Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Chemotherapy is murder

Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 12:59:29 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Doctors routinely administer poisonous chemicals to sick people who are believed to be dying from a mysterious disease called 'cancer'. This methodology totally ignores how the human body functions and protects itself from interior imbalances. The human hormone system is an iodine based system. Iodine is the only conveyance chemical which can distribute the needed toxicity to deformed or malfunctioning cells which need to be eliminated from the body. The five vitamins are also needed to maintain a good homeostasis. Thus, if a doctor ignores how the human body works and administers inappropriate chemicals which the human body does not need or can't use to assist in the elimination of dysfunctional cells; then, this could be considered to be either murder or manslaughter.
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 3:15:41 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 12:59:29 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
Doctors routinely administer poisonous chemicals to sick people who are believed to be dying from a mysterious disease called 'cancer'. This methodology totally ignores how the human body functions and protects itself from interior imbalances. The human hormone system is an iodine based system. Iodine is the only conveyance chemical which can distribute the needed toxicity to deformed or malfunctioning cells which need to be eliminated from the body. The five vitamins are also needed to maintain a good homeostasis. Thus, if a doctor ignores how the human body works and administers inappropriate chemicals which the human body does not need or can't use to assist in the elimination of dysfunctional cells; then, this could be considered to be either murder or manslaughter.

In Akhenaten's argument, chemotherapy is made to appear like dangerous, unscientific quackery. However, in reality, this is far from the case. According to a meta-analysis involving more than 100,000 patients, some forms of chemotherapy can reduce the re-occurrence rates of breast cancer and increase survival rates. [1] As cancer treatment improves, mortality rates from cancer have dropped despite increasing reports of cancer. [2] Thus, since chemotherapy is effective at least in some cases, using it helps the patient, preventing it from always constituting murder. (Of course, if you knowingly prescribed overdoses of chemotherapy drugs to a patient who you knew not to have cancer or to have a non-chemotherapy-responsive type of cancer, you'd be murdering them, but this is not the case here.)

Even if chemotherapy were quackery, using it would still not constitute murder. This is because murder is an intentional taking of someone's life. Doctors honestly believe chemotherapy to be effective, so even if it were quackery, they aren't intentionally killing anyone.

[1]http://scienceblogs.com...
[2]https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...
:) nac
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 4:43:16 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 3:15:41 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 4/21/2016 12:59:29 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
Doctors routinely administer poisonous chemicals to sick people who are believed to be dying from a mysterious disease called 'cancer'. This methodology totally ignores how the human body functions and protects itself from interior imbalances. The human hormone system is an iodine based system. Iodine is the only conveyance chemical which can distribute the needed toxicity to deformed or malfunctioning cells which need to be eliminated from the body. The five vitamins are also needed to maintain a good homeostasis. Thus, if a doctor ignores how the human body works and administers inappropriate chemicals which the human body does not need or can't use to assist in the elimination of dysfunctional cells; then, this could be considered to be either murder or manslaughter.

In Akhenaten's argument, chemotherapy is made to appear like dangerous, unscientific quackery. However, in reality, this is far from the case. According to a meta-analysis involving more than 100,000 patients, some forms of chemotherapy can reduce the re-occurrence rates of breast cancer and increase survival rates. [1] As cancer treatment improves, mortality rates from cancer have dropped despite increasing reports of cancer. [2] Thus, since chemotherapy is effective at least in some cases, using it helps the patient, preventing it from always constituting murder. (Of course, if you knowingly prescribed overdoses of chemotherapy drugs to a patient who you knew not to have cancer or to have a non-chemotherapy-responsive type of cancer, you'd be murdering them, but this is not the case here.)

Even if chemotherapy were quackery, using it would still not constitute murder. This is because murder is an intentional taking of someone's life. Doctors honestly believe chemotherapy to be effective, so even if it were quackery, they aren't intentionally killing anyone.

[1]http://scienceblogs.com...
[2]https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...

Leugen has not addressed the main issues here. He has included some graphs which apparently show a reduction in deaths after chemotherapy. It should be noted that the graphs show that the incidence of cancer is on the increase. But, I have been studying medical systems for many years, so I am well aware of all the dirty tricks that they can use to falsify their statistics and graphs. Note - The medical criminals are experts at falsifying scientific studies. There's a lot at stack here. If billions of dollars of grants and charity money is to be acquired, then, the system needs to be bullet proof against skeptics.

https://www.theguardian.com...

Leugen needs to address how the human body works. Doctors ignore this most basic principle. Cancer researchers are not interested in how the human body works and restores itself when there is an internal malfunction. The internal communication system (endocrine system) is the essence of how the body maintains homeostasis. The key element or carrier is iodine. Without sufficient iodine the internal body systems can't repair themselves. This what causes cancer. Whether damage caused by vitamin deficiency can be reversed is anybody's guess. The best chance that you have is to use the natural repair systems which are the 5 vitamins and the iodine/selenium combination.

Doctors ignore the natural solutions because they are not patentable and therefore are unprofitable.

http://www.cancerdefeated.com...
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 5:30:46 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
A 2004 meta-study showed that chemotherapy only increased the five-year life expectancy of cancer patients by 2%. That's a good reason to be cautious about the effectiveness, but it eliminates the possibility that it is "murder." Anything that increases life expectancy cannot be murder. More recent studies show that chemotherapy is most effective on certain types of cancer, and is most effective when used in conjunction with other types of treatment such as surgery. For breast cancer, survival rates are increased 30%.

