Community > Posts By > Peter_Pan69

 
no photo
Sun 06/10/12 12:09 PM
That's very interesting, thank you for the info. That's a good story to put over at the other thread.

http://mingle2.com/topic/show/326844


no photo
Fri 06/08/12 11:25 PM

laugh

Michelle outdoes him in pushups as well!

drinker

laugh

It is clear that he was surprised by how it came out.
But still it is an all-time instant classic sound bite.
It is the flub which launches 10,000 late night jokes.

What else could he say?

"That is just plain wrong, I am her husband and I can assure you
that she goes absolutely, 100% all the way down every time!?"

laugh

Or..."It's true, sometimes Michelle just rushes trying to get
the highest number of reps and doesn't get all the way down..?!"

laugh

Oh well - eventually it will "blow over".
Sometime after the next "plesidental election".

laugh


Was that a typo?

Did you mean:

Oh well - eventually it will "blow over".
Sometime after the next "presidential erection".


laugh

no photo
Fri 06/08/12 10:33 PM



While you too are arguing, I am busy curing cancer. Slackers.....smokin



You do realise that smoking cannabis eliminates 90% of the healing properties of the cannabinoids as well as changing the chemical makeup of the THC?

Seriously though, do you believe the current and past data of the healing properties of cannabis?




I'm cool with all that. I prefer to smoke it. It helps with sinus headaches and joint pain. Plus you get high and chit......smokin


lol @ "joint" pain... smokin

If you stop putting fire to the joints, they may not hurt so much.


no photo
Fri 06/08/12 10:09 PM

While you too are arguing, I am busy curing cancer. Slackers.....smokin


LOL, I never know if you're being serious or silly.

You do realise that smoking cannabis eliminates 90% of the healing properties of the cannabinoids as well as changing the chemical makeup of the THC?

Seriously though, do you believe the current and past data of the healing properties of cannabis?


no photo
Fri 06/08/12 09:33 PM

hes saying thousands of years of chinese medicine and shamans are wrong and 50 years of the fda are right

laugh laugh laugh

a couple years ago they said they found out what part in chicken soup

made you get better it was the red stuff on top when you opened the can

now its gone

laugh laugh laugh

cannabis is good for many things

thats why its illegal


I found this article the other day...

http://www.moleculewear.com/420-jesus-heals.php?

and this one at the same site...

http://www.moleculewear.com/420-10-studies.php?


no photo
Fri 06/08/12 09:29 PM

Peter,

To be clear, I am absolutely open to the possibility that gerson therapy might have a non-negligible influence on a persons recovery rates from cancer.

The mechanisms involved can be subtle....when I eat some kinds of food, I'm more likely to wake up in the morning feeling energized and interested in doing some light exercise. With other kinds of food, I'm more likely play video games. By doing some light exercise, I will circulate my lymph just a little more effectively, which will have a small, temporary influence on the distribution of immune system components in my body.

I believe that some aspects of the course of a disease process are, sometimes, highly non-deterministic. Small changes in the state of a system at key points in time could lead to large changes in the outcome.

The person doing the light exercise might get lucky, and find that the tiny improvement in their immune systems functioning due to the temporary improvement in the circulation of lymph could end up having a significant influence on the course of their disease.

They could also get unlucky - if the increased heart rate happened to break up a collection of cancer cells and aid them in moving through the body to a new location. These are just examples, there are other tiny ways that gerson therapy could increase or decrease a persons chance of survival.

Take these tiny potential influences, and then multiply them over a 6 month period (while also setting aside 'magical thinking', and assuming this 'treatment' choice has no impact on what other treatments they would do or not do), and it seems possible to me that some parts of gerson therapy could improve some people's chance of survival, and, possibly, lessen other people's chance of survival.

So I do not dismiss gerson therapy as useless.

It qualifies as 'quackery' in my book purely because of the marketing ******** behind it.


BBC wrote:

If someone makes scientific claims, but fails to follow a rigorous process, and when called out on it hand wave away the objections, they are teetering on the brink. When they then market the product despite the unfounded claims, they have moved past the line.


I agree.


However I think there is one additional component. Research dollars are scarce. Plausibility of interaction is paramount to being able to place limited research dollars into the best therapies to really make a difference.


I agree. I think its silly, often, when CAM enthusiasts cry about the lack of research money being spent on 'therapies' that have no real evidence supporting them, and no plausible pathways. These people are usually part of a subculture that has mesmerized itself into believing the ridiculous, including dramatic misrepresentations of the treatments effectiveness (and the evidence/plausibility thereof).

