Scientist Cure Cancer but...

Thanks for showing this man this couldve helped my grandmother, but she lost her fight with cancer in 2003. I've learned a lot through this thread :)

Aww...Kitty cat go meow?



Ha. No, what you said was that you do not take the UFO abductees seriously. Why you gotta lie Lundi?



To draw on your analogy the reason I am punching the board(and I am about to punch you...joking) is because you kept cheating during the whole exhibition.




I find hilarious that you find it hilarious. When I just screwed up once compared to how you screwed up twice in a row...




I was on topic to a different guy who was confused as to why this topic was essentially devolving into a shit flinging contest. I informed him it's because of your arrogant certainty over that which you have no evidence for,

You just lied again... Do you even proofread anymore?



Neither for you to if science is an art form like you say then there are no chances for errors. Your work either comes out good or bad. The only reason they are tentative is because if they mess up they alone will be the scapegoat(fear of being ridiculed). Art is suppose to be nutured and have time took to better plan out what it is you are trying to do however when have yes men and monkey suit cigar swinging bashers being involved with your work. Who needs ridicule when you have to work with these fine gentlemen.



See that is the problem. People on here just negative rep me if I happen to diss a company, industry, or product they have this blind loyalty for. I even had people agree with me on how that particular industry is not doing well however the blind loyalty is the annoying thing about these puppets. I do not negative rep people like I said I would rather respond to them. I will never negative rep you Lundi because that would seem like a cop out or something a coward would do. I am not here to bite peoples heads off(that is what moderators are for).



The negative rep can never be a deterrent against me because I have a signature making fun of it. I actually want people to press it because I know they are going to regardless of all the evidence I put up. It is simple. You hate me when I'm right and you still hate me when I'm wrong.



Ha. Like they way you twisted my post to make it seem like you had a point however what I said by that statement alone is that you give me evidence that is so long and not linear(to the point) that I can't tell if I am reading research or Martin Luther King Jr. "I have a dream" speech...



I told you already I was not gonna hear it. I stand by what I posted...



You two just keep missing the point I stated already that this is about "why" and not "what". I said why is it that if someone even remotely says something is a cure or if someone figures something out before these so called professionals they jump and call foul but when they figure something out and it goes wrong they have every reason under the sun why it happened that way. In other words damage control to the pharmaceutical industry image. Neither two of you block heads from Gumby have answered this... In other words you overlook that and focus on the misleading title I put up purposely to fool you primarily Lundi. Like I said about you "all that knowledge and can't even get that right".

P.S. More links Lundi put them up...



Thanks Shag but would this make me sound abit you know phony?

Legendary: Thanks for your input!

Data Zero:Very informative video thanks(Could you PM the full video?).

guammastermind671: That is sad to hear. I hope your family managed to cope with your loss...

Actually, if you read up on declassified documents and wikileaks, the U.S. government commonly assassinates its own citizens who get close to secrets they don't want us to know about.

It's not fiction.

In fact, I recall a story where they were planning to assassinate a reporter once, but it was disrupted due to the watergate scandal. I forgot if it had to do with MKUltra or the FBI's COINTELPRO, but you get the point.

That said, I'm skeptical to this study. I want to see more research backing it up. In the meantime though, I'm a strong believer in medicinal marijuana, and I strongly condone marijuana in general, even if it is illegal. It's the miracle plant!

You ARE aware that that's trolling. Right?



And how did you get "I believe in aliens" from me saying I don't take the people who claim to have seen them seriously? Explain how you got there logically. Show your work.



...Cheating? Explain. I don't know how one...cheats...in discussion.




Didn't you make an earlier post in the topic apologizing for not using complete sentences? Yup. It was addressed to user Wilhelm_van_middernacht, who asked you to be more coherent.




The response in question, the person I was responding to, was A. in this topic. and B. Not to Daedalus, like you accused me. So no, I'm not lieing. I believe it's on page 3, and it's to a different user, not in private. Your inability to read words shouldn't be evidence that I'm in secret collaboration with anyone.



Never said that.



Lie.