The thread author makes a general attack on science, claiming that cited results are often unreliable. I'm fairly sympathetic to the general attack, but in this case hard numbers are involved. Patients either did or did not receive chemo and they either survive or don't survive for five years. Many studies involve attempts to pick subtle trends out of mountains of statistics, and those are prone to being fudged. I don't see that here.

Note that many drugs are toxic. Antibiotics kill bacteria, and often have side effects as a result. That's not an argument that the net effect is positive.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/21/2016 6:22:10 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 12:59:29 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
Doctors routinely administer poisonous chemicals to sick people who are believed to be dying from a mysterious disease called 'cancer'.

Akh, I want to ask you to abandon this thread. I realise it's an implication of your belief that all disease is based on poor nutrition, that all doctors are liars and so on... I realise this site encourages freedom of expression, and I support that. Science encourages a contest of ideas too, and I very much support that. It would indeed be a better world if diet could prevent cancer -- even if that is not the world I believe we live in.

So let me explain why I'd like to ask you to drop this thread and start another.

The rate of cancer diagnosis is higher in men than women, but around 40% per life. That means, in every five people reading your post, two will see a cancer diagnosis some time in their lives. we you are not talking about a distant disease in a handful of strangers. We are talking about a disease that will be suffered by the people you're actually talking to: people whose opinions you are trying to influence. By the time we reach our fifties and sixties all of us will know or have known someone who either has cancer, or who has died of it. By our eighties -- should we live so long -- it'll be a leading cause of death among our friends and loved-ones of our age, along with heart-disease and stroke.

In the US, cancer deaths per year are around 171 per 100,000 men and women, but the number of Americans who survived a cancer diagnosis reached 14.5 million in 2014 -- that's the population of Tokyo. By 2024 it'll be around 19million -- that's the present population of Delhi. Many of those people managed to survive cancer through chemotherapy or radiotherapy. So you might find chemotherapy or radiotherapy risky or needlessly uncomfortable, but it is clearly not murder.

You may believe your views about alternative cancer treatments, but you should realise that they are only conjectural. Without long-term clinical studies over a large number of patients, reviewed independently by competent experts, you yourself should realise that there is a chance you are wrong.

Our oldest principle of medical advice is now nearly 2500 years old. It's the principle of "Do no harm".

Cancer diagnoses can be stressful and scary, and people aren't always rational when they or their loved ones face such a diagnosis. If you press people to do things that may be false simply because you think the world would be better if they were true, then you are handing them risk of your own creation, which is something no ethical medical professional should do.

This is a topic you could explore ethically and responsibly. You could ask: are the benefits of chemo work the risk? Or Is the administration of chemo responsible? Or: is diet better than chemo?

But you didn't do that. You went for the emotive, attention-seeking, irresponsible tabloid title 'Chemotherapy is murder.' Any benefits of that choice of title accrue to you, while any medical costs and risks of that title are handed to others. Which means that in that moment, you put your own vanity above the value of the lives of the very people you say you're trying to help.

In your argument itself you have not been so emotive, but the position you're seeking to defend is overstated, and I believe, irresponsible and unethical to promote, given the facts.

So, please have some compassion for members who may themselves be living with cancer, or love someone who does, or who may come to do so at a time when your emotive headline is still fresh in their minds.

I realise we can't change subjects once posted, so please abandon this thread, and start a new one, with a better balanced title.

Thank you for considering.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 1:23:07 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 5:30:46 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
A 2004 meta-study showed that chemotherapy only increased the five-year life expectancy of cancer patients by 2%. That's a good reason to be cautious about the effectiveness, but it eliminates the possibility that it is "murder." Anything that increases life expectancy cannot be murder.

If you ignore how the human body functions and give a person diluted arsenic, then, yes, that is murder.

More recent studies show that chemotherapy is most effective on certain types of cancer, and is most effective when used in conjunction with other types of treatment such as surgery. For breast cancer, survival rates are increased 30%.

Most oncology surgery's give their patients lollies to suck on while they are waiting for treatment. This is clear evidence that oncologists don't even know what the major cause of cancer is. REFINED SUGAR!

The thread author makes a general attack on science, claiming that cited results are often unreliable. I'm fairly sympathetic to the general attack, but in this case hard numbers are involved. Patients either did or did not receive chemo and they either survive or don't survive for five years. Many studies involve attempts to pick subtle trends out of mountains of statistics, and those are prone to being fudged. I don't see that here.

It's similar to those climate change graphs. If you turn a graph upside down, then, you can easily turn a bad trend into a good one. AND.......... that's exactly what the climate change scientists did! Thus, I would suspect that the oncologist scientists wouldn't be any different. Note - You can just rename any disease case if the stats aren't in your favour. Thus, a cancer patient can be said to have died of heart attack, diabetes, pneumonia and NOT from the toxic effects of chemotherapy drugs. MORE LIES!

Note that many drugs are toxic. Antibiotics kill bacteria, and often have side effects as a result. That's not an argument that the net effect is positive.

Note - All toxic drugs are totally unnecessary including anti-biotics. This person is trying to justify and normalize the criminal behavior of the medical system. Don't be fooled.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 1:47:21 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 6:22:10 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

Akh, I want to ask you to abandon this thread. I realise it's an implication of your belief that all disease is based on poor nutrition, that all doctors are liars and so on... I realise this site encourages freedom of expression, and I support that. Science encourages a contest of ideas too, and I very much support that. It would indeed be a better world if diet could prevent cancer -- even if that is not the world I believe we live in.

