer risk from 90% to 5%.

baja
05-19-2013, 02:21 PM
Because there are replacements for breast milk (either from another woman or formula) for one. Also because losing the breast tissue doesn't mean that the sensation is lost from the breast and there are implants to replace the tissue removed from an aesthetic standpoint.

If you could retain the sensation of my dick and just take out tissue in the middle while replacing it with a synthetic material, there would be no question that I would do the surgery you are proposing if it dropped my cancer risk from 90% to 5%.

If cancer wants you she will find you. ;D

baja
05-19-2013, 02:24 PM
http://blog.andrewhastie.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Head-in-Jar.jpg

Fedaykin
05-19-2013, 10:18 PM
If you had a gene that limited studies told you there was a 90% chance of contracting cancer would you cut your dick off?

What the hell is wrong with you people.

The real question is what the hell is wrong with you?

Her case is pretty clear: 87% of people with this defective gene who've had a family member with breast cancer develop breast cancer too. Regardless of any potential uncertainty of causal factors, that much is based on solid evidence.

The only detrimental effects of mastectomy are appearance, possibly some minor sensation loss and breast feeding, all of which are extremely mild consequences.

To compare that to penis removal is absurd.

And of course, hilariously given your statement, millions of people do have part of their penis removed due to concerns of disease. Of course, the consequence of that removal is similarly very low (appearance and sensation) which for most people makes that trade off quite palatable.


Why are you so upset that she made the decision she made? What right do YOU have to judge the decisions she makes about her own body?

baja
05-19-2013, 10:26 PM
The real question is what the hell is wrong with you?

Her case is pretty clear: 87% of people with this defective gene who've had a family member with breast cancer develop breast cancer too. Regardless of any potential uncertainty of causal factors, that much is based on solid evidence.

The only detrimental effects of mastectomy are appearance, possibly some minor sensation loss and breast feeding, all of which are extremely mild consequences.

To compare that to penis removal is absurd.

And of course, hilariously given your statement, millions of people do have part of their penis removed due to concerns of disease. Of course, the consequence of that removal is similarly very low (appearance and sensation) which for most people makes that trade off quite palatable.


Why are you so upset that she made the decision she made? What right do YOU have to judge the decisions she makes about her own body?


She is one of the most recognized women on the planet - I don't agree with the message she is sending to other women. I respect her right to do what she wants with her own body but I would like to see dietary strategies tried first.

Science is routinely wrong it just takes time to show it self.

Fedaykin
05-19-2013, 11:35 PM
She is one of the most recognized women on the planet - I don't agree with the message she is sending to other women. I respect her right to do what she wants with her own body but I would like to see dietary strategies tried first.


Provide evidence of the efficacy of such strategies, and I would be 100% behind you.


Science is routinely wrong it just takes time to show it self.

Science is indeed wrong quite often. It's a process subject to human error just like any other endeavor. Still, it is better than wishful thinking and plain making **** up which is all you and others like you engage in.

baja
05-19-2013, 11:50 PM
Provide evidence of the efficacy of such strategies, and I would be 100% behind you.



Science is indeed wrong quite often. It's a process subject to human error just like any other endeavor. Still, it is better than wishful thinking and plain making **** up which is all you and others like you engage in.


We live during amazing times. It is so easy to research an idea or claim.

If I heard that diet might have a significant affect on cancer I think I would look into it before I cut my tiets off as a preventive measure but that 's just me.

Fedaykin
05-20-2013, 12:03 AM
We live during amazing times. It is so easy to research an idea or claim.

If I heard that diet might have a significant affect on cancer I think I would look into it before I cut my tiets off as a preventive measure but that 's just me.

Who said she didn't?

I'll ask again, where's the evidence that dietary changes are

a.) effective and
b.) as effective

as this treatment bubba?

baja
05-20-2013, 12:06 AM
Who said she didn't?

I'll ask again, where's the evidence that dietary changes are

a.) effective and
b.) as effective

as this treatment bubba?


"Green for life" start there

IHaveALight
05-20-2013, 01:43 AM
Regardless, given the fact that Jolie's mother did in fact die from breast cancer, her choice is absolutely justified based on current research.

You mean based on the current research that the highly profitable cancer industry is feeding the masses. There is loads of research out there that says other wise, and those people aren't raking in billions of dollars in the process, they're just concerned about actually helping people is all, and making real progress. What progress have you seen from the cancer industry? A higher percentage of people have cancer now more than ever. They're still using technology from decades ago to "fight" it. Have you not seen how far technology has advanced since radiation treatments were introduced? Look at the auto industry, look at the technology industry, how drastic have things changed since then. Where is that drastic change in cancer treatments and prevention? There is none (intentionally). How big of a problem was cancer 100 years ago? All of a sudden we just have these crazy, abundant genetic issues that never existed before. What gives? Environment, lifestyle choices, manipulation of consciousness and mental manifestation.

Wakey wakey

misturanderson
05-20-2013, 01:55 AM
You mean based on the current research that the highly profitable cancer industry is feeding the masses. There is loads of research out there that says other wise, and those people aren't raking in billions of dollars in the process, they're just concerned about actually helping people is all, and making real progress. What progress have you seen from the cancer industry? A higher percentage of people have cancer now more than ever. They're still using technology from decades ago to "fight" it. Have you not seen how far technology has advanced since radiation treatments were introduced? Look at the auto industry, look at the technology industry, how drastic have things changed since then. Where is that drastic change in cancer treatments and prevention? There is none (intentionally). How big of a problem was cancer 100 years ago? All of a sudden we just have these crazy, abundant genetic issues that never existed before. What gives? Environment, lifestyle choices, manipulation of consciousness and mental manifestation.

You have no idea what kind of advancements have been made in medical treatment of cancer (Hint: there have been major advances in technology, chemotherapy and cure rates). That much is clear from your post. I therefore don't have any interest in any of the so-called "research" you are peddling because you don't understand how to objectively review research anyway.

Cancer was probably a huge issue 100 years ago, but we didn't know how to find it unless it was a huge tumor causing the issue AND an autopsy was performed. They didn't even have antibiotics 100 years ago.

You can go on believing whatever the hell you want, but most of the "medical" beliefs you have aren't founded in reality.

IHaveALight
05-20-2013, 08:01 AM
They've made improvements in the radiation of the masses, progress indeed.

Expand your perspective, what is the rate of external visible tumors 100 years ago compared to now? You can believe that cancer was an epidemic 100 years ago all you want, find me the evidence. Where are the stories of children becoming deathly ill out of nowhere with symptoms that we could interpret as cancer with our "knowledge" today? Where are the reports of an epidemic of lumps forming in woman's breasts, followed by decline in health and or death? Read the China Study, see the living evidence in the lifestyle changes that occurred in China far more recently than the lifestyle changes of the US and their direct affect on cancer rates.

Rohirrim
05-20-2013, 08:38 AM
They've made improvements in the radiation of the masses, progress indeed.

Expand your perspective, what is the rate of external visible tumors 100 years ago compared to now? You can believe that cancer was an epidemic 100 years ago all you want, find me the evidence. Where are the stories of children becoming deathly ill out of nowhere with symptoms that we could interpret as cancer with our "knowledge" today? Where are the reports of an epidemic of lumps forming in woman's breasts, followed by decline in health and or death? Read the China Study, see the living evidence in the lifestyle changes that occurred in China far more recently than the lifestyle changes of the US and their direct affect on cancer rates.

It's been around a long time...

The oldest known description and surgical treatment of cancer was discovered in Egypt and dates back to approximately 1600 BC. The Papyrus describes 8 cases of ulcers of the breast that were treated by cauterization, with a tool called "the fire drill." The writing says about the disease, "There is no treatment."[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_cancer

IHaveALight
05-20-2013, 08:55 AM
You are a program Mr. Anderson, you are a slave. Choose the red pill.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_lgHMjTMRs&sns

Disease is a natural part of life Roh, rampant disease is a product of toxicity. Be it mental, environmental or ingestion.

*edit

Requiem
05-20-2013, 09:02 AM
Disease is a natural part of life Roh, rampant disease is not.

OK, can you differentiate those for us? There are a lot of factors that can be brought up to discuss the increase of prevalence of disease in the world.

Why do you think this is?

Rohirrim
05-20-2013, 09:08 AM
You are a program Mr. Anderson, you are a slave. Choose the red pill.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_lgHMjTMRs&sns

Disease is a natural part of life Roh, rampant disease is not.

Uhh That's fiction. Who knows? Maybe it's the effects of modern living? Chemicals? The crap in the air? Maybe it's because there are too many of us? Maybe it's nature's way of reducing the population? Maybe it's simply the way of nature and cancer is simply part of the natural process? We don't really know, yet.

And maybe we consider it "rampant" because our reporting skills have increased a hundred fold?

Fedaykin
05-20-2013, 09:15 AM
"Green for life" start there

I ask for evidence of the effectiveness of dietary changes vs. this surgery, and you point me to a ****ing cookbook? Jesus you are a nutter.