In theory I agree with them that too much of the total research money is being spent by big pharma, but what are you going to do? For the most part, its their money. Do they want to take down capitalism, altogether? And sadly, these are the same people who would vote against increased government funding for research.





massage,

I suggest you watch the documentaries that I have posted in this thread. If you watch no other vids, at least watch the one I'll repost at the end of this post.

You claim the label of "quackery" is based on the marketing and/or sale of these treatments, correct?

Well, Gerson, Hoxsey and the hemp oil treatments all have been offered free of charge, which would exclude them from being labeled "quackery" by your definition. All thereapies have their ingredients and premises freely available to anyone who wishes to know. If you truly research these remedies, you may find that a great number of the ingredients are and have been researched for anti-tumor properties with a majority of them having supporting scientific evidence of their effectiveness.

Until you or others have done the appropriate studies, calling any type of treatment "ridiculous" is a premature condemnation that falls into the catergory of "quackery"...

The research is out there, but don't expect "big pharma" to support and/or admit the validity of the current data. No, I don't believe in a huge conspiracy, but a small one. I feel that those who control the FDA & AMA are and have been proven to have a conflict of interest.
The problem arises when others follow blindly without having proving these things for themselves. I have great confidence in some of the testimonies I have seen. I have less confidence in those who make claims of "quackery" with little or no data to support their theories, especially while some of those speaking like ducks are being paid by "big pharma", either directly or through the kick-back bribery schemes in place today (like the FDA "expedition" fees). Yes, I have first-hand knowledge of these kick-backs. Some in the form of vacations, sports equipment, medical equipment and publicity.


Do you remember that not too long ago, it took 7 years of trials before a drug could be approved. Nowadays, the process could be sped up to 6 months by bribing the FDA with huge sums of money (fees). With safety and efficacy trials being performed by "big pharma", it is basically like letting the fox guard the hen house. The evidence is abundantly clear with all of the toxic and dangerous chemicals that are now the cause of a great many class-action lawsuits.

Hoxsey, Gersom and Rife have all invited scientific trials of their treatments. Rife's clinical trial in California was overseen by 5 or 6 renowned medical doctors and of 16 terminaly ill cancer patients, all 16 were declared cancer free by the team.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWLrfNJICeM


no photo
Fri 06/08/12 04:17 PM



Same old peter, when asked a serious question bat it aside with personal attacks.


When losing a debate, scream "personal attack".

You should carefully examine your words before you make that type of claim about others.


I presented the inconsistencies of your statement, and even posted quotes from the articles and papers which you presented as evidence that clearly indicate that conclusions are premature. Yet you have not commented at all on your earlier statements, nor have you explained a position of critical examination. You even have the audacity to expect us to believe you do not support these things even tho you link to them.


Are you mistaken or lying here?
(from 5 posts earlier written by myself)
"I make no claims except what has been published. I support ALL avenues that show promise as opposed to the standard cut, irradiate and poisoning methods that are the only "approved" treatments for cancer."



I mean all one must do is say that this is interesting, but too early to have clear efficacy for any given treatments.

Early research is fun, but not something someone should make life decisions based on.


Early research? What timeframe do you think nearly 40 years is? What timeframe do you think thousands of years is?
I suppose you'll deny that cannabis was used and marketed in the early 1900's as medicine too.


See peter I am trying to add to the dialectic, something which I criticize you for failing to do.


I'm calling BS on this statement. I think you came into this thread trolling when the other cancer thread didn't generate the response you desired.
http://mingle2.com/topic/show/326844

Your continual denial of these facts would amuse me greatly, keep it up please.


no photo
Fri 06/08/12 09:46 AM

Same old peter, when asked a serious question bat it aside with personal attacks.


When losing a debate, scream "personal attack".

You should carefully examine your words before you make that type of claim about others.


no photo
Fri 06/08/12 09:31 AM



I quoted what you posted, nothing more. Take it up with the journals referees or the articles authors.

What this does prove is that you do not read the actual papers you are posting.

Not to mention when you have one study that shows no effect, and another that shows damage in conjunction with regular smoking is increased . . . that does not create a situation where one or the other study should be accepted uncritically.

This is where a larger RCT should be conducted.


Just admit you mistakenly confused respiratory and oral tracts with lungs. If it wasn't a mistake, it was a lie...

Also, you can admit that your quoted sentence was inconclusive. Pay attention to the words "or, at least,...".