Please let the murders go AKh! Please! They are qualified murders Akh! They have many years of false training Akh! They don't understand how the human body functions and make millions of dollars out of other people's misery Akh! Please take pity on them! For they know not what they do Akh! Please!!!!!!!!!!!

Nah! Fooey! Let the murder's burn in hell!

http://www.cureyourowncancer.org...



The rate of cancer diagnosis is higher in men than women, but around 40% per life. That means, in every five people reading your post, two will see a cancer diagnosis some time in their lives. we you are not talking about a distant disease in a handful of strangers. We are talking about a disease that will be suffered by the people you're actually talking to: people whose opinions you are trying to influence. By the time we reach our fifties and sixties all of us will know or have known someone who either has cancer, or who has died of it. By our eighties -- should we live so long -- it'll be a leading cause of death among our friends and loved-ones of our age, along with heart-disease and stroke.

SUGAR, GRAIN AND DAIRY - The true cause of 99.9 percent of all human disease and suffering. Please pay attention! You can save some lives if you listen. Stop eating these items and you can live without disease of any description. Make sure you get plenty of iodine as well, that's vitamin D, in case you didn't know. Vitamins are the answer. Vitamins A,B,C,D and E that's all you need. Avoid blocking agents like sugar, grain and dairy. Halogens like chlorine,fluorine and bromine can disrupt hormone production also. Avoid halogens!
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 3:57:57 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 1:23:07 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 4/21/2016 5:30:46 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
A 2004 meta-study showed that chemotherapy only increased the five-year life expectancy of cancer patients by 2%. That's a good reason to be cautious about the effectiveness, but it eliminates the possibility that it is "murder." Anything that increases life expectancy cannot be murder.

If you ignore how the human body functions and give a person diluted arsenic, then, yes, that is murder.

More recent studies show that chemotherapy is most effective on certain types of cancer, and is most effective when used in conjunction with other types of treatment such as surgery. For breast cancer, survival rates are increased 30%.

Most oncology surgery's give their patients lollies to suck on while they are waiting for treatment. This is clear evidence that oncologists don't even know what the major cause of cancer is. REFINED SUGAR!

The thread author makes a general attack on science, claiming that cited results are often unreliable. I'm fairly sympathetic to the general attack, but in this case hard numbers are involved. Patients either did or did not receive chemo and they either survive or don't survive for five years. Many studies involve attempts to pick subtle trends out of mountains of statistics, and those are prone to being fudged. I don't see that here.

It's similar to those climate change graphs. If you turn a graph upside down, then, you can easily turn a bad trend into a good one. AND.......... that's exactly what the climate change scientists did! Thus, I would suspect that the oncologist scientists wouldn't be any different. Note - You can just rename any disease case if the stats aren't in your favour. Thus, a cancer patient can be said to have died of heart attack, diabetes, pneumonia and NOT from the toxic effects of chemotherapy drugs. MORE LIES!

Note that many drugs are toxic. Antibiotics kill bacteria, and often have side effects as a result. That's not an argument that the net effect is positive.

Note - All toxic drugs are totally unnecessary including anti-biotics. This person is trying to justify and normalize the criminal behavior of the medical system. Don't be fooled.

You are holding articles of faith. Your beliefs have no support in science and there is nothing that can possibly change your mind. Any counter evidence is dismissed as fraud, and you have no affirming evidence to offer. That means you cannot debate, as debate of a factual issue depends upon facts, and you accept none and offer none.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 3:31:21 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 3:57:57 AM, RoyLatham wrote:

You are holding articles of faith. Your beliefs have no support in science and there is nothing that can possibly change your mind. Any counter evidence is dismissed as fraud, and you have no affirming evidence to offer. That means you cannot debate, as debate of a factual issue depends upon facts, and you accept none and offer none.

Hi there, tied old lethargic man. Its a pity somebody woke you up. You can go back to sleep now. Beddy byes little one, its way past your sleepy time! lol
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/22/2016 11:30:36 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 3:31:21 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 4/22/2016 3:57:57 AM, RoyLatham wrote:

You are holding articles of faith. Your beliefs have no support in science and there is nothing that can possibly change your mind. Any counter evidence is dismissed as fraud, and you have no affirming evidence to offer. That means you cannot debate, as debate of a factual issue depends upon facts, and you accept none and offer none.

Hi there, tied old lethargic man. Its a pity somebody woke you up. You can go back to sleep now. Beddy byes little one, its way past your sleepy time! lol

Right now, you're simply attacking RoyLatham instead of refuting his claims or providing evidence for your own ideas.
:) nac
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 12:17:40 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 11:30:36 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 4/22/2016 3:31:21 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 4/22/2016 3:57:57 AM, RoyLatham wrote:

You are holding articles of faith. Your beliefs have no support in science and there is nothing that can possibly change your mind. Any counter evidence is dismissed as fraud, and you have no affirming evidence to offer. That means you cannot debate, as debate of a factual issue depends upon facts, and you accept none and offer none.

Hi there, tied old lethargic man. Its a pity somebody woke you up. You can go back to sleep now. Beddy byes little one, its way past your sleepy time! lol

Right now, you're simply attacking RoyLatham instead of refuting his claims or providing evidence for your own ideas.