IHaveALight
05-20-2013, 09:33 AM
Disease is a product of toxicity. Be it mental, environmental and or ingestion. Rampant toxicity = rampant disease.

baja
05-20-2013, 09:33 AM
I ask for evidence of the effectiveness of dietary changes vs. this surgery, and you point me to a ****ing cookbook? Jesus you are a nutter.


Sorry I won't bother you any more.

Requiem
05-20-2013, 09:38 AM
Disease is a product of toxicity. Be it mental, environmental and or ingestion. Rampant toxicity = rampant disease.

I don't think nobody ever denied that environment, mental well-being or the choices we make didn't have an impact on what happens to us. Basically you are stating what everyone already knows. That would be like me saying, "More people, more diseases."

IHaveALight
05-20-2013, 09:43 AM
I don't think nobody ever denied that environment, mental well-being or the choices we make didn't have an impact on what happens to us. Basically you are stating what everyone already knows. That would be like me saying, "More people, more diseases."

Yet we continue to choose toxic solutions and do not correct the real problem, toxicity.

Requiem
05-20-2013, 09:49 AM
Yet we continue to choose toxic solutions and do not correct the real problem, toxicity.

Toxic solutions? Elaborate.

What about genetics? You seem to not talk much about genetics/disease.

baja
05-20-2013, 10:03 AM
Yet we continue to choose toxic solutions and do not correct the real problem, toxicity.


I have been trying to share this information for years to no avail

They really don't want to hear it.


I don't know why but they don't.

Fedaykin
05-20-2013, 10:13 AM
Disease is a product of toxicity. Be it mental, environmental and or ingestion. Rampant toxicity = rampant disease.

Disease is a product of genetics, environmental contaminants, biological competition, and dozens or hundreds of other factors.

But to claim disease is rampant now is pretty funny. We're living longer, better, etc. than ever. We name our children now at birth instead of waiting a couple years to see if they survive. We have major economic and social problems caused by people living "too long".

However, I will give you that we're seeing an uptick in certain diseases, such as cancer, that primarily develop with older age.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1CLG-FEqhz0/TgI2JMlm60I/AAAAAAAAA-I/4eG91dx_Ljo/s1600/cancer-rates.jpg

The life expectancy for someone born in the U.S. before and around 1900 was around 50 years old. Notice where that cancer occurrence chart starts to really take off?

Requiem
05-20-2013, 10:20 AM
^ Had a long post lined up just like that. Felt it would be ignored. Good work.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922292.html

Requiem
05-20-2013, 10:25 AM
I have been trying to share this information for years to no avail

They really don't want to hear it.


I don't know why but they don't.

You have argued that pretty much everything wrong with a person can be cured by using methods outside of modern medicine. That really is not possible.

baja
05-20-2013, 10:42 AM
You have argued that pretty much everything wrong with a person can be cured by using methods outside of modern medicine. That really is not possible.


If you are talking about Rockefeller's symptom treating allotropy medicine than yes there are many very effective cures outside their treatment regime

Requiem
05-20-2013, 10:52 AM
If you are talking about Rockefeller's symptom treating allotropy medicine than yes there are many very effective cures outside their treatment regime

What is the natural way to cure brain cancer?

baja
05-20-2013, 10:54 AM
What is the natural way to cure brain cancer?


Why ask me (is it a test) if you are really interested research it. We live in an amazing time explore it.

houghtam
05-20-2013, 10:59 AM
Disease is a product of genetics, environmental contaminants, biological competition, and dozens or hundreds of other factors.

But to claim disease is rampant now is pretty funny. We're living longer, better, etc. than ever. We name our children now at birth instead of waiting a couple years to see if they survive. We have major economic and social problems caused by people living "too long".

However, I will give you that we're seeing an uptick in certain diseases, such as cancer, that primarily develop with older age.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1CLG-FEqhz0/TgI2JMlm60I/AAAAAAAAA-I/4eG91dx_Ljo/s1600/cancer-rates.jpg

The life expectancy for someone born in the U.S. before and around 1900 was around 50 years old. Notice where that cancer occurrence chart starts to really take off?

Pretty much.

Cancer, IMO, is nature's way of saying "yeah that's great you can exterminate a few diseases...but really guys, you're humans...your bodies aren't designed to live this long."

Fedaykin
05-20-2013, 11:27 AM
I'm sure Myriad is a great company to work for, and that they do lots of good things, but the part of your post that I've highlighted in red is the real issue here.

If these types of tests can be patented, and a monopoly on life-saving procedures can be obtained by corporations, then all kinds of issues can arise. What if the real cost of the procedure is $30, but the company charges $30,000? If it's your wife or your daughter's life at stake, you've got no choice but to pony up the cash, regardless of what they charge.

I know that the counter-argument is that "these companies need to recoup their development costs", but do I also need to subsidize their massive CEO salaries and the millions of lobbying dollars they spend every year? I say no.

No doubt there is disgusting profiteering going on in the medical industry, especially in big pharma.

But of all the swindling going on in that industry doesn't hold a candle to the alt-med industry. Big Pharma are nothing but a group of total amateurs compared to alt-med.

Take a look for yourself. Go to your nearest "alternative medicine" retailer (it's pretty much everywhere now). Go take a look at the homeopathic "remedies" and see how much they are charging.

Then look at the "ingredients" list. You'll see: water (except in the case where the homeopaths are getting a dose of their own "medicine" (ha!) and the "homeopathic" label is misplaced. See Zircam which actually contains an active ingredient -- which along with sometimes helping with your cold also renders you unable to smell)

That's right, that box of pills you just bought for $20 -- it's an ounce of water put in a couple dozen little caplets pretending to be real medicine.

Makes bottled water look like an amazing damn bargain!

houghtam
05-20-2013, 11:30 AM
No doubt there is disgusting profiteering going on in the medical industry, especially in big pharma.

But of all the swindling going on in that industry doesn't hold a candle to the alt-med industry. Big Pharma are nothing but a group of total amateurs compared to alt-med.

Take a look for yourself. Go to your nearest "alternative medicine" retailer (it's pretty much everywhere now). Go take a look at the homeopathic "remedies" and see how much they are charging.

Then look at the "ingredients" list. You'll see: water.

That's right, that box of pills you just bought for $20 -- it's an ounce of water put in a couple dozen little caplets pretending to be real medicine.

Makes bottled water look like an amazing damn bargain!

Yeah but doesn't Super Beta Prostate have the same amount of beta-sitosterol as 100 saw palmetto caplets? Joe Theismann told me so.

Requiem
05-20-2013, 11:45 AM
Why ask me (is it a test) if you are really interested research it. We live in an amazing time explore it.

Yes, I am asking you.

Instead of providing research or facts that would support your claim/belief, you tell us to go and find it. This either leads me to believe that:

(A) You know there isn't a natural way of curing brain cancer.

or

(B) You do not have anything to back it up.

baja
05-20-2013, 11:52 AM
Yes, I am asking you.

Instead of providing research or facts that would support your claim/belief, you tell us to go and find it. This either leads me to believe that:

(A) You know there isn't a natural way of curing brain cancer.

or

(B) You do not have anything to back it up.


Think as you will

I have posted hundreds of links on this subject over the years. It has proven to be a massive waste of my time.

One last shot just for you. Take "I have a Light's" advice and read China Study

IHaveALight
05-20-2013, 11:55 AM
Disease is a product of genetics, environmental contaminants, biological competition, and dozens or hundreds of other factors.

But to claim disease is rampant now is pretty funny. We're living longer, better, etc. than ever. We name our children now at birth instead of waiting a couple years to see if they survive. We have major economic and social problems caused by people living "too long".

However, I will give you that we're seeing an uptick in certain diseases, such as cancer, that primarily develop with older age.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1CLG-FEqhz0/TgI2JMlm60I/AAAAAAAAA-I/4eG91dx_Ljo/s1600/cancer-rates.jpg

The life expectancy for someone born in the U.S. before and around 1900 was around 50 years old. Notice where that cancer occurrence chart starts to really take off?

Genetics degenerate and regenerate individually and ancestrally according to the environment our cells experience. You are not your genes. Gene activation, deactivation, regeneration and degeneration are all very prevelant in this world. This is evolution. You want the best genes possible, you want to activate higher beneficial genes, you want your future kids to have better genes, you want to deactivate bad genes, you can have it by eliminating the toxicity.

Sanitation has done great things for longevity and quality of life. And yes modern medicine can extend life, even with the abundance of toxicity we are in. But the modern medicine makes you a slave to pharmaceuticals that greatly reduce the quality of your life. Further more cultures that have lived far less toxic lives have better longevity and quality of life from youth to old age then western civilization has ever experienced. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see a whole lot of abundance in the quality of life of our older citizens.

Requiem
05-20-2013, 12:07 PM
Think as you will

I have posted hundreds of links on this subject over the years. It has proven to be a massive waste of my time.

