Anyhow, back to Trump...
The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
None of this proves that cures to cancer are deliberately being withheld from us, though. Anyway, no more on that, back to topic...
All of this shows a worrying trend of people like Trump ignoring scientific consensus because it conflicts with their own opinions.
What's the deal with cannabis oil and treating (some forms of) cancer. Do scientists think it could possibly help?Unfortunately there are several others posters claiming the same here on redcafe. I have several FB friends doing the same. Drives me nuts. They are basically saying we want people to die painfully.Having read and cried over case report forms for children with terminal cancer Mr Styles can feck right off (sorry mods). He and Trump deserve each other.
Nah I need someone to point me in the right direction, www is a big place. Got any links?
Back to Trump indeed...
From his Twitter....
From his Twitter....
The nice thing about scientists is that as a whole they are willing to look at new theories and the evidence to support them.
I've not kept up with cannabis oil as a treatment but we are open to testing anything and everything using well controlled studies. Once humans are involved its important to have good evidence up front. I'll take a look when I get a chance.
Feck, you've turned into @langster on me.
Yeah, willing to look at them with their chemtrail-addled tiny minds. You can't beat the system, man.
Anyway then you have cancer research claiming that all these are debunked myths
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk...the-hype-10-persistent-cancer-myths-debunked/
of course cancer research must continue to be funded, so no cancer = no cancer research so I know what I believe
delete all delete allyou can also take a look at Andrew Breitbart, the founder breitbartnews. I haven't seen a lot of him, but the few things indicate very strongly that he comes from a completely different direction.
Let us know what you find.
The two guys who wrote the book about the cholesterol myth seem to try and sell a lot of supplements, pills, books, pamphlets in businesses that seem to be based on making them money more than anything else. HmmmmmMmmm
I guess my parents being alive because both of their very different cancers were treated and cured is all fake.
Sounds intriguing, who does Matt Damon play?
It would be interesting to find out. There's obviously a wealth of anecdotal evidence from people who believe it helped them. It would be nice to see if that could be backed up scientifically.
The good looking one
Similar to the time I heard a snippet from Alex Jones' radio show: "On tonight's show...DOOM! And now a brief word from our sponsor: 'Are you fully prepped for the Apocalypse I predicted in 2008? Buy your own Alex Jones One-man Tent™ now! And a shitload of bean tins; only $18476347367238!'
well when it comes to cholesterol I've tried a high fat atkins style diet for a month and tested it on myself. HDL Cholesterol increased, LDL decreased and triglycerides decrease by 2/3. My diet was eggs, bacon, avocado, meat (with fat) and dairy (full fat) every day and salad. My dad who is on statin drugs couldn't believe that on such a diet my entire lipid profile improved drastically.
#NeverTrump is certainly doing its thing in a very roundabout fashion these days.
Seriously, I'm very happy for you. I too have family who have suffered and been cured of cancer. I guess my problem with caner though is that we pretty much know the cause but no one is doing anything to change that. the fact that cancer research comes out and says that sugar increasing the chances of cancer (i.e. cancer has a sweet tooth) is a myth, to me says a lot about what is wrong with cancer research.
Back on the Sweden thing a lot getting made by trumpites of the rape stats from Sweden but none can give
1). The part of the stats that show how many are by Muslims or immigrants.
2) Any information on whether Sweden reports rapes differently than other nations (Google says they do so in a way that actually increases the number reported. Ie a young woman raped by a uncle numerous times over the years, each Attack is counted as a case of rape, in some nations it would be one rape).
1). The part of the stats that show how many are by Muslims or immigrants.
2) Any information on whether Sweden reports rapes differently than other nations (Google says they do so in a way that actually increases the number reported. Ie a young woman raped by a uncle numerous times over the years, each Attack is counted as a case of rape, in some nations it would be one rape).
I just wonder, where all the people, that are oh-so concerned about the democratic problems of the electoral colleague were hiding during the last 8 years. I know that Eboue talked about this previously, but almost nobody gave a feck and Obama&house democrats also showed little interest. Democratic procedures are only brought up, when someone doesn't like the outcome of a election.
Dem supporters brought it up when Bush defeated Gore and Rep supporters blasted it when Obama crushed it twice (Trump tweeted about it a few times). Some politicians have brought it up in the past, so no it's not just now, but nice try.
I should also add that I saw plenty of posts on FB leading up to the election desiring for the EC to be eliminated or adjusted, mostly by Rep supporters seemingly expecting a Dem victory.
Last edited:
It's not the sugar causing cancer it's that too much leads to obesity which has been linked to cancer. Obesity also leads to diabetes, heart disease, joint problems, etc etc etc.
We also know many pollutants cause cancer, but hey let's rip apart the EPA and its regulations.
Smoking is linked to cancer, and thanks to the work of many establishment politicians republican and democrat , it remains okay to do. People even get upset if you suggest it should be made illegal or at least illegal to add all the cancer causing agents to it.
What? Smoking? Drinking? Red meat? Asbestos? EPA regulations... oh whoops.
I'm guessing the answer is: 'Obama'.Alex Styles said:
Why don't they ban those things?
It's those damn scientists, certainly not anyone else to blame.
And feck anyone who tries to outlaw steaks!
No no no. I'm not getting at anyone. I'm asking the opinion of a scientist who works in that field, why things that are 100% proven to give you cancer aren't banned?
Sweden do not gather data on ethnicity in crime stats. The only data they released was that out of reported crimes around 1-2% had suspects that were asylum seekers. But then only a 5th of all reported crimes have any suspects at all.
Since stats on reported sex crimes are deemed unreluable the stat they usually cite is the one where the population gets asked if they have been the victim of any sex crime in the past year. For women this stat has increased from 0.8 to 3% in just a few years.
Since stats on reported sex crimes are deemed unreluable the stat they usually cite is the one where the population gets asked if they have been the victim of any sex crime in the past year. For women this stat has increased from 0.8 to 3% in just a few years.
You're taking my statement a bit too seriously.
Well the scientists can't ban anything. It also becomes an issue of how much causes the cancer. A sip of booze? A glass? 20 glasses? 100?
Is one bite of steak going to give you cancer?
Or is the problem too much? Or as part of an overall unhealthy life style?
Hey if someone wants to continue smoking its their choice. At least it's an informed choice nowadays. But there was a time when 'science' said it was safe
http://www.healio.com/hematology-on...igarettes-were-once-physician-tested-approved
steak is one of the healthiest things you can eat per se (grass fed obviously)
And science, through further research, eventually reached a different conclusion because it had obtained new evidence which discredited old ideas, and allowed new, more solid ones to emerge. Which is quite literally the fecking point of science.
yes so what about studies based on who funds them?
Wow! The article also indicates quite a bit of that was not based on actual studies or silly things like being less irritating
. It was the early days of studying the effects of smoking and the tobacco companies used marketing not real science to fight the battle.Soooo... What about....
- Status