Sorry, but Roy Boy is the one who isn't playing the game according to the rules. He has just made some rude assertions without addressing any of the already stated facts. There are plenty of references and facts to work on, thus far. But, he has chosen to ignore all the evidence that I have provided and has stated that I have provided "no evidence and no facts". Thus, his description of me is more about a description of himself.
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 3:38:27 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 4:43:16 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 4/21/2016 3:15:41 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 4/21/2016 12:59:29 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
Doctors routinely administer poisonous chemicals to sick people who are believed to be dying from a mysterious disease called 'cancer'. This methodology totally ignores how the human body functions and protects itself from interior imbalances. The human hormone system is an iodine based system. Iodine is the only conveyance chemical which can distribute the needed toxicity to deformed or malfunctioning cells which need to be eliminated from the body. The five vitamins are also needed to maintain a good homeostasis. Thus, if a doctor ignores how the human body works and administers inappropriate chemicals which the human body does not need or can't use to assist in the elimination of dysfunctional cells; then, this could be considered to be either murder or manslaughter.

In Akhenaten's argument, chemotherapy is made to appear like dangerous, unscientific quackery. However, in reality, this is far from the case. According to a meta-analysis involving more than 100,000 patients, some forms of chemotherapy can reduce the re-occurrence rates of breast cancer and increase survival rates. [1] As cancer treatment improves, mortality rates from cancer have dropped despite increasing reports of cancer. [2] Thus, since chemotherapy is effective at least in some cases, using it helps the patient, preventing it from always constituting murder. (Of course, if you knowingly prescribed overdoses of chemotherapy drugs to a patient who you knew not to have cancer or to have a non-chemotherapy-responsive type of cancer, you'd be murdering them, but this is not the case here.)

Even if chemotherapy were quackery, using it would still not constitute murder. This is because murder is an intentional taking of someone's life. Doctors honestly believe chemotherapy to be effective, so even if it were quackery, they aren't intentionally killing anyone.

[1]http://scienceblogs.com...
[2]https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...

Leugen has not addressed the main issues here. He has included some graphs which apparently show a reduction in deaths after chemotherapy. It should be noted that the graphs show that the incidence of cancer is on the increase. But, I have been studying medical systems for many years, so I am well aware of all the dirty tricks that they can use to falsify their statistics and graphs. Note - The medical criminals are experts at falsifying scientific studies. There's a lot at stack here. If billions of dollars of grants and charity money is to be acquired, then, the system needs to be bullet proof against skeptics.

https://www.theguardian.com...

Leugen needs to address how the human body works. Doctors ignore this most basic principle. Cancer researchers are not interested in how the human body works and restores itself when there is an internal malfunction. The internal communication system (endocrine system) is the essence of how the body maintains homeostasis. The key element or carrier is iodine. Without sufficient iodine the internal body systems can't repair themselves. This what causes cancer. Whether damage caused by vitamin deficiency can be reversed is anybody's guess. The best chance that you have is to use the natural repair systems which are the 5 vitamins and the iodine/selenium combination.

Your theories about cancer aren't substantiated by scientific evidence or observation.


Doctors ignore the natural solutions because they are not patentable and therefore are unprofitable.

http://www.cancerdefeated.com...
:) nac
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 3:39:52 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 1:23:07 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 4/21/2016 5:30:46 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
A 2004 meta-study showed that chemotherapy only increased the five-year life expectancy of cancer patients by 2%. That's a good reason to be cautious about the effectiveness, but it eliminates the possibility that it is "murder." Anything that increases life expectancy cannot be murder.

If you ignore how the human body functions and give a person diluted arsenic, then, yes, that is murder.

More recent studies show that chemotherapy is most effective on certain types of cancer, and is most effective when used in conjunction with other types of treatment such as surgery. For breast cancer, survival rates are increased 30%.

Most oncology surgery's give their patients lollies to suck on while they are waiting for treatment. This is clear evidence that oncologists don't even know what the major cause of cancer is. REFINED SUGAR!

I've got the feeling that you understand that oncologists don't prescribe chemotherapy out of a desire to kill their patients. Even if oncologists did practice dangrous quackery, they don't knowingly understand chemotherapy as quackery. Thus, they cannot be said to be murderers.


The thread author makes a general attack on science, claiming that cited results are often unreliable. I'm fairly sympathetic to the general attack, but in this case hard numbers are involved. Patients either did or did not receive chemo and they either survive or don't survive for five years. Many studies involve attempts to pick subtle trends out of mountains of statistics, and those are prone to being fudged. I don't see that here.

It's similar to those climate change graphs. If you turn a graph upside down, then, you can easily turn a bad trend into a good one. AND.......... that's exactly what the climate change scientists did! Thus, I would suspect that the oncologist scientists wouldn't be any different. Note - You can just rename any disease case if the stats aren't in your favour. Thus, a cancer patient can be said to have died of heart attack, diabetes, pneumonia and NOT from the toxic effects of chemotherapy drugs. MORE LIES!

Note that many drugs are toxic. Antibiotics kill bacteria, and often have side effects as a result. That's not an argument that the net effect is positive.

Note - All toxic drugs are totally unnecessary including anti-biotics. This person is trying to justify and normalize the criminal behavior of the medical system. Don't be fooled.
:) nac
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 7:49:25 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/22/2016 1:47:21 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 4/21/2016 6:22:10 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

Akh, I want to ask you to abandon this thread. I realise it's an implication of your belief that all disease is based on poor nutrition, that all doctors are liars and so on... I realise this site encourages freedom of expression, and I support that. Science encourages a contest of ideas too, and I very much support that. It would indeed be a better world if diet could prevent cancer -- even if that is not the world I believe we live in.

Please let the murders go AKh! Please!
Nah! Fooey! Let the murder's burn in hell!
Akh, from my last post you will understand that I did not ask you to abandon the position or the argument, but only this formulation of it. In response you strawmanned my request in order to fortify the reckless and unreasonable position you had taken.