One last shot just for you. Take "I have a Light's" advice and read China Study

I have never seen you report to a medical journal that suggested the right alternatives or natural remedies for brain cancer. Considering the length of time one lives after being diagnosed and depending on the stage, chance of survival is minimal, I highly doubt that alternative treatments (which in this case take longer) are going to be highly effective. And for this type of cancer (brain) should not be used considering the alternative treatments (that I have read about) tend to cause swelling and inflammation in the brain which is no bueno for patients going through such a crisis.

RE: China Study (have a copy, BTW) and Brain Cancer: Nothing is stated anything as alternative lifestyles, medicines, etc. ever curing brain cancer. Just that avoidance of certain things can help avoid such. Saw nothing about reversal in regards to brain issues. Will have to relook. In fact, the whole book's purpose is basically to compare eating habits of our world to others, and then to subsequently make conclusions based on their findings. Mainly attacking animal protein, signifying that those who don't eat that, but are vegans or by majority plant eaters will be able to lower their risk of getting chronic disease and illness.

Which is all fine and dandy. Most people know that what is out there now is not good for you. I do my best to limit my consumption of meat and alternate days in which I have it. However, trying to state that an abrupt change in diet could *cure* someone who has terminal cancer is quite silly.

baja
05-20-2013, 12:15 PM
I was talking about all degenerative disease and toxicity as the root cause.

Requiem
05-20-2013, 12:19 PM
I was talking about all degenerative disease and toxicity as the root cause.

Cancer is a degenerative disease. I am still waiting on any medical journal, website or story where someone had their brain cancer cured by a change in diet or by using natural or an alternative therapy.

Pony Boy
05-20-2013, 12:22 PM
Nothing has changed since Ponce de Leon went searching for the fountain of youth and we have and will always continue to tinker with human trait borne of natural selection. We have added three decades to the average American lifespan. The question is should we take steps to save the lives of men and women that carry the mutated BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene and the answer of course is yes. The moral question is should those people continue to pass that gene on to others knowing they will have to go through the same medical procedures to have a quality life?

baja
05-20-2013, 12:25 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7Ck9D45OT4

baja
05-20-2013, 12:27 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0psJhQHk_GI

IHaveALight
05-20-2013, 01:22 PM
Toxic solutions? Elaborate.

What about genetics? You seem to not talk much about genetics/disease.

You are not a slave to genetics. It's quite opposite really, genetics are a product of the situation in which they exist. How ridiculous is the idea of genetic controller of our circumstance in the face of evolution?

You are however a slave to the indoctrination that has been laid before you. Explore multiple perspectives with all things in life, question them all. Utilize intuition. The red pill awaits.

baja
05-20-2013, 01:28 PM
You are not a slave to genetics. It's quite opposite really, genetics are a product of the situation in which they exist. How ridiculous is the idea of genetic controller of our circumstance in the face of evolution?

You are however a slave to the indoctrination that has been laid before you. Explore multiple perspectives with all things in life, question them all. The red pill awaits.

Our DNA is not fixed, it changes.

http://youtu.be/VYYXq1Ox4sk

Requiem
05-20-2013, 01:44 PM
You are not a slave to genetics. It's quite opposite really, genetics are a product of the situation in which they exist. How ridiculous is the idea of genetic controller of our circumstance in the face of evolution?

I never said I was a slave to genetics, nor believe that to be the case. I was basically questioning your knowledge of genetics and its relation to disease.

You are however a slave to the indoctrination that has been laid before you. Explore multiple perspectives with all things in life, question them all. Utilize intuition. The red pill awaits.

Great generalized statement. I have actually had a few discussions with baja on alternative medicine and treatments and sent him a few things on a lady I go see for some stuff. I am about as open-minded as they come when it comes to health and healing because I have had my battled with a disease idiopathic and nature. I absolutely HATE the modern treatment for it (side effects of what I gotta take), and have tried exploring alternative options to get better.

Diet switching and lifestyle changes have been a big part of that. So please, spare me the Ivory Tower talk of how you are so much more enlightened than myself or others because we may disagree on an issue.

baja
05-20-2013, 02:23 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjj0xVM4x1I

Many of you demand I post information validating my claims yet I do not get feed back when I do.

I think you are lazy and disingenuous. You do not wish to examen your beliefs.

Requiem
05-20-2013, 02:42 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjj0xVM4x1I

Many of you demand I post information validating my claims yet I do not get feed back when I do.

I think you are lazy and disingenuous. You do not wish to examen your beliefs.

What kind of feedback do you want?

The hemp oil one was interesting. I have read a lot about that for years now. Whether or not it can be the be all end all cure for things, I don't know, but it seems like it has helped people.

As far as Gerson Therapy? (http://www.users.on.net/~pmoran/cancer/Gerson.htm)

I got about five minutes into it and was like, "Blerrprpepr!"

Probably a scam. Considering there have been no controlled studies on what the institute actually does and the 50 testimonials (which have been highly scrutinized) from people only saying it has worked.

http://skepdic.com/gersontherapy.html

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-not-so-beautiful-untruth-about-the-gerson-therapy-and-cancer-quackery/

And FWIW, most people here probably aren't interested in watching hour (or longer) YouTube videos on the matter. People would probably be a lot more willing to do so if you actually gave CliffNotes on the subject or actually discussed the content. You don't really do that. You'll post a link or article, it'll get criticized and then you (and others) come up with the same gimmick that we aren't enlightened, lazy, disingenuous, etc.

Like, whatever. *valley girl accent*

baja
05-20-2013, 02:53 PM
What kind of feedback do you want?

The hemp oil one was interesting. I have read a lot about that for years now. Whether or not it can be the be all end all cure for things, I don't know, but it seems like it has helped people.

As far as Gerson Therapy? (http://www.users.on.net/~pmoran/cancer/Gerson.htm)

I got about five minutes into it and was like, "Blerrprpepr!"

Probably a scam. Considering there have been no controlled studies on what the institute actually does and the 50 testimonials (which have been highly scrutinized) from people only saying it has worked.

http://skepdic.com/gersontherapy.html

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-not-so-beautiful-untruth-about-the-gerson-therapy-and-cancer-quackery/

And FWIW, most people here probably aren't interested in watching hour (or longer) YouTube videos on the matter. People would probably be a lot more willing to do so if you actually gave CliffNotes on the subject or actually discussed the content. You don't really do that. You'll post a link or article, it'll get criticized and then you (and others) come up with the same gimmick that we aren't enlightened, lazy, disingenuous, etc.

Like, whatever. *valley girl accent*


Watch this one;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjj0xVM4x1I


and you will understand why disease and the study of it is so subjective.

This one covers a basic understanding needed to build a true understanding of how this disease thing really works. It's a MUST SEE VIDEO.

B-Large
05-20-2013, 03:05 PM
Interesting article, a few thoughts:

1. The BRCA testing is not administered on everyone, it is not a standard screening, no provider I know orders such a test unless someone meets the profile based on personal medical history. If women are going out and trying to convince an MD to test because they are "Scared", then they are stupid and should be seperated from their money as a penalty. My cousin's mother and grandmother both shared the gene, she got tested, she was positve for it.... she is weighing her options, but he recommendation as of today was removal of all breast tissue to curb risk.

2. I just don't see the Mainstream Media conspiracy here. A few years ago the mainstream media reported on a study of peer reviewed article that recommened that women not get Mammogram's every year- the rationale was does it makes sense to irradiate 1000 women to find 1 Breast Cancer? Does it makes sense to increase the 999 women's risk to detect one other woman's malignacy? Women were going nuts, calling for insurance companies head because they thought it was some consipracy.... how could TV repots this stuff it "dangerous" Again, so many people are dumb, if you have no family history of breast cancer, and no other risk factor, maybe skipping the mammogram makes sense.... ask your MD!

3. I didn't know genes could be patented. I knew the process for engineering the test or medication could be patented, just like Lipitor's formula.... crazy, and don't think gene should.

4. what is all this "Heroic" bull ****? C'mon, a rich actress get some testing, she decides to have surgery..... here's a newsflash, women have had this done for a longtime now.....

IHaveALight
05-20-2013, 08:13 PM
Who here would sacrifice their balls not because they were told that they had testicular cancer or because they were told they will absolutely eventually get it but because they were told they had a high chance of getting it someday?

IHaveALight
05-20-2013, 08:40 PM
I never said I was a slave to genetics, nor believe that to be the case. I was basically questioning your knowledge of genetics and its relation to disease.



Great generalized statement. I have actually had a few discussions with baja on alternative medicine and treatments and sent him a few things on a lady I go see for some stuff. I am about as open-minded as they come when it comes to health and healing because I have had my battled with a disease idiopathic and nature. I absolutely HATE the modern treatment for it (side effects of what I gotta take), and have tried exploring alternative options to get better.

Diet switching and lifestyle changes have been a big part of that. So please, spare me the Ivory Tower talk of how you are so much more enlightened than myself or others because we may disagree on an issue.

Honestly Req, I know that you see things that others don't. I like to get your attention, I like to see your reaction. I like the way you question me rather than denying me. There are several on this board who do or are beginning to question the information that is laid before them, you are one of them. I don't claim to be any more enlightened than any of you. My discussion in this thread has been pretty firmly based in my beliefs. We all have our own beliefs and that's all they are, they could all be wrong, or maybe just one part of the puzzle. This is why obtaining multiple perspectives and questioning everything, especially if it's hand fed is so important.

