It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Missmissie173
a reply to: Flatfish
Cancer not only kills the victim, but the spirits of those left behind.
originally posted by: Limbo
Dear OP
(I am interested in how people argue etc.)
Does this mean if I advocate measles as a cancer cure that I am squarely in the middle of anti-vac land?
For example let's assume vaccines block people from getting measles. They produce anti bodies
and this makes it difficult for people to be treated with measles for cancer because the fever would not take.
This stance would make me anti vaccine in that respect however one of the anti vac arguments used
is that the vaccine doesn't work...
Where does it leave me? For me getting measles vs cancer would be an acceptable trade off.
Could this apply for other microbes also?
Complicated dilemma.....
I've also read on the internet that we get cancer all through our lives and our body deals with it.
Cancer generally takes a long time before it manifests and the likely hood is that during that
time we have stumbled across some kind of microbe generating a fever
Are we too clean in that respect?
Limbo
originally posted by: Limbo
a reply to: Flatfish
I have a randomized double blind study of Coley's toxins and cancer.
They used an inactive placebo. It would be interesting to see if the inactive placebo
actually induced a fever also. That would probably kill the blinding of the study.
Needless to say there was no response in the placebo group.
The general consensus is that the fever is responsible for the remissions.
Limbo