I now understand that despite your general medical ignorance, you would rather pretend you are both competent and knowledgable, and hand the danger of your ignorance to others, than admit you could be in error, and retain an ethical responsibility for what you don't know.

Unfortunately, much like the people who tell others to pray instead of trusting doctors, putting your vanity above public safety makes your behaviour a liability undeserving of tolerance or respect.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 1:26:52 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 3:38:27 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:

Your theories about cancer aren't substantiated by scientific evidence or observation.

https://www.oncologynutrition.org...

There is no connection between gluten and risk of most cancers. The exception is INTESTINAL CANCER, and even then, gluten only increases risk if a person has celiac disease, or true gluten intolerance.

Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 1:43:29 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 3:39:52 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:


I've got the feeling that you understand that oncologists don't prescribe chemotherapy out of a desire to kill their patients. Even if oncologists did practice dangrous quackery, they don't knowingly understand chemotherapy as quackery. Thus, they cannot be said to be murderers.

You seem to know an awful lot about how oncologists think. How did you obtain this secret knowledge?
(a) Was it acquired by knowing some oncologists and asking them?

(b) Was it acquired by a sudden moment of imaginative inspiration and insight?

It is up to a law court to decide if an oncologist has either killed or tried to help a patient. The oncologist is not about to spill the beans and admit that he has killed a patient. Thus, it is up to us to determine if giving somebody a diluted dose of arsenic is going to be of any benefit to the patient. Well, commonsense tells me, that giving somebody a diluted dose of arsenic is blatant murder. I don't care how much qualifications the person who is administering the dose has. Murder is murder!

The oncologist doesn't have to worry. The legal system is on his side and will tell as many lies as they like in order to protect the doctor. That's how the system works. The doctor can say that the patient died of any number of other conditions to cover his tracks. He could say the patient died from operation complications (most popular excuse) or heart attack, liver failure, stroke or loss of blood etc.
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 1:44:09 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 1:26:52 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 4/23/2016 3:38:27 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:

Your theories about cancer aren't substantiated by scientific evidence or observation.

https://www.oncologynutrition.org...

There is no connection between gluten and risk of most cancers. The exception is INTESTINAL CANCER, and even then, gluten only increases risk if a person has celiac disease, or true gluten intolerance.








It is odd that the link about sugar talks about how excess sugar consumption can lead to an increase in the carcinogen catenin, which wouldn't make sense under your theory.
:) nac
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 1:45:22 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 1:43:29 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 4/23/2016 3:39:52 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:


I've got the feeling that you understand that oncologists don't prescribe chemotherapy out of a desire to kill their patients. Even if oncologists did practice dangrous quackery, they don't knowingly understand chemotherapy as quackery. Thus, they cannot be said to be murderers.

You seem to know an awful lot about how oncologists think. How did you obtain this secret knowledge?
(a) Was it acquired by knowing some oncologists and asking them?

(b) Was it acquired by a sudden moment of imaginative inspiration and insight?

It is up to a law court to decide if an oncologist has either killed or tried to help a patient. The oncologist is not about to spill the beans and admit that he has killed a patient. Thus, it is up to us to determine if giving somebody a diluted dose of arsenic is going to be of any benefit to the patient. Well, commonsense tells me, that giving somebody a diluted dose of arsenic is blatant murder. I don't care how much qualifications the person who is administering the dose has. Murder is murder!


Akh, murder is the INTENTIONAL killing of someone else. Unknowingly practicing quackery therefore isn't murder.

The oncologist doesn't have to worry. The legal system is on his side and will tell as many lies as they like in order to protect the doctor. That's how the system works. The doctor can say that the patient died of any number of other conditions to cover his tracks. He could say the patient died from operation complications (most popular excuse) or heart attack, liver failure, stroke or loss of blood etc.
:) nac
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 1:47:00 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/21/2016 4:43:16 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 4/21/2016 3:15:41 AM, Leugen9001 wrote:
At 4/21/2016 12:59:29 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
Doctors routinely administer poisonous chemicals to sick people who are believed to be dying from a mysterious disease called 'cancer'. This methodology totally ignores how the human body functions and protects itself from interior imbalances. The human hormone system is an iodine based system. Iodine is the only conveyance chemical which can distribute the needed toxicity to deformed or malfunctioning cells which need to be eliminated from the body. The five vitamins are also needed to maintain a good homeostasis. Thus, if a doctor ignores how the human body works and administers inappropriate chemicals which the human body does not need or can't use to assist in the elimination of dysfunctional cells; then, this could be considered to be either murder or manslaughter.

In Akhenaten's argument, chemotherapy is made to appear like dangerous, unscientific quackery. However, in reality, this is far from the case. According to a meta-analysis involving more than 100,000 patients, some forms of chemotherapy can reduce the re-occurrence rates of breast cancer and increase survival rates. [1] As cancer treatment improves, mortality rates from cancer have dropped despite increasing reports of cancer. [2] Thus, since chemotherapy is effective at least in some cases, using it helps the patient, preventing it from always constituting murder. (Of course, if you knowingly prescribed overdoses of chemotherapy drugs to a patient who you knew not to have cancer or to have a non-chemotherapy-responsive type of cancer, you'd be murdering them, but this is not the case here.)

Even if chemotherapy were quackery, using it would still not constitute murder. This is because murder is an intentional taking of someone's life. Doctors honestly believe chemotherapy to be effective, so even if it were quackery, they aren't intentionally killing anyone.

[1]http://scienceblogs.com...
[2]https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org...