If higher enlightenment does exist, would we be worthy for it to just be given to us? Or may we possibly be better served to evolve through experience and choice for higher understating, higher compassion? In order to evolve we must first experience the flaws in our ways so that we can make the choice to move on. There are many flaws in the collective and individual human consciousness that we are experiencing at this time, I imagine that has been the case throughout history.

Fedaykin
05-20-2013, 09:20 PM
Honestly Req, I know that you see things that others don't. I like to get your attention, I like to see your reaction. I like the way you question me rather than denying me. There are several on this board who do or are beginning to question the information that is laid before them, you are one of them. I don't claim to be any more enlightened than any of you. My discussion in this thread has been pretty firmly based in my beliefs. We all have our own beliefs and that's all they are, they could all be wrong, or maybe just one part of the puzzle. This is why obtaining multiple perspectives and questioning everything, especially if it's hand fed is so important.

That's your fatal flaw, you rely on belief.

I follow the evidence.

Following believe is dishonest and unproductive.

Fedaykin
05-20-2013, 09:29 PM
Who here would sacrifice their balls not because they were told that they had testicular cancer or because they were told they will absolutely eventually get it but because they were told they had a high chance of getting it someday?

Can we stop with the idiotic false equivalences here? Testicles are not comparable to breasts in terms of "necessity". Once again, she decided against removing her ovaries, ostensibly because she didn't think the tradeoff was good enough (at this time).

The real (general) comparison is, would you accept what is essentially a purely cosmetic alteration (and a minor one at that, comparable to the alteration that millions of people make for non-medical purposes) of your body if you were told not doing so would almost certainly lead to a deadly disease?

baja
05-20-2013, 09:59 PM
Can we stop with the idiotic false equivalences here? Testicles are not comparable to breasts in terms of "necessity". Once again, she decided against removing her ovaries, ostensibly because she didn't think the tradeoff was good enough (at this time).

The real (general) comparison is, would you accept what is essentially a purely cosmetic alteration (and a minor one at that, comparable to the alteration that millions of people make for non-medical purposes) of your body if you were told not doing so would almost certainly lead to a deadly disease?


You keep saying this but it is not a simple cosmetic procedure. This is not a breast augmentation it is the complete removal of all breast tissue - BIG difference.

You are an obnoxious poster that continually demands fully documented posts from others yet you feel comfortable shooting from the hip in your posts.


Heres one for you. The cancer industry is not about to give up it's billions of dollars by seeking and finding a cure for their cash cow. Of course not all doctors are involved but the take their direction from the very powerful pharmaceutical companies who control the AMA. There are cures that have been repressed and discredited by the self serving AMA Do some research on this you might find it humbling.

Here I'll get you started; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0psJhQHk_GI



YOU WILL NOT FIND THE DOCUMENTATION YOU DEMAND TO PROVE ALTERNATIVE CURES FORM THE VERY SYSTEM THAT HAS SUPPRESSED ALTERNATE MEDICINE FOR DECADES ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT WORK .

IHaveALight
05-20-2013, 10:18 PM
That's your fatal flaw, you rely on belief.

I follow the evidence.

Following believe is dishonest and unproductive.

Limited perspective evidence is not truth, that is your fatal flaw. You are no different than living from belief, your limited perspective evidence dictates it. And I imagine the majority of that evidence you claim as truth was not obtained from first hand experience but from believing in someone else's limited perspective evidence.

I think maybe you are confusing belief for faith. But I also believe that modern science is completely based in faith.

Fedaykin
05-20-2013, 10:25 PM
You keep saying this but it is not a simple cosmetic procedure. This is not a breast augmentation it is the complete removal of all breast tissue - BIG difference.


I'm talking about results. Removing the breasts does not impair important biological function (the only function it removes is lactation, which is not particularly important). It only results in cosmetic change.

Removing the penis, the testicles or the ovaries DOES result in significant impairment of biological function (reproduction, hormone regulation, sexual function, etc.).

Why do you find it so difficult to grasp that difference?


You are an obnoxious poster that continually demands fully documented posts from others yet you feel comfortable shooting from the hip in your posts.


Asking for evidence is a problem now eh? I should just accept your bull**** at face value?


YOU WILL NOT FIND THE DOCUMENTATION YOU DEMAND TO PROVE ALTERNATIVE CURES FORM THE VERY SYSTEM THAT HAS SUPPRESSED ALTERNATE MEDICINE FOR DECADES ESPECIALLY THOSE THAT WORK .

Bull****. You and your videos make very specific claims about very specific "treatments" and cures that they claim work. The only way that claim has any merit is if there has been RESEARCH to demonstrate its effectiveness.

Where is that research?

Are the lizard men killing anyone that tries to do that research?

No one holds a patent on the scientific method. Anyone can perform research, and there is plenty of alt med profits to support such research. I don't care _where_ the research comes from, I care whether or not it exists and whether or not it holds up.

Natural News is run by a flim flam man, but if he produces real evidence that backed up a claim, I would accept it, because I don't care about source, I care about CONTENT.

Fedaykin
05-20-2013, 10:27 PM
The only poster "shooting from the hip" is the one posting COOKBOOKS as support for very specific claims about the effectiveness of cancer treatments.

IHaveALight
05-20-2013, 10:30 PM
Until science can prove the external reality is not solely an internal experience, it will always be a system of faith. As long as it looks for truth in parts, separate from the whole and without an omniscient perspective it will never know absolute truth in anything.

Fedaykin
05-20-2013, 10:37 PM
Until science can prove the external reality is not solely an internal experience, it will always be a system of faith. As long as it looks for truth in parts, separate from the whole and without an omniscient perspective will never know absolute truth in anything.

What system do you propose for learning about the world that is superior to science?

baja
05-20-2013, 10:48 PM
The only poster "shooting from the hip" is the one posting COOKBOOKS as support for very specific claims about the effectiveness of cancer treatments.


This is a good example of just how disingenuous you are. The Book you call "A COOK BOOK" comes in 2 parts. Part one explains how & why the Living Food way of eating works.

Part 2 Is a collection of blended drinks and green juices proven to be a very effective healing system.


THE ENTIRE BASIS OF THE BOOK IS PREPARING DRINKS FROM LIVING FOOD


AND YOU POMPOUS ASS CALLES IT A COOK BOOK, JESUS A COOK BOOK. could you declare your obtuseness any more clearly.

Some times one finds it hard to get on the same page with someone but with you, you are not even in the library.


COOKING KILLS THE ENZYMES IN FOOD AND MUCH OF THE NUTRITIONAL VALUE NOT ONE PREPARATION IN THAT BOOK IS COOKED.

baja
05-20-2013, 10:56 PM
Until science can prove the external reality is not solely an internal experience, it will always be a system of faith. As long as it looks for truth in parts, separate from the whole and without an omniscient perspective it will never know absolute truth in anything.


READ AGAIN Fedaykin


Wish I'd said that ;D Rep for a brilliant post.

Fedaykin
05-20-2013, 10:57 PM
This is a good example of just how disingenuous you are. The Book you call "A COOK BOOK" in 2 parts. Part one explains how & why the Living Food way of eating works.

Part 2 Is a collection of blended drinks and green juices proven to be a very effective healing system.


THE ENTIRE BASIS OF THE BOOK IS PREPARING DRINKS FROM LIVING FOOD


AND YOU POMPOUS ASS CALLES IT A COOK BOOK, JESUS A COOK BOOK. could you declare your obtuseness any more clearly.

Some times one finds it hard to get on the same page with someone but with you, you are not even in the library.

It's absolutely a cook book. That it's a "natural eating/healing system" themed cook book does not alter that fact. It's a commercial product meant to exploit people who want to believe its all true.

It's not even remotely close to actual evidence of what you are claiming.

Fedaykin
05-20-2013, 10:59 PM
READ AGAIN Fedaykin


Wish I'd said that ;D Rep for a brilliant post.

LOL spouting off silly sounding buzzwords in a poor attempt to sound intelligent is "brilliant" eh?

baja
05-20-2013, 11:07 PM
It's absolutely a cook book. That it's a "natural eating/healing system" themed cook book does not alter that fact. It's a commercial product meant to exploit people who want to believe its all true.

It's not even remotely close to actual evidence of what you are claiming.

It is a book completely dedicated to NOT COOKING FOOD FOR HEALTH BENEFITS.

ASK DIRECTIONS FOR THE LIBRARY

Fedaykin
05-20-2013, 11:09 PM
It is a book completely dedicated to NOT COOKING FOOD FOR HEALTH BENEFITS.

ASK DIRECTIONS FOR THE LIBRARY

LMAO Don't get your panties in a bunch. Cook book doesn't require actual cooking.

If you prefer I will amend to the following. I ask for evidence of dietary treatments for cancer, and you point me to a ****ing food preparation book?

Is that better?

