Arguably The Most Important Documentary In The History Of Medicine Was Just Released

Coming from a family with a super elevated number of Cancer victims. I believe that diet and environment play a huge role in the development of cancer, and the successfulness of treatment.

All Cancer Death Rate By Country

We will never be a disease free world. Greed will not allow that to happen. At least they are coming up with interesting names for their creations.

I bet HiVika will be a doozie. Don't worry though. The vaccine is all ready to go.

a reply to: SeaWorthy

These are published studies I haven't seen your?

I don't need to look for published reference for malignant tumor high perfursion, I have an excellent source right beside me! Spouse have worked as a cytotechnologist, those specialists that use a microscope to identify and characterise cancer cells taken from a biopsy or smear and making the report for pathologists.

Better real life experience person having done real life work, than some wannabe medical youtube "expert" doing published studies cherry picking and "re-inventing" what he cannot understand!!!

ETA: Here is the original reference for tumor angiogenesis:
Judah Folkman

originally posted by: TerryDon79

"I knew a guy...", but never any evidence.

Soooooooooooooooo . . . trying to think of a hypothetical that matches your sensibilities . . .

if/when

a terrorist kills your loved ones sitting next to you in the restaurant . . .

and you report it on ATS,

we need to keep in mind that you'll be lying.

Still trying to wrap my mind around that mentality.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Apart from there would be proof of it from other sources.

Also, we're not talking terrorists. We're talking science. In science it's about evidence and proof.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Yet . . . you seem to have the

VERY UNscientific

habit of arbitrarily deciding which personal reports are worth considering and which--like a vast class of them--are not.

You are smart enough to know that personal reports are on a continuum from totally unreliable all the way through to totally reliable.

Yet, you INSIST that within your narrowly defined constructions on reality

that the WHOLE CLASS of them are totally UNreliable.

That's, from a scientific perspective, arbitrary nonsense.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Personal reports AREN'T scientific.

Scientific reports are objective.

Personal reports are subjective.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Yes and no.

The high priests of the Cult of Scientism's

relentless loud volume screeching about 'objective' does NOT make it so!

There are abundant studies the last several years DOCUMENTING "OBJECTIVELY"

just how UN objective a VERY LONG LIST OF "scientific" studies were--by purportedly the most reputable institutions a round.

I wonder what the odds are that a given study in that general group published highly distorted [you could read SUBjective] data and conclusions

vs

the odds that a given group/class of personal anecdotal reports were highly distorted etc.

In a lot of respects and disciplines, it might well be a toss-up as to which was most "objectively accurate."

However, we on this thread see that quite obviously you arbitrarily suckle at the tit of the cult of scientism--evidently without much discrimination as to when purportedly "scientific" data and conclusions are likely to be bogus and when they are not.

I find that exceedingly UNscientific, arbitrary . . . and . . . interestingly, VERY emotionally biased.

The interesting thing to me is to wonder what, exactly, led you to such an intensely narrow and rigid perspective.

a reply to: BO XIAN

And that doesn't get into the whole very SCIENTIFIC ISSUE

that even the MOST OBJECTIVE OBSERVATIONS automatically distort REALITY.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: BO XIAN

Personal reports AREN'T scientific.

You STILL seem to be drinking greedily at the swill trough that "SCIENTIFIC"

is the ONLY route to truth. Perhaps you'd say, the only reliable way to truth.

And, as I've noted, ABUNDANT studies have proven that such a FAITH in the "objectivity" of the cult of scientism is HORRIBLY PLACED and far too often, doomed to the failure of extremely false data and conclusions.

Yet, mystifyingly, you continue to bow and scrape before that altar as though it were the supreme God of truth.

Incredible.

You will eventually learn otherwise. I'm concerned it may be too late to be of much benefit to you, however.

a reply to: BO XIAN

The cult of scientism?!

You must be "suckling at the tit" of that "cult" too.

You're using a device powered by electricity, on a forum, on the Internet, while in a building using other science.

We know WHAT causes cancer. We have known for years. Just because science knows, doesn't mean there's an instant cure.

You probably know how earthquakes and volcanoes work. Can you stop them from happening?

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: BO XIAN

And that doesn't get into the whole very SCIENTIFIC ISSUE

that even the MOST OBJECTIVE OBSERVATIONS automatically distort REALITY.