Leugen has not addressed the main issues here. He has included some graphs which apparently show a reduction in deaths after chemotherapy. It should be noted that the graphs show that the incidence of cancer is on the increase. But, I have been studying medical systems for many years, so I am well aware of all the dirty tricks that they can use to falsify their statistics and graphs. Note - The medical criminals are experts at falsifying scientific studies. There's a lot at stack here. If billions of dollars of grants and charity money is to be acquired, then, the system needs to be bullet proof against skeptics.

Did you simply ignore the FACT that chemotherapy has made cancer more treatable? Your position is unfalsifiable because any facts against it can be handwaved away as "fraudulent evidence". As such, it is unlikely that it would be considered by mainstream science.

https://www.theguardian.com...

Leugen needs to address how the human body works. Doctors ignore this most basic principle. Cancer researchers are not interested in how the human body works and restores itself when there is an internal malfunction. The internal communication system (endocrine system) is the essence of how the body maintains homeostasis. The key element or carrier is iodine. Without sufficient iodine the internal body systems can't repair themselves. This what causes cancer. Whether damage caused by vitamin deficiency can be reversed is anybody's guess. The best chance that you have is to use the natural repair systems which are the 5 vitamins and the iodine/selenium combination.

Doctors ignore the natural solutions because they are not patentable and therefore are unprofitable.

http://www.cancerdefeated.com...
:) nac
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 1:51:15 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 7:49:25 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

I now understand that despite your general medical ignorance, you would rather pretend you are both competent and knowledgable, and hand the danger of your ignorance to others, than admit you could be in error, and retain an ethical responsibility for what you don't know.

Unfortunately, much like the people who tell others to pray instead of trusting doctors, putting your vanity above public safety makes your behaviour a liability undeserving of tolerance or respect.

You are still using diversionary tactics Ruv. You have to address the scientific issues. Forget about the morality issues Ruv. We need to establish who is right first. You are jumping the gun and trying to avoid discussing the technical issues. We can decide who has the moral high ground on this issue after the technical battle is over.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 1:55:59 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 1:45:22 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:

Akh, murder is the INTENTIONAL killing of someone else. Unknowingly practicing quackery therefore isn't murder.

How do you know that the oncologists doesn't know he is committing murder? Do you have ESP?
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 2:04:52 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 1:47:00 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:


Did you simply ignore the FACT that chemotherapy has made cancer more treatable? Your position is unfalsifiable because any facts against it can be handwaved away as "fraudulent evidence". As such, it is unlikely that it would be considered by mainstream science.


You are not addressing the issues. I have listed a large volume of facts which you have not responded to. Please address the 3 videos that I have posted on this discussion site.

Chemotherapy doesn't do anything positive to the human body. The medical system really wants to kill all cancer patients because they are an embarrassment to the government which has allowed toxic foods into the population which cause these problems. As far as the government is concerned, all cancer patients should be gassed like in Adolf Hitler's Germany. That's the solution that they would prefer.
Leugen9001
Posts: 495
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 2:08:51 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 2:04:52 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 4/23/2016 1:47:00 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:


Did you simply ignore the FACT that chemotherapy has made cancer more treatable? Your position is unfalsifiable because any facts against it can be handwaved away as "fraudulent evidence". As such, it is unlikely that it would be considered by mainstream science.


You are not addressing the issues. I have listed a large volume of facts which you have not responded to. Please address the 3 videos that I have posted on this discussion site.

Chemotherapy doesn't do anything positive to the human body. The medical system really wants to kill all cancer patients because they are an embarrassment to the government which has allowed toxic foods into the population which cause these problems. As far as the government is concerned, all cancer patients should be gassed like in Adolf Hitler's Germany. That's the solution that they would prefer.

Great. Your third video talks about how sugar creates carcinogens. Not how it reduces iodine or causes blockages. Your evidence doesn't stand up against real scientific sources. Your theory is nonsense because any contradicting evidence is rationalized as "fraudulent information".
:) nac
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 2:34:49 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 2:08:51 PM, Leugen9001 wrote:


Great. Your third video talks about how sugar creates carcinogens. Not how it reduces iodine or causes blockages. Your evidence doesn't stand up against real scientific sources. Your theory is nonsense because any contradicting evidence is rationalized as "fraudulent information".

https://www.psychologytoday.com...

In order to process refined sugar, vitamins are extracted from the body which reduces the body's vitamin supply. The video talks about apoptosis which is an iodine based process. The video talks about anti-oxidants, blue berries, fruit and vegetables which all contain iodine. Just because the video doesn't mention the word 'iodine' doesn't mean that the video is not about iodine.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 2:38:13 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Extract from scientific article

Your Brain on Sugar

It's pretty clear"excessive glucose in the form of refined sugar can be very detrimental to your brain, ultimately affecting your attention span, your short-term memory, and your mood stability. Excessive refined sugar can:

BLOCK MEMBRANES and thereby slow down neural communication.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/23/2016 8:48:53 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 1:51:15 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 4/23/2016 7:49:25 AM, RuvDraba wrote:


I now understand that despite your general medical ignorance, you would rather pretend you are both competent and knowledgable, and hand the danger of your ignorance to others, than admit you could be in error, and retain an ethical responsibility for what you don't know.

Unfortunately, much like the people who tell others to pray instead of trusting doctors, putting your vanity above public safety makes your behaviour a liability undeserving of tolerance or respect.

You are still using diversionary tactics Ruv.
Yours is a topic directly concerning medical research in which you have impugned the integrity of worldwide research, and you consider a discussion of medical ethics diversionary?

You have to address the scientific issues.
Surely, we both do -- including the ethics of research.