IHaveALight
05-20-2013, 11:09 PM
What system do you propose for learning about the world that is superior to science?

Explore the external with an understanding that it is an internal experience. Explore multiple, especially conflicting, perspectives. See that philosophy and math are merely degrees of a body that exist as one thing. Just as hot and cold are degrees of temperature. Envision both scenarios as linear lines if that helps, notice how each measurement is only a part of the whole. You can't fully know temperature without knowing both hot and cold, we must utilize both to understand the whole.

baja
05-20-2013, 11:09 PM
LOL spouting off silly sounding buzzwords in a poor attempt to sound intelligent is "brilliant" eh?


JUST BECAUSE IT IS OVER YOUR HEAD DOES NOT DIMINISH THE BEAUTIFUL TRUTH OF THE POST.

Fedaykin
05-20-2013, 11:10 PM
Explore the external with an understanding that it is an internal experience. Explore multiple, especially conflicting, perspectives. See that philosophy and math are merely degrees of a body that exist as one thing. Just as hot and cold are degrees of temperature. Envision both scenarios as linear lines if that helps, notice how each measurement is only a part of the whole. You can't fully know temperature without knowing both hot and cold, we must utilize both to understand the whole.

So no, you have no actual system to propose. Just lots of newagie clap trap.

Fedaykin
05-20-2013, 11:11 PM
JUST BECAUSE IT IS OVER YOUR HEAD DOES NOT DIMINISH THE BEAUTIFUL TRUTH OF THE POST.

The only person is over there head here is you bubba.

baja
05-20-2013, 11:15 PM
LMAO Don't get your panties in a bunch. Cook book doesn't require actual cooking.

If you prefer I will amend to the following. I ask for evidence of dietary treatments for cancer, and you point me to a ****ing food preparation book?

Is that better?

YOU CAN PREVIEW IT ON AMAZON. YOU ASKED ME TO POST SOMETHING THAT WOULD SHED LIGHT ON MY CLAIMS YET YOU REFUSE TO GIVE IT EVEN A MODICUM OF INVESTIGATION.

Tell me why I would want to continue communicating with you?

IHaveALight
05-20-2013, 11:15 PM
So no, you have no actual system to propose. Just lots of newagie clap trap.

These ideas have been on this earth since before our modern religion or science. There are ancient cultures that had a far greater understanding of reality then we do today.

Fedaykin
05-20-2013, 11:16 PM
YOU CAN PREVIEW IT ON AMAZON. YOU ASKED ME TO POST SOMETHING THAT WOULD SHED LIGHT ON MY CLAIMS YET YOU REFUSE TO GIVE IT EVEN A MODICUM OF INVESTIGATION.

Tell me why I would want to continue communicating with you?

You're not getting it. I did look at it. It is not what I asked for, as I've explained a dozen times.

It certainly explains your perspective, but it doesn't provide _evidence_ for them.

Do you not know what evidence is and the difference between evidence and claims?

Fedaykin
05-20-2013, 11:17 PM
These ideas have been on this earth since before our modern religion or science. There are ancient cultures that had a far greater understanding of reality then we do today.

Such as?

baja
05-20-2013, 11:24 PM
You're not getting it. I did look at it. It is not what I asked for, as I've explained a dozen times.

It certainly explains your perspective, but it doesn't provide _evidence_ for them.

Do you not know what evidence is and the difference between evidence and claims?

Explain it to me what constitutes evidence by your standard?

misturanderson
05-20-2013, 11:34 PM
You're not getting it. I did look at it. It is not what I asked for, as I've explained a dozen times.

It certainly explains your perspective, but it doesn't provide _evidence_ for them.

Do you not know what evidence is and the difference between evidence and claims?

Don't let it get to you. They are just following a belief system that won't let them view actual evidence to the contrary with any sort of reasonable perspective. It's not worth arguing with them.

I went an found an interview some hippy site had with the author of that book where she went on to prove that she has no actual evidence other than testimonials and journalistic interviews to back up any of her ideas. She also displays a lack of understanding of not only digestive physiology, but simple chemistry (states there are two types of hydrochloric acid) in her statements about the pH of the stomach. That was all I needed to know that the book, while probably not particularly harmful, has nothing to back it up.

misturanderson
05-20-2013, 11:37 PM
Explain it to me what constitutes evidence by your standard?

It should have a sample size large enough to obtain statistically significant data, it should be repeatable and it should have a negative control with statistically significant differences from the thing being tested. As a starting point.

Fedaykin
05-21-2013, 12:06 AM
Explain it to me what constitutes evidence by your standard?

In general, good evidence is

* Falsifiable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
* Objective (i.e. not subject to personal bias): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%28philosophy%29
* Statistically Relevant (i.e. NOT anecdotal): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance
* Empirical (i.e. derived from actual observation): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence
* Repeatable
* Determined with proper controls which is, of course, a cross cutting concern with the above but worth being singled out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_control

The above is a good start, but certainly not all inclusive.

Fedaykin
05-21-2013, 12:09 AM
Don't let it get to you. They are just following a belief system that won't let them view actual evidence to the contrary with any sort of reasonable perspective. It's not worth arguing with them.

Oh I know. It's just interesting to see the depths of the dishonesty they will go to to continue with their confirmation bias and other logical failings.

baja
05-21-2013, 12:42 AM
In general, good evidence is

* Falsifiable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
* Objective (i.e. not subject to personal bias): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%28philosophy%29
* Statistically Relevant (i.e. NOT anecdotal): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance
* Empirical (i.e. derived from actual observation): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence
* Repeatable
* Determined with proper controls which is, of course, a cross cutting concern with the above but worth being singled out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_control

The above is a good start, but certainly not all inclusive.

Oh so everyone I witnessed transformed by this diet including myself on just 30 days of this juice & green smoothie plan is not acceptable evidence to you.

I'll believe my eyes thank you very much.

I know how I look and feel when I follow the living food plan and I know how I look & feel when I don't. There is no comparison. A feeling of twenty years difference at least.

Fedaykin
05-21-2013, 12:54 AM
Oh so everyone I witnessed transformed by this diet including myself on just 30 days of this juice & green smoothie plan is not acceptable evidence to you.

You've seen lots of people cured of breast cancer by eating this diet?


I'll believe my eyes thank you very much.

I know how I look and feel when I follow the living food plan and I know how I look & feel when I don't. There is no comparison. A feeling of twenty years difference at least.

Your senses lie to you all the time. The sooner you realize that, the better off you'll be.

Of course, you're attempting to conflate the issue. We're talking about whether diet changes can stop/cure cancer (in particular, but not limited to breast cancer in patients with this defective gene), not whether eating more vegetables and raw foods is a healthier way to eat (the latter being a well evidenced but entirely uninteresting and irrelevant claim)

baja
05-21-2013, 12:58 AM
You've seen lots of people cured of breast cancer by eating this diet?



Your senses lie to you all the time. The sooner you realize that, the better off you'll be.

Of course, you're attempting to conflate the issue. We're talking about whether diet changes can stop/cure cancer (in particular, but not limited to breast cancer in patients with this defective gene), not whether eating more vegetables and raw foods is a healthier way to eat (the latter being a well evidenced but entirely uninteresting and irrelevant claim)

We really are wasting our time here. My real life experience is what matters most to me (See I have a Light's post as to why).

See it's all objective silly.

Meck77
05-21-2013, 01:44 AM
We really are wasting our time here.

53,000 posts.........Oh what could have been otherwise.

Fedaykin
05-21-2013, 01:46 AM
We really are wasting our time here. My real life experience is what matters most to me (See I have a Light's post as to why).

See it's all objective silly.

Nice try at a dodge. Your dishonesty knows no bounds does it?

Also, like I said, your personal experience is entirely subjective. Not at all reliable. That's the purpose of the scientific method: to reduce subjectivity.

IHaveALight
05-21-2013, 09:17 PM
Nice try at a dodge. Your dishonesty knows no bounds does it?

Also, like I said, your personal experience is entirely subjective. Not at all reliable. That's the purpose of the scientific method: to reduce subjectivity.

Try it for your self. Utilize the scientific method yourself by doing the experiment personally, rather than gathering your "evidence" from a book. What kind of science is reading a book or a paper?? Hahaha so hilarious! You will see why we feel so strongly about raw living foods and detoxifying the body and there impact on health and quality of life. Every close person in my life would vouch for the immensely positive transformation that I went through. Me and Baja have the first hand experiential evidence of living both ways. We know the power, we have witnessed it.

Fedaykin
05-21-2013, 11:30 PM
Try it for your self. Utilize the scientific method yourself by doing the experiment personally, rather than gathering your "evidence" from a book. What kind of science is reading a book or a paper?? Hahaha so hilarious! You will see why we feel so strongly about raw living foods and detoxifying the body and there impact on health and quality of life. Every close person in my life would vouch for the immensely positive transformation that I went through. Me and Baja have the first hand experiential evidence of living both ways. We know the power, we have witnessed it.