You should give up before you embarrass yourself (more).




I am curious what you think this paragraph means.

The author highlighted the need of a case–control cohort larger than those previously examined, excluding concomitant risk factors as alcohol use or tobacco smoke. Furthermore, the cannabis smoking and the medical use of cannabinoids have been largely mistaken in public debate: the recreational long-term cannabis smoking, potentially but to date ambiguously connected with respiratory and oral cancer, is not univocally associated with pharmaceutical cannabinoids exploitable for medical purposes.


"or, at least,...".
You think this means inconclusive?

Because you seemed so sure when I quoted you saying Marijuana protects against cancer, or is it now inconclusive?


As much as I am qualified for the job, I am NOT your tutor...

At some point, you will have to learn to stand on your own two feet.


no photo
Fri 06/08/12 09:28 AM

I quoted what you posted, nothing more. Take it up with the journals referees or the articles authors.

What this does prove is that you do not read the actual papers you are posting.

Not to mention when you have one study that shows no effect, and another that shows damage in conjunction with regular smoking is increased . . . that does not create a situation where one or the other study should be accepted uncritically.

This is where a larger RCT should be conducted. Your uncritical, or even complete lack of examination shows that your only purpose is to support your own pot smoking habits and not to actually understand the science involved.

I love this stuff peter, keep it up, you are a great example of how a lack of scientific understanding leads to misguided, premature, and potentially risky beliefs.


LOL! (again)

I love the fact that your thoughts are unclear to even yourself. So much so that you've actually edited 3 or 4 times since I started this response.

I suppose you'll also claim that I take antineoplastons, sodium bicarbonate, hemp oil, the Gerson Therapy and use Rife generators too?

I make no claims except what has been published. I support ALL avenues that show promise as opposed to the standard cut, irradiate and poisoning methods that are the only "approved" treatments for cancer.

You can claim that people "don't understand" all you want, it still doesn't make it a true statement.

Now I'm sure you lied...



no photo
Fri 06/08/12 09:14 AM

I quoted what you posted, nothing more. Take it up with the journals referees or the articles authors.

What this does prove is that you do not read the actual papers you are posting.

Not to mention when you have one study that shows no effect, and another that shows damage in conjunction with regular smoking is increased . . . that does not create a situation where one or the other study should be accepted uncritically.

This is where a larger RCT should be conducted.


Just admit you mistakenly confused respiratory and oral tracts with lungs. If it wasn't a mistake, it was a lie...

Also, you can admit that your quoted sentence was inconclusive. Pay attention to the words "or, at least,...".

You should give up before you embarrass yourself (more).


no photo
Fri 06/08/12 08:53 AM


Show just one inconsistency. If you can't, then I'll have to assume you're lying to save face...
Ok, this is easy. I didn't even have to leave the page to find one.




You smoke enough,you might contract Lungcancer,since Weed has several times the Tar Tobacco has!


"Weed" has been proven to reduce the risk of cancer for those who smoke tobacco and has no higher risk of causing cancer than not smoking anything.

"Weed" has been known to kill cancer since at least 1974 and has also been known to reduce the risk of lung cancer for smokers since the 80's.




Moreover, evidence showed that smoking of cannabis preparations caused cancer of the respiratory and oral tracts or, at least, potentiated tobacco smoke-induced damages.

This is from the links you posted. Your statements are inconsistent with the links you are posting.

NEXT>




LOL!

I suppose you don't know the difference between respiratory and oral tracts and lungs...


http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20060523/pot-smoking-not-linked-to-lung-cancer?page=2

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9328194

Keep trying...


no photo
Fri 06/08/12 08:13 AM

You must you keep responding to them.

I just enjoy pointing out your inconsistencies, although I have to say it wears you out! Too many to keep up.



Show just one inconsistency. If you can't, then I'll have to assume you're lying to save face...



no photo
Thu 06/07/12 02:50 PM
Edited by Peter_Pan69 on Thu 06/07/12 02:52 PM




You smoke enough,you might contract Lungcancer,since Weed has several times the Tar Tobacco has!


"Weed" has been proven to reduce the risk of cancer for those who smoke tobacco and has no higher risk of causing cancer than not smoking anything.

"Weed" has been known to kill cancer since at least 1974 and has also been known to reduce the risk of lung cancer for smokers since the 80's.