However, how can you discuss science at all that when (quoted from a recent post in another thread) [http://www.debate.org...]:
there are millions of people who don't believe in germ theory as well. Think of all the naturopaths and their patients. Not to mention Prince Charles and the Queen who would never go to an allopathic doctor. lol No wonder she has lived to 90 years of age and still going strong!

...these are not scientific data, and that is not a scientific argument.

Actually, Akh, I don't think you understand intellectually or ethically what burden falls on you in exploring the question regarding medical research and ethics.

Do you understand?

If so, please could you explain what standard of scientific evidence is required to support your case as a conjecture, an hypothesis and a proven finding, and what principles of medical ethics apply to announcing results.

If you don't know, please so confess and I'll explain, complete with references, and point out how far you've fallen short in your arguments here to date.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 1:21:55 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/23/2016 8:48:53 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/23/2016 1:51:15 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 4/23/2016 7:49:25 AM, RuvDraba wrote:


I now understand that despite your general medical ignorance, you would rather pretend you are both competent and knowledgable, and hand the danger of your ignorance to others, than admit you could be in error, and retain an ethical responsibility for what you don't know.

I have quoted from reliable sources - Teresa Aubele Ph.D. - Psychology Today - That sugar causes a blockage in the brain membranes. Your response - None! This is after you questioned me about the validity of my research and fully denied that sugar could cause any harm or damage to a human being. Thus, you are a fraud and a time waster!

Unfortunately, much like the people who tell others to pray instead of trusting doctors, putting your vanity above public safety makes your behaviour a liability undeserving of tolerance or respect.

I assume that you are talking about yourself, right?

You are still using diversionary tactics Ruv.
Yours is a topic directly concerning medical research in which you have impugned the integrity of worldwide research, and you consider a discussion of medical ethics diversionary?

Note - Retractions on previous research are becoming increasingly common.

http://journals.plos.org...

You have to address the scientific issues.
Surely, we both do -- including the ethics of research.

Most medical research is unethical. They murder billions of lab rats in the vain attempt to improve human life span.

However, how can you discuss science at all that when (quoted from a recent post in another thread) [http://www.debate.org...]:
there are millions of people who don't believe in germ theory as well. Think of all the naturopaths and their patients. Not to mention Prince Charles and the Queen who would never go to an allopathic doctor. lol No wonder she has lived to 90 years of age and still going strong!

...these are not scientific data, and that is not a scientific argument.

Just because the Queen and Prince Charles are not doctors doesn't mean they are uneducated morons who don't know what they are doing. The proof lies in the pudding. If the Queen doesn't use allopathic medicine and she can live an active life to 90 years and beyond is a very good endorsement to alternative medicine.

Actually, Akh, I don't think you understand intellectually or ethically what burden falls on you in exploring the question regarding medical research and ethics.

I don't think you understand that by supporting allopathic medicine you are contributing to murder and malicious wounding of millions of innocent people. Now, that's what i would call 'unethical'.

If so, please could you explain what standard of scientific evidence is required to support your case as a conjecture, an hypothesis and a proven finding, and what principles of medical ethics apply to announcing results.

I have already supplied ample evidence from fully qualified doctors of medicine. Yet you are still not satisfied. So, I ask you. What standard of evidence do YOU require?

If you don't know, please so confess and I'll explain, complete with references, and point out how far you've fallen short in your arguments here to date.

Ditto.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 7:27:53 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 1:21:55 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 4/23/2016 8:48:53 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/23/2016 1:51:15 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 4/23/2016 7:49:25 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
I now understand that despite your general medical ignorance, you would rather pretend you are both competent and knowledgable, and hand the danger of your ignorance to others, than admit you could be in error, and retain an ethical responsibility for what you don't know.

I have quoted from reliable sources - Teresa Aubele Ph.D. - Psychology Today - That sugar causes a blockage in the brain membranes. Your response - None!

Akh, you have not made a link to Psychology Today in reply to any of my posts. You have linked to a site called cureyourowncancer.org -- which is not a link to Psychology Today, nor a peer-reviewed scientific publication of any sort.

This is after you questioned me about the validity of my research and fully denied that sugar could cause any harm or damage to a human being. Thus, you are a fraud and a time waster!
I have neither affirmed nor denied anything about sugars. I have said that you have no idea how to evaluate scientific research -- and that is evident.
Unfortunately, much like the people who tell others to pray instead of trusting doctors, putting your vanity above public safety makes your behaviour a liability undeserving of tolerance or respect.
I assume that you are talking about yourself, right?
No, I am talking about a member who states his own conjecture as a scientific finding without acknowledging that he has no real understanding of how scientific research, analysis and evaluation work.

You are still using diversionary tactics Ruv.
Yours is a topic directly concerning medical research in which you have impugned the integrity of worldwide research, and you consider a discussion of medical ethics diversionary?
Note - Retractions on previous research are becoming increasingly common.
Whether true or not, that is irrelevant to the fact that medical ethics are central to the topic.

You have to address the scientific issues.
Surely, we both do -- including the ethics of research.
Most medical research is unethical.
What reference are you using for medical ethics, and how do you mean to assure compliance?

However, how can you discuss science at all that when (quoted from a recent post in another thread) [http://www.debate.org...]:
there are millions of people who don't believe in germ theory as well.
Uncited and irrelevant.

Think of all the naturopaths and their patients. Not to mention Prince Charles and the Queen who would never go to an allopathic doctor. lol No wonder she has lived to 90 years of age and still going strong!
As previously pointed out, whether that is true or not, it's not scientific evidence.