I have no argument with the claim that a better diet (i.e. one with lots of veggies, etc.) leads to better overall health. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with everything you claim even to that point (particularly the fanatical talk about "detoxifying"), but I'm not interested in arguing that.

The issue I have, in this particular threat, is with the claim that diet alone will cure/prevent cancer in patients with this particular defective gene. It's not a matter of "feeling better" (entirely subjective), it's a matter of a very objective question: can you prevent/cure cancer with dietary measures only?

Can't you twits at least honestly stay on that topic instead of trying to worm your way out by reducing the claim to "eat better and be healthier" which, like I said, is an entirely uninteresting and irrelevant claim.

Fedaykin
05-21-2013, 11:47 PM
I love it:

Me: Hey, you just said this woman should fix her cancer with diet. Where's the evidence that that is actually effective:

Baja/Light: Well a while back I swapped from eating McDonalds 3 times a day to eating a lot better diet full of vegetables, etc. and I felt better. I DISCOVERED THE CURE TO EVERYTHING!

IHaveALight
05-22-2013, 08:06 AM
First of all it's not simply diet. It's mental, emotion and environment toxicity as well. There is an abundance of evidence out there of the power of detoxifying the body and eliminated disease, you just refuse to accept it or explore it because of your indoctrination in a faulty fear based system and your belief in misinformation "debunking" natural healing.

Fat, Sick & Nearly Dead http://www.hulu.com/watch/289122

Forks Over Knives http://www.hulu.com/watch/279734

Simply Raw: Reversing Diabetes in 90 Days http://vimeo.com/27278058

Healing Cancer From Inside Out http://a.blip.tv/scripts/shoggplayer.html#file=http%3A%2F%2Fblip.tv%2Frss%2 Fflash%2F3335734&showplayerpath=http%3A%2F%2Fa.blip.tv%2Fscripts%2F shoggplayer.html&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fandybrisson.blip.tv%2Frss%2Ff lash&brandname=blip.tv&brandlink=http%3A%2F%2Fblip.tv%2F%3Futm_source%3Db randlink&enable

Burzynski: Cancer is serious business http://a.blip.tv/scripts/shoggplayer.html#file=http%3A%2F%2Fblip.tv%2Frss%2 Fflash%2F3335734&showplayerpath=http%3A%2F%2Fa.blip.tv%2Fscripts%2F shoggplayer.html&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fandybrisson.blip.tv%2Frss%2Ff lash&brandname=blip.tv&brandlink=http%3A%2F%2Fblip.tv%2F%3Futm_source%3Db randlink&enable

The Beautiful Truth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlYin0U9qIQ

Cancer is curable now http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Zv3fiCbPrhc

Dying to have known http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoUl7F7dWdE

Marine pytoplankton http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BvKFsEwPwI

Juicing raw cannabis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xPmR8j4plw&feature=share

Hemp oil http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nm7nqUigFA

Soursop http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/02/13/soursop-graviola-cancer-cure-strong-evidnce/

Fedaykin
05-22-2013, 08:20 AM
Fat, Sick & Nearly Dead http://www.hulu.com/watch/289122

You mean when you switch from eating high sugar, high fat, high salt diet to a diet rich in vegetables and fruits you'll be healthier?

Again, this is such a stunning revelation I am nearly speechless. No one ever told me this.

:eyeroll:

IHaveALight
05-22-2013, 08:23 AM
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/30gEiweaAVQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

IHaveALight
05-22-2013, 08:26 AM
You mean when you switch from eating high sugar, high fat, high salt diet to a diet rich in vegetables and fruits you'll be healthier?

Again, this is such a stunning revelation I am nearly speechless. No one ever told me this.

:eyeroll:

You crack me up my man. I provide loads of evidence you are looking for. You immediately dismiss it with out even looking at it. We could put irrefutable evidence right in your lap and you would still deny it without even giving it a chance.

Fedaykin
05-22-2013, 08:36 AM
You crack me up my man. I provide loads of evidence you are looking for. You eminently dismiss it with out even looking at it. We could irrefutable evidence right in your lap and you would still deny it even giving it a chance.

You haven't provided any evidence, let alone anything even remotely irrefutable.

You've provided youtube videos that are fully of subjective, anecdotal stores (sometimes completely unrealted) and that make claims with exactly no evidence. I've told you what I want (nay, what any reasonable person evaluating something would want).

You've provided exactly the opposite.

Putting some schmuck in a lab coat (or some nice old lady) in front of a camera to talk about having a cure and evidence is not evidence. It's nothing more than a collection of bald claims.

Making the, again, stunning revelation that switching from the McDonald's diet to something closer to a sensible diet improves health is no evidence of the claims regarding cancer.

IHaveALight
05-22-2013, 08:41 AM
First of all it's not simply diet. It's mental, emotion and environment toxicity as well. There is an abundance of evidence out there of the power of detoxifying the body and eliminated disease, you just refuse to accept it or explore it because of your indoctrination in a faulty fear based system and your belief in misinformation "debunking" natural healing.

Fat, Sick & Nearly Dead http://www.hulu.com/watch/289122

Forks Over Knives http://www.hulu.com/watch/279734

Simply Raw: Reversing Diabetes in 90 Days http://vimeo.com/27278058

Healing Cancer From Inside Out http://a.blip.tv/scripts/shoggplayer.html#file=http%3A%2F%2Fblip.tv%2Frss%2 Fflash%2F3335734&showplayerpath=http%3A%2F%2Fa.blip.tv%2Fscripts%2F shoggplayer.html&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fandybrisson.blip.tv%2Frss%2Ff lash&brandname=blip.tv&brandlink=http%3A%2F%2Fblip.tv%2F%3Futm_source%3Db randlink&enable

Burzynski: Cancer is serious business http://a.blip.tv/scripts/shoggplayer.html#file=http%3A%2F%2Fblip.tv%2Frss%2 Fflash%2F3335734&showplayerpath=http%3A%2F%2Fa.blip.tv%2Fscripts%2F shoggplayer.html&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fandybrisson.blip.tv%2Frss%2Ff lash&brandname=blip.tv&brandlink=http%3A%2F%2Fblip.tv%2F%3Futm_source%3Db randlink&enable

The Beautiful Truth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlYin0U9qIQ

Cancer is curable now http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Zv3fiCbPrhc

Dying to have known http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoUl7F7dWdE

Marine pytoplankton http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BvKFsEwPwI

Juicing raw cannabis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xPmR8j4plw&feature=share

Hemp oil http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nm7nqUigFA

Soursop http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/02/13/soursop-graviola-cancer-cure-strong-evidnce/

FYI the first 3 links are not directly related to cancer, the remainder are.

IHaveALight
05-22-2013, 08:42 AM
How about you provide me all this evidence debunking my cancer links? Unlike you, I will gladly explore and make my own evaluation of it.

baja
05-22-2013, 08:45 AM
You crack me up my man. I provide loads of evidence you are looking for. You immediately dismiss it with out even looking at it. We could put irrefutable evidence right in your lap and you would still deny it without even giving it a chance.


I told ya so.


This guy and hogheaven have no interest in investigating this. This is the trouble with arrogance, it causes you to dismiss without investigation.

They display the most crippling kind of ignorance, thinking they know it all.

A line from Avatar; It is hard to pour knowledge into an already full mind.


It is what Jesus meant when he said you must become like a child.

Suspend what you think you know and explore.

The wisest of men realizes he of himself knows very little

baja
05-22-2013, 08:47 AM
You haven't provided any evidence, let alone anything even remotely irrefutable.

You've provided youtube videos that are fully of subjective, anecdotal stores (sometimes completely unrealted) and that make claims with exactly no evidence. I've told you what I want (nay, what any reasonable person evaluating something would want).

You've provided exactly the opposite.

Putting some schmuck in a lab coat (or some nice old lady) in front of a camera to talk about having a cure and evidence is not evidence. It's nothing more than a collection of bald claims.

Making the, again, stunning revelation that switching from the McDonald's diet to something closer to a sensible diet improves health is no evidence of the claims regarding cancer.

You sir are a damn fool.

Fedaykin
05-22-2013, 09:00 AM
How about you provide me all this evidence debunking my cancer links? Unlike you, I will gladly explore and make my own evaluation of it.

You're making the claim, the burden of evidence is on you. I've provided you with the standard of evidence that I would consider (which is pretty much THE standard of evidence, not just something I made up).

The only thing remotely interesting you posted was the article on graviola -- which does not support your claim (even if not bullsh*t) as it's talking about a potential treatment derived from the graviola plant, which is not the same thing as simply eating the thing.

Fedaykin
05-22-2013, 09:01 AM
You sir are a damn fool.

It's foolish to ask for evidence of something eh? In what alternate realm do you exist?

Fedaykin
05-22-2013, 09:06 AM
I told ya so.


This guy and hogheaven have no interest in investigating this. This is the trouble with arrogance, it causes you to dismiss without investigation.

They display the most crippling kind of ignorance, thinking they know it all.

A line from Avatar; It is hard to pour knowledge into an already full mind.


It is what Jesus meant when he said you must become like a child.