How did you come to that conclusion?

Is it something to do with god, thinking happy thoughts or giving.

Or is it because some guy on the Internet said so?

a reply to: TerryDon79

Sounds like an arbitrary and disconnected deflection, to me.

Is there some law somewhere that one has to believe 100% in 100% of the dogma of the cult of scientism in order to use and appreciate technologies arising out of such?

That's a rather huge non-sequitur.

I'm a little surprised at you deflecting to such an obvious non-sequitur.

Where did I say that because some of science knows some of the causes of some of the cancers that therefore, science HAD to automatically produce cures for said cancers? I never said that.

I have enough trouble with my own words. I don't need your help mangling the msg. LOL.

originally posted by: BO XIAN

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: BO XIAN

Personal reports AREN'T scientific.

You STILL seem to be drinking greedily at the swill trough that "SCIENTIFIC"

is the ONLY route to truth. Perhaps you'd say, the only reliable way to truth.

And, as I've noted, ABUNDANT studies have proven that such a FAITH in the "objectivity" of the cult of scientism is HORRIBLY PLACED and far too often, doomed to the failure of extremely false data and conclusions.

Yet, mystifyingly, you continue to bow and scrape before that altar as though it were the supreme God of truth.

Incredible.

You will eventually learn otherwise. I'm concerned it may be too late to be of much benefit to you, however.

If God is real then he is a terrible being.

He made my mother born with some terrible birth defects. He killed 2 people I loved. Gave my sister a horrible disease. Gave my wife, her brother, father and our daughter a terrible condition. Plus all the other harm in the world.

Science is far from perfect, but it does help. Sure, it's done bad too. But to dismiss it then use it constantly is you being a hypocrite.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Evidently you are not aware of the research in quantum mechanics . . .

where observation changes the realities involved . . . whether a photon is a particle or a wave.

Quantum mechanics are a GREAT DEAL more SUBjective than your tidyl little boxes from the cult of scientism seem to allow for.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Well how can it be a "cult of scientism" if it's not all bad?

All cults are bad. Christianity, Scientology, Judaism, you name it, cults are evil, mind controlling corperations.

Take your personal agenda of twisting science and cancer and walk away.

Your "truths", aren't. What they are are harmful, deadly, useless and woo.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Funny.

I thought quantum mechanics was a part of SCIENCE.

THINK before you type.

a reply to: TerryDon79

I don't know how you bought the much MORE LOFTY position from which to judge God.

You seem to be disallowing that He might just be allowing mankind to suffer the harvest from what mankind has doggedly, rebelliously planted--collectively--generationally and probably individually.

We all suffer from the collective sins of generations past--whether through pollution of the environment or pollution in the spiritual sphere.

And, there are those that contend that before we are born, we meet with The Father and together decide exactly which major traumas and challenges we are going to experience in life for the training of our spirit, soul, eternal essence. Sounds like something Father might do, though the Bible is silent on the issue.

But thanks. I did feel that there was some intense grief/angst/anger buried under there that fueled your intense support of the cult of scientism.

It must be real tough for all concerned to wrestle endlessly with such painful conditions with so few options for treatment that offer any lasting hope within the modern medical model.

I grieve for the struggles of all of you. I wish I could wave a 'magic prayer wand' and fix it for all of you. All I can offer is my perspective on reality from my 69 years of experiences.

a reply to: TerryDon79

It appears that you have trouble facing the vast complexities of daily life and reality.

Things are not in tiny tidy little binary boxes.

Some in the JW cult are very loving people.

Even Hitler could be kindly toward blue-eyed, blond toddlers.

Things are rarely 100% binary as you seem so compulsively to need them to be.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Cute deflection and dodge.

It appears that either you missed the point entirely or decided to dodge it and deflect with some other blather.

a reply to: BO XIAN

God is a man made fairy tale to make people FEEL good.

Science is about observation, trial and error, testing and evidence. Regardless of which part of the broad term of science, it's all the same.

Just an FYI. I used to be a Christian. Prayed every day. Went to Sunday school and Christian primary school. I was a "good little Christian". That was until I lost my stepdad to leukaemia. Haven't been religious since. He wouldn't help a man who was in CONSTANT pain for the last 3 years of his life and was made to be a shadow of his former self.

Yeah, god is great