You have yet to explain what scientific evidence is, or ask how it is produced, so I'm afraid that you may see many such responses from me until you do.

...these are not scientific data, and that is not a scientific argument.
Just because the Queen and Prince Charles are not doctors doesn't mean they are uneducated morons who don't know what they are doing.
That is not scientific evidence.

The proof lies in the pudding.
That is not a definition of scientific evidence.

If the Queen doesn't use allopathic medicine and she can live an active life to 90 years and beyond is a very good endorsement to alternative medicine.
That is not scientific evidence.

Actually, Akh, I don't think you understand intellectually or ethically what burden falls on you in exploring the question regarding medical research and ethics.
I don't think you understand that by supporting allopathic medicine you are contributing to murder and malicious wounding of millions of innocent people. Now, that's what i would call 'unethical'.
That is not scientific evidence.

If so, please could you explain what standard of scientific evidence is required to support your case as a conjecture, an hypothesis and a proven finding, and what principles of medical ethics apply to announcing results.
I have already supplied ample evidence from fully qualified doctors of medicine.
You have not yet established that you understand what medical ethics or scientific evidence are. So throwing up links and asserting that they satisfy a definition is only credible if you can establish a reasonable definition.

Please do so with links -- or else we are free to conclude that you are evaluating information by biased and ignorant criteria that you conflate with scientific evidence, then making reckless, scientifically unsupported claims heedless of whether making those claims meets reasonable standards of medical ethics.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 8:29:16 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 7:27:53 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

I have quoted from reliable sources - Teresa Aubele Ph.D. - Psychology Today - That sugar causes a blockage in the brain membranes. Your response - None!

Akh, you have not made a link to Psychology Today in reply to any of my posts. You have linked to a site called cureyourowncancer.org -- which is not a link to Psychology Today, nor a peer-reviewed scientific publication of any sort.

Here's the link. Now you have no more excuses.

https://www.psychologytoday.com...


Note - Retractions on previous research are becoming increasingly common.
Whether true or not, that is irrelevant to the fact that medical ethics are central to the topic.

Ethics are only secondary to proof. First you have to prove that you are right. Then, you may seek ethical guidance after. So then, prove that diluted arsenic is not detrimental to a patients health. Good luck!

Note - After you kill a million rats in trying to prove that diluted arsenic is harmless to humans, then you may claim that you are using ethical research techniques, right? lol



Think of all the naturopaths and their patients. Not to mention Prince Charles and the Queen who would never go to an allopathic doctor. lol No wonder she has lived to 90 years of age and still going strong!
As previously pointed out, whether that is true or not, it's not scientific evidence.

Evidence - http://www.naturalnews.com...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/24/2016 6:15:45 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/24/2016 8:29:16 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 4/24/2016 7:27:53 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
I have quoted from reliable sources - Teresa Aubele Ph.D. - Psychology Today - That sugar causes a blockage in the brain membranes. Your response - None!
Akh, you have not made a link to Psychology Today in reply to any of my posts. You have linked to a site called cureyourowncancer.org -- which is not a link to Psychology Today, nor a peer-reviewed scientific publication of any sort.
Here's the link. Now you have no more excuses.
https://www.psychologytoday.com...

Thank you for a link to an 'explainer' article, reporting the real research which occurred here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

This is research telling us that excessive sugar can trick the brain into not realising it's full.

It's worth noting that the title of the research paper was: Chronic sugar intake dampens feeding-related activity of neurons synthesizing a satiety mediator, oxytocin which is very specific, and not at all alarmist. And the explaining report had the title What Eating Too Much Sugar Does to Your Brain, which is also an accurate summary, yes?

Note that neither report had the title: Candy is Killing Us!

What I'd like to know now Akh, is:
1) Do you know how that research was performed?
2) Can you explain what a scientific standards must be met in order to report this as a finding, and not simply a conjecture?
3) What ethical standards are used in the preparations and reporting of research like this?

Note - Retractions on previous research are becoming increasingly common.
Whether true or not, that is irrelevant to the fact that medical ethics are central to the topic.
Ethics are only secondary to proof.
No, scientific ethics begin in the education and training of staff, continue through framing of research problems and the design of experiments, and into the reporting of results. As I said, I am happy to provide links on this, once you acknowledge you have no idea what scientific ethics are or how they apply to the reporting of results.

First you have to prove that you are right. Then, you may seek ethical guidance after.
You want to claim this as a scientific principle? Cite it please.

Note - After you kill a million rats in trying to prove that diluted arsenic is harmless to humans, then you may claim that you are using ethical research techniques, right? lol
While this can be rebutted as an excluded middle argument, Akh, since you've neither defined nor cited scientific ethics yet it's not even worth doing that.

Think of all the naturopaths and their patients. Not to mention Prince Charles and the Queen who would never go to an allopathic doctor. lol No wonder she has lived to 90 years of age and still going strong!
As previously pointed out, whether that is true or not, it's not scientific evidence.
Evidence - http://www.naturalnews.com...
That is editorial opinion, and is also not scientific evidence. To pick up the evidence you'd have to reference the supporting scientific reports claimed in Natural News -- reports claimed to exist in Nature and the Public Library of Science, but which Natural News did not itself directly reference.

Now Akh, why didn't Natural News cite them? Is that because the reports don't exist, or didn't report everything Natural News claimed?

Akh, I realise you have trouble focusing on questions and objections put to you. But you really need to say whether you know what scientific standards of evidence and ethics entail. I think you won't admit that you don't know because you care more about expressing your opinion than the public risks of being wrong in what you believe.