Suspend what you think you know and explore.

The wisest of men realizes he of himself knows very little


That you accept anything which conforms to your confirmation bias and subjective experience (often extrapolated far beyond even that experience) does not make you an enlightened fella.

If something actually WORKS, it's usually trivial to provide evidence for it. That you can't, and rely on nothing but bald claims, appeals to emotion, anecdotal stories, etc. means you have nothing.

IHaveALight
05-22-2013, 01:02 PM
It's foolish to ask for evidence of something eh? In what alternate realm do you exist?

Experience is evidence my friend. What I provided is full of documented experience.

Do you have any first hand experience or experimentation on the matter? I would love to hear about it.

IHaveALight
05-22-2013, 01:10 PM
If something actually WORKS, it's usually trivial to provide evidence for it. That you can't, and rely on nothing but bald claims, appeals to emotion, anecdotal stories, etc. means you have nothing.

Evidence is in the countless people that have cured themselves of disease by natural methods.

IHaveALight
05-22-2013, 01:13 PM
You're making the claim, the burden of evidence is on you.

So you do not claim that disease isn't a product of toxicity? I guess we have no disagreement then.

Fedaykin
05-22-2013, 02:03 PM
Evidence is in the countless people that have cured themselves of disease by natural methods.

None of that is relevant, unless it meets the following general requirements (you might recognize them):

* Falsifiable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
* Objective (i.e. not subject to personal bias): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objecti...8philosophy%29
* Statistically Relevant (i.e. NOT anecdotal): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance
* Empirical (i.e. derived from actual observation): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence
* Repeatable
* Determined with proper controls which is, of course, a cross cutting concern with the above but worth being singled out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_control

Some schmuck, or even a large number of schmuck CLAIMING something is NOT evidence. I can claim I am Jesus Christ, but that doesn't make it so -- even if I truly believe I am.

And once again, I have no beef with the general claim that better diet = better health. I only have an issue, at the moment, with the claim that diet alone is a cure to cancer.

Fedaykin
05-22-2013, 02:05 PM
So you do not claim that disease isn't a product of toxicity? I guess we have no disagreement then.

More distractions. I already said I have no desire to talk about that at this point.

Fedaykin
05-22-2013, 02:17 PM
Lots of folks claiming they have been rectally violated by little green men from mars. Do you believe that too based solely on their claims?

baja
05-22-2013, 02:19 PM
None of that is relevant, unless it meets the following general requirements (you might recognize them):

* Falsifiable: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
* Objective (i.e. not subject to personal bias): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objecti...8philosophy%29
* Statistically Relevant (i.e. NOT anecdotal): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance
* Empirical (i.e. derived from actual observation): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence
* Repeatable
* Determined with proper controls which is, of course, a cross cutting concern with the above but worth being singled out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_control

Some schmuck, or even a large number of schmuck CLAIMING something is NOT evidence. I can claim I am Jesus Christ, but that doesn't make it so -- even if I truly believe I am.

And once again, I have no beef with the general claim that better diet = better health. I only have an issue, at the moment, with the claim that diet alone is a cure to cancer.

It's guys with a mind set just like yours that killed that "blasphemer" Jesus Christ. Imagine him claiming to be the Son of God.

Oh He was asked for prove to substantiate his claims and when he did not produce proof to their satisfaction he was charged and killed, Eye witnessed miracles were not considered proof.

baja
05-22-2013, 02:30 PM
More distractions. I already said I have no desire to talk about that at this point.

No of course not it's just the heart of the argument.

Read Sick and Tired by Robert O Young for a good explanation of the importance toxicity plays in disease .

Fedaykin
05-22-2013, 02:35 PM
It's guys with a mind set just like yours that killed that "blasphemer" Jesus Christ. Imagine him claiming to be the Son of God.

Oh He was asked for prove to substantiate his claims and when he did not produce proof to their satisfaction he was charged and killed, Eye witnessed miracles were not considered proof.

Hilarious!

Fedaykin
05-22-2013, 02:36 PM
No of course not it's just the heart of the argument.

Read Sick and Tired by Robert O Young for a good explanation of the importance toxicity plays in disease .

No, the heart of the matter is not explainations of supposed effects. The heart of the matter is results demonstrated with evidence.

houghtam
05-22-2013, 02:38 PM
It's guys with a mind set just like yours that killed that "blasphemer" Jesus Christ. Imagine him claiming to be the Son of God.

Oh He was asked for prove to substantiate his claims and when he did not produce proof to their satisfaction he was charged and killed, Eye witnessed miracles were not considered proof.

Fedaykin is talking about scientific method, and baja's response is to bring up someone whose existence has never been scientifically proven, and for whom there is no scientific evidence of miracles or divinity.

That takes balls.

houghtam
05-22-2013, 02:41 PM
Lots of folks claiming they have been rectally violated by little green men from mars. Do you believe that too based solely on their claims?

Fed, will you never learn? You may not believe in aliens, but they said leprechauns wouldn't give you three wishes if you stole their pot o' gold, too, and NOW look where we're at.

baja
05-22-2013, 02:42 PM
No, the heart of the matter is not explainations of supposed effects. The heart of the matter is results demonstrated with evidence.


If you had bothered to watch the videos linked by I Have a Light this discussion would be over. Until you do it is over for me.

baja
05-22-2013, 02:44 PM
Fedaykin is talking about scientific method, and baja's response is to bring up someone whose existence has never been scientifically proven, and for whom there is no scientific evidence of miracles or divinity.

That takes balls.

I am so glad I do not think like you.

Prove electricity - you can't

Fedaykin
05-22-2013, 02:51 PM
If you had bothered to watch the videos linked by I Have a Light this discussion would be over. Until you do it is over for me.

Narrow it down to one which actually contains what I'm asking for an I'll gladly look in full detail. But I won't slog though hours and hours of bull**** to find it. That's what I call a "denial of service" argument.

Do I need to help you understand what those terms I posted twice now mean? Are the wiki links not sufficient for your understanding?

Fedaykin
05-22-2013, 02:54 PM
I am so glad I do not think like you.

Prove electricity - you can't

LMAO yes you can.

baja
05-22-2013, 02:58 PM
LMAO yes you can.


do it

Fedaykin
05-22-2013, 03:07 PM
do it

The only evidence you need is: Go stick your finger in a live light socket.

It's objective: Doesn't matter if you believe it or not, you'll get shocked.
It's repeatable: No matter how many times you do it, you'll get shocked.
It's falsifiable: If I disconnect the circuit, you won't get shocked.
It's empirical: You're directly experiencing the sensation of getting shocked.
It's statistically relevant: everyone that sticks their finger in that socket gets shocked.

And all that adds up to a decent scientific bit of evidence.

baja
05-22-2013, 03:11 PM
The only evidence you need is: Go stick your finger in a live light socket.

It's objective: Doesn't matter if you believe it or not, you'll get shocked.
It's repeatable: No matter how many times you do it, you'll get shocked.
It's falsifiable: If I disconnect the circuit, you won't get shocked.
It's empirical: You're directly experiencing the sensation of getting shocked.
It's statistically relevant: everyone that sticks their finger in that socket gets shocked.

And all that adds up to a decent scientific bit of evidence.


but what is it?

Fedaykin
05-22-2013, 03:15 PM
but what is it?

Whether you know what it is or not doesn't prevent you from proving its existence. That's not to say we don't know what it is mind you, only that your question is irrelevant.

The only reason I'm humoring you at the moment is to see if it will help you understand what it is I'm asking for -- as you clearly have no concept.

baja
05-22-2013, 03:18 PM
Whether you know what it is or not doesn't prevent you from proving its existence. That's not to say we don't know what it is mind you, only that your question is irrelevant.

The only reason I'm humoring you at the moment is to see if it will help you understand what it is I'm asking for -- as you clearly have no concept.

So you can't tell me what electricity is?

Fedaykin
05-22-2013, 03:21 PM
So you can't tell me what electricity is?

Oh look, more attempts to deflect. I've humored you, as I said, to help you understand what it is I'm asking for.

Can you provide it or not?

Fedaykin
05-22-2013, 03:27 PM
You asked me to "prove" electricity, not explain it. I showed you how that's done (in a grossly simplified way).

Similarly I'm not asking you to explain anything, I'm asking you to provide evidence of results (i.e. "prove" it). Until that occurs, whatever "explanation" there is is irrelevant.

More or less, we're talking about the difference between Scientific Theory and Law.

baja
05-22-2013, 03:37 PM
The only evidence you need is: Go stick your finger in a live light socket.

It's objective: Doesn't matter if you believe it or not, you'll get shocked.

Doesn't matter if you believe it or not your health will improve vastly over time

It's repeatable: No matter how many times you do it, you'll get shocked.

The more you do it the better you will look and feel many test markers will improve (covered in the videos you refuse to watch)

It's falsifiable: If I disconnect the circuit, you won't get shocked.

If you return to your old ways of eating your apperaence will revert to what it was and your test markes will return to the levels before you started the green smoothie regime


It's empirical: You're directly experiencing the sensation of getting shocked.