That is true I am here to tell ya. It also make bbq potato chips taste 2.5 times better amongst 72% of the people. If you add french onion dip it increases 3 fold. I've been doing a little research......smokin


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1159836

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4

http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20070417/marijuana-may-fight-lung-tumors


no photo
Thu 06/07/12 02:21 PM


So bushido, do you think I care about your thoughts?



no photo
Thu 06/07/12 02:06 PM


I would expect no more from you than lame ad-homs...

The data is there, you just refuse to evaluate it. You're only happy if the data comes from your "approved" sources, which of course would be a direct opponent of the poisons you and others like you bombard cancer patients with.

Would you recommend radiation or X-rays for a heathy person? Didn't think so...

You're dismissed...
All you have presented is nonsense. I have seen no data from you in regards to this specific claim.


Cannabis can help your eyesight problems...


no photo
Thu 06/07/12 01:31 PM

Cowboy the only thing i have gotten out of this entire thread is how F u c ked up christianity is and how i'm proud to be an atheist.Good Luck in your faith you'll need it.


I have to laugh at your use of verses out of context.

They are predictions of future events and those who witness those events shall not perish.

Your reading comprehension seems to be severely lacking...


no photo
Thu 06/07/12 01:12 PM

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-brains-own-marijuana


no photo
Thu 06/07/12 12:27 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgEP9FdIzT8&feature=related


no photo
Thu 06/07/12 11:25 AM



You made the claim of quackery and you have failed miserably to provide any data when asked..


Dismissed...
You must have missed the post where I asked for the research that shows the therapy has merit?

Remember science is zero sum where the burden is on the person making the claim. If you cannot provide it, and yet people are making money off of it, its the definition of quackery.

http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/TreatmentsandSideEffects/ComplementaryandAlternativeMedicine/DietandNutrition/gerson-therapy

Gerson Therapy

Other common name(s): Gerson diet, Gerson method, Gerson treatment, Gerson program

Scientific/medical name(s): none
Description

Gerson therapy is a form of alternative cancer treatment involving coffee enemas, supplements, and a special diet that is claimed to cleanse the body, boost the immune system, and stimulate metabolism.
Overview

Available scientific evidence does not support claims that Gerson therapy is effective in treating cancer, and the principles behind it are not widely accepted by the medical community. It is not approved for use in the United States. Gerson therapy can be dangerous. Coffee enemas have been associated with serious infections, dehydration, constipation, colitis (inflammation of the colon), electrolyte imbalances, and even death.
How is it promoted for use?

Gerson therapy is considered a metabolic therapy (see Metabolic Therapy), and it is based on the theory that disease is caused by the body's accumulation of toxic substances. Practitioners believe that fertilizers, insecticides, herbicides, and other chemicals contaminate food by lowering its potassium content and raising its sodium content. Food processing and cooking adds more sodium, which changes the metabolism of cells in the body, eventually causing cancer.

According to practitioners of Gerson therapy, people who have cancer have too much sodium and not enough potassium in their cells. The fruit and vegetable diet that is part of Gerson therapy is used to correct this imbalance and revitalize the liver so it can rid the body of malignant cells. Coffee enemas, also part of Gerson therapy, are claimed to relieve pain and eliminate liver toxins in a process called detoxification.

The goal of metabolic therapies is to eliminate toxins from the body and enhance immune function so that the body can "fight off" cancer. Liver extract injections, pancreatic enzymes, and various supplements are said to stimulate metabolism. Proponents of metabolic therapy claim that it addresses the underlying cause of disease rather than treating the symptoms.
What does it involve?

Gerson therapy requires following a strict low-salt, low-fat, vegetarian diet and drinking juice from about twenty pounds of fresh fruits and vegetables each day. One glass of juice is consumed each hour, thirteen times a day. In addition, patients are given several coffee enemas each day. Various supplements, such as potassium, vitamin B12, pancreatic enzymes, thyroid hormone, and liver extracts, are used to stimulate organ function, particularly of the liver and thyroid. Sometimes other treatments such as laetrile may also be recommended (see Laetrile).

Treatment is usually begun at an inpatient clinic over several weeks. The Gerson Institute does not own or operate any medical facilities and instead it refers patients to clinics it licenses. Currently the only licensed clinic is in Tijuana, Mexico. Clinic fees often exceed $4,000 per week. Treatment may last from a few months to 10 years or more. It is generally recommended for at least 2 years in cancer patients. The Gerson Institute also offers a home therapy package.
What is the history behind it?