You will feel the difference the very first day you start a juice / green smoothie cleanse


It's statistically relevant: everyone that sticks their finger in that socket gets shocked.

Everyone will improve to some degree (there are determining factors in this such as attitude and level of exercise that must be factored in .

And all that adds up to a decent scientific bit of evidence.


In Bold

Fedaykin
05-22-2013, 03:40 PM
In Bold

Once again, I have no beef with the claim that better diet = better health. We're talking about curing cancer here.

Jesus you're daft aren't you?

houghtam
05-22-2013, 03:45 PM
Yes, please. Please point us to the minute mark in any of the videos where there is any evidence that what you're claiming cures cancer. Please quote for us any evidence of same.

Thanks in advance.

baja
05-22-2013, 03:47 PM
Once again, I have no beef with the claim that better diet = better health. We're talking about curing cancer here.

Jesus you're daft aren't you?


Watch food matters

Watch Sick and Tired

Watch what I have a Light linked videos


Watch Run from the cure


Google Dr. Mercola & cancer

Google David Wolfe & cancer

Google Dr Stephen Sinatra

Read China Study

If you do that and come away with the same level of doubt you exhibit now I will buy you a double cheese super sized big mac.

Fedaykin
05-22-2013, 03:48 PM
Yes, please. Please point us to the minute mark in any of the videos where there is any evidence that what you're claiming cures cancer. Please quote for us any evidence of same.

Thanks in advance.

Another completely subjective, personal story (or perhaps many) relayed in a not so subtly disguised commercial in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ...

houghtam
05-22-2013, 03:53 PM
Another completely subjective, personal story (or perhaps many) relayed in a not so subtly disguised commercial in 5 ... 4 ... 3 ...

I watched this "film" a few years ago...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!%3F

Reminded me a lot of the videos people have posted on this thread. It was presented in a very interesting and engaging way, until I realized that there weren't any actual statistics or science...weird, right? Then you google the people in the videos who are passed off as experts, and you realize...someone is taking people's money for this.

baja
05-22-2013, 04:04 PM
I think if a few people told me the amazing health benefits they received by following a particular food regime I would be inclined to investigate but that's just me.

baja
05-26-2013, 10:53 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xh2qd_foV-4

gyldenlove
05-27-2013, 02:41 PM
That piece is a great example of bull**** science brought to light: Nowhere in this article does ABC News mention ways to suppress the BRCA1 gene by, for example, eating raw cruciferous vegetables containing Indole-3-Carbinol (I3C), a potent anti-cancer nutrient that halts breast cancer in its tracks. Nowhere does ABC News mention vitamin D which prevents nearly 4 out of 5 cancers of all types, including breast cancer.

Neither vitamin D nor I3C have ever been shown to have any properties that combat cancer. I3C has been shown to decrease tumorgenesis in the presence of aflatoxin in some cell lines (but critically has been shown to have the opposite effect, promotion of cancer growth of liver tumors which is where aflatoxin is the biggest player). Conversely I3C has been shown to disrupt the estrogen pathway leading to hormone inbalance. Estrogen is a key player in promoting breast tumor growth and fluctuations in estrogen levels could cause breast tumors.

Vitamin D deficiency is associated with some forms of cancer, however since the middle ages vitamin D deficiency has been entirely eradicated in the western world except in the elderly. There is no clinical evidence that vitamin D supplements have any benefit in preventing or fighting cancer.

Several clinical studies reviewing 1000's of patients have found that having a BRCA1 mutation increases the risk of breast cancer about 5 times and the risk of ovarian cancer by about 10 times.

gyldenlove
05-27-2013, 02:43 PM
So you can't tell me what electricity is?

Electricity is energy carried by charged particles (often electrons) accelerated by a potential difference caused by buildup of electrostatic charge.

gyldenlove
05-27-2013, 02:45 PM
Evidence is in the countless people that have cured themselves of disease by natural methods.

No.

Evidence is results of reproducible methods with an effect that can be distinguished from a matched control population above random natural variation.

cutthemdown
05-27-2013, 03:35 PM
Holy cow when Jolie done prepping her body to avoid cancer Brad Pitt will have nothing left to play with.

gyldenlove
05-28-2013, 08:28 AM
Holy cow when Jolie done prepping her body to avoid cancer Brad Pitt will have nothing left to play with.

I assume she will have some nice implants when she is done.

Rohirrim
05-28-2013, 09:16 AM
Another element of Jobs’ decision-making process was, according to Isaacson, his trust of his own instinct. Jobs had spent time studying Buddhism in India, and he felt it served him in his work. “The main thing I’ve learned is intuition, that the people in India are not just pure rational thinkers, that the great spiritual ones also have an intuition.”

But however well his intuition and “magical thinking” may have worked for him at work, Jobs’ postponement of surgery in favor of alternative means was a bizarre executive decision. “We talked about this a lot.” says the biographer. “He wanted to talk about it, how he regretted it. … I think he felt he should have been operated on sooner.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/alicegwalton/2011/10/24/steve-jobs-cancer-treatment-regrets/

IHaveALight
05-29-2013, 03:41 PM
The documentary movies I posted contain the type of science you all are looking for scattered throughout them, gathered from clinical professionals. As none of you would scour through information to find data that I personally require, neither will I for you. I will however leave you with this one bit, as I knew it would be easy to find. And while these studies merely reference the effects of eliminating one type of toxicity (animal products), there is still far more toxicity in our lives in addition to what has been demonstrated here.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/30gEiweaAVQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

10:10 -23:15 is the part where it specifically references cancer.

This however will most likely be my final post in this thread. That is unless someone actually comes up with an intelligent statement, counter argument or other information that is actually worthy of discussion. As of yet all I have seen is a bunch textbook molded minds (purely driven by faith in the system they were fed). Blatantly denying everything put in front of them without doing any research on the matter. And claiming scientific method above all else, which it is very evident that none of you even truly understand the process of scientific method at all nor implement it in your lives.

I encourage and await intelligence...

misturanderson
05-30-2013, 12:03 PM
I assume she will have some nice implants when she is done.

You don't have to assume. It says in the article she wrote that she already has them.

broncocalijohn
05-30-2013, 12:59 PM
I know that. I think there are other strategies she could have taken as a preventive measure. Such as a green living food diet. I know what you think of that but your lack of knowledge on diet and disease does not change it's effectiveness.

Don't forget living off the sun too!

Here is the best part of the article:

"This, I believe, is the real reason behind Angelina Jolie's announcement. It seems designed to invoke women's emotional reactions and create a groundswell of support for corporate-owned genes, thereby handing these corporations a Supreme Court precedent that will ensure trillions in future profits. It's a for-profit PR stunt that tries to trick women into supporting a corporate system of patents and monopolies that claims, right now, to own portions of the bodies of every woman living today."

No kidding. This is how women vote and think but normally with irrational thought. :wiggle:

Rohirrim
05-30-2013, 01:55 PM
The documentary movies I posted contain the type of science you all are looking for scattered throughout them, gathered from clinical professionals. As none of you would scour through information to find data that I personally require, neither will I for you. I will however leave you with this one bit, as I knew it would be easy to find. And while these studies merely reference the effects of eliminating one type of toxicity (animal products), there is still far more toxicity in our lives in addition to what has been demonstrated here.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/30gEiweaAVQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

10:10 -23:15 is the part where it specifically references cancer.

This however will most likely be my final post in this thread. That is unless someone actually comes up with an intelligent statement, counter argument or other information that is actually worthy of discussion. As of yet all I have seen is a bunch textbook molded minds (purely driven by faith in the system they were fed). Blatantly denying everything put in front of them without doing any research on the matter. And claiming scientific method above all else, which it is very evident that none of you even truly understand the process of scientific method at all nor implement it in your lives.

I encourage and await intelligence...

IMO, the danger is in the extremes. Would a human being live longer if all they ate was aduki beans and kale, carrots and cauliflower, brown rice and sprouts? Probably. But what kind of life would it be? And I'm sure that if that was the diet of mankind, somebody would come along with a study showing that there was a problem with sprouts, eventually. Such is the nature of man.

Man is born. He dies. The best advice is probably "All things in moderation." If animal protein is 10% or less of your diet and the rest is fruits, nuts, seeds, grains and vegetables, you're probably going to be alright. There are little old ladies in Crete, some of them in their 90s who, everyday, climb into the hills to gather wild greens for their salads which they eat at every meal. Do they also eat fish, goat, sheep and sometimes beef? Sure. They also eat some yogurt and cheese. And drink wine with every meal. They are regularly counted the oldest lived people on Earth, with the least sickness.

Having once lived as a vegetarian in an ashram for four years, I've seen what food trips can do to people. It's no different than any other obsession human beings can fall victim to. There is no cure for death. Accept it and move on. Eat a diet of moderation so that you can enjoy your short time here. ;D

baja
05-30-2013, 05:43 PM
You really want clinical proof a plant based diet is a great healing medicine for many aliments? Shut up & Watch this....

http://www.hulu.com/watch/279734