One of the oldest nutritional approaches to cancer treatment, the Gerson therapy was developed by Max Gerson, MD, a German doctor who immigrated to the United States in the late 1930s. He designed the dietary program to treat his own migraine headaches. He later expanded his method to treat other conditions such as arthritis, tuberculosis, and cancer. In 1945, Gerson published a preliminary report of his results in treating cancer in the Review of Gastroenterology. The National Cancer Institute and New York County Medical Society examined records of his patients and found no evidence that the method was effective against cancer. After his death in 1959, his work was carried on by his daughter, Charlotte Gerson, who established the Gerson Institute in the late 1970s.
What is the evidence?

There have been no well-controlled studies published in the available medical literature that show the Gerson therapy is effective in treating cancer.

In a recent review of the medical literature, researchers from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center identified 7 human studies of Gerson therapy that have been published or presented at medical conferences. None of them were randomized controlled studies. One study was a retrospective review conducted by the Gerson Research Organization. They reported that survival rates were higher than would normally be expected for patients with melanoma, colorectal cancer and ovarian cancer who were treated with surgery and Gerson therapy, but they did not provide statistics to support the results. Other studies have been small, had inconclusive results, or have been plagued by other problems (such as a large percentage of patients not completing the study), making it impossible to draw firm conclusions about the effectiveness of treatment.

Some ideas put forth as part of the Gerson regimen, such as eating large amounts of fruits and vegetables and limiting fat intake, can be part of a healthy diet if not taken to the extreme. Researchers are continuing to study the potential anti-cancer properties of different substances in fruits and vegetables, but their actual effects are not well understood at this time. Because of this, the best advice may be to eat a balanced diet that includes 5 or more servings a day of vegetables and fruit, choosing whole grains over processed and refined foods, and limiting red meats and animal fats. Choosing foods from a variety of fruits, vegetables and other plant sources such as nuts, seeds, whole grain cereals, and beans is likely to be healthier than consuming large amounts of one particular food. Based on currently available evidence, diet is likely to play a greater role in preventing cancer than in treating it.

There is very little scientific evidence to support the use of other components of the Gerson regimen, such as consuming only fresh, raw juices prepared in a certain way, eliminating salt from the diet, and “detoxifying” the liver through coffee enemas and injected liver extracts, have very little scientific evidence to support their use against cancer.
Are there any possible problems or complications?
These substances may have not been thoroughly tested to find out how they interact with medicines, foods, herbs, or supplements. Even though some reports of interactions and harmful effects may be published, full studies of interactions and effects are not often available. Because of these limitations, any information on ill effects and interactions below should be considered incomplete.

Use of the Gerson therapy can lead to a number of significant problems. Serious illness and death have occurred from some of the components of the treatment, such as the coffee enemas, which remove potassium from the body and can lead to electrolyte imbalances. Continued home use of enemas may cause the colon's normal function to weaken, worsening constipation problems and colitis. Some metabolic diets used in combination with enemas cause dehydration.

Serious infections may result from poorly administered liver extracts. Thyroid supplements may cause severe bleeding in patients who have cancer that has spread to the liver.

Gerson therapy may be especially hazardous to women who are pregnant or breast-feeding. Relying on this treatment alone and avoiding or delaying conventional medical care for cancer, may have serious health consequences.
Its pretty laughable really.


What's laughable is that you think this supports your claims of quackery...

Pay attention to the bolded sentences above mr. scientist... whoa



. . and you continue to fail to see why that is important.

If a person supports this therapy the onus is on them to get research with valid and repeatable data.

Where is your data? I keep asking, and you point out you have none and pretend that favors your argument.

The reasons other researchers are not interested is becuase there is NO proposed mechanism for why such therapies would work.

What toxins are supposedly removed by a coffee enema?
What toxins are avoided by eating raw foods?

How are these toxins responsible for cancer?
Why does the body not deal with these toxis?

The failure to answer these questions is why no one takes gerson therapy seriously. The fact that no explanation for these mechanism can be created . . . . is why its a non-starter.
I understand . . you dont get it, you think anyone can claim anything and if the scientific community doesn't immediately pick it up and run expensive large RCT's then there must be some kind of conspiracy.

Sir, you are BSC.


I would expect no more from you than lame ad-homs...

The data is there, you just refuse to evaluate it. You're only happy if the data comes from your "approved" sources, which of course would be a direct opponent of the poisons you and others like you bombard cancer patients with.

Would you recommend radiation or X-rays for a heathy person? Didn't think so...

You're dismissed...



1 2 9 10 11 13 15 16 17 24 25