Art has no chance for error? You're making things up now.



Or, accurate, inaccurate, or inconclusive. You saying this demonstrates exactly what I accused you of. "You don't understand the epistemological methodology of science."



Well you're right about that, they're tentative because they don't want to be ridiculed if they're proven wrong later. That's...not a bad thing. And if someone makes a hubristic claim of knowledge that turns out to be wrong(like you regularly do) then yes, they SHOULD be ridiculed, and feel bad about it.



Science isn't art.



This was nonsensical, and I don't understand what you're trying to say here. However, I noticed more buzzwords of conspiracy. Just add in the words "corporate fat cat" and you've got a blog entry worthy of American Free Press.



Or if you think you have facts, declare that you know the truth, and later get proven wrong, and refuse to admit it. You get neg repped for that too.



People agreeing with you doesn't make you right. If the facts are wrong, and they agree, then you and they are wrong.



Again, then you're a bad forum user.



I've been neg repped a lot. Yes, it's annoying when you get negative reps without anyone explaining why, and that has happened to me. Not everyone uses the rep system wisely. So here's what I propose. IF you have a valid argument against a point that you feel is wrong, and you think the person is being arrogantly certain in their wrongness, then neg rep, as WELL as post a response.



Let me explain what you just said using an analogy. What you just said is akin to "Punching me in the face can never be a deterrant for me because I laugh at being punched in the face."

That's not a point in your favor, it just means you're being silly.



Actually no. I've received positive reps from people when I make unpopular posts in the past because I present a cogent argument backed up with facts or evidence. I've had people message me saying they don't agree with me, but will positive rep me anyway because I presented my case strongly and effectually.



I don't hate you, I just find your arrogance annoying.



If you can't tell the difference between a scientific paper and "I have a dream" That's not my problem, and IS actually a problem...for YOU. So NOW you're saying, "There was too much jargon and too many big words in the paper. I didn't understand it, so I won't listen to it."

Well now that's even dumber.



Even calling me a scientist? Because that's fundamentally wrong...I have no PhD. I'm still in college.



But your "why" depends on the truth of your "what" And your "what" isn't true, so neither is, by proxy, your "why".



And you haven't provided a single instance of this happenning. The most you've demonstrated is that when people post on personal blog sites that they think they've found the cure for cancer, professionals don't take it seriously. And if you think that's unfair, then tough. As I said before, ALL other medicine has to go through the academic rigors of the peer review process before it's taken seriously.

Your contention is that this shouldn't be the case, that it's not fair, or some sort of conspiracy against cures. But you haven't demonstrated why your contention is correct.



Not only haven't you demonstrated this point either, but even if it were true, if a peer reviewed and tested medicine fails, they SHOULD know all the reasons why. Because...that medicine's effects, chemical make up, and side effects should be known, if it's been researched enough to be put into mainstream medicine.



Nothing but speculation on your part.



Yeah we have, you just keep either changing the subject, or declaring without any evidence or facts that we're wrong.



...Jesus...so right here you just admitted that you made the title, misleading, knowingly. Which means you DON'T believe scientists have cured cancer. And you admit that you did this to fool me. Not only did I come into this not believing your claim about cancer being cured, but this is a blatant admission...of trolling. Why then, should I not ask that you be banned?



But I did. And you declaring the opposite doesn't make it true.



No, because you just admitted that you don't even believe your own bullshit.

DICHOLOROACETIC ACID


There was a pdf I had but I cannot get it at the moment. I am very busy so... Look at this and good fortune at your philosophy classes.

^^^ That was the most ridiculous non-answer I've ever seen.

How is this thread not locked and BlackShogunFox not banned for trolling yet? Hardly anyone seems to take Serious Discussion... seriously!

So basically pretty much everyone here that argues against Lundi has committed at least 3 major fallacies that renders pretty much everything they've stated as invalid.

I think everyone is waiting on Warr (Or was it Waar) to come and lock this one. As usual, BlackShougunFox is trying to start a fight and replacing answers with comebacks that are nothing more than insults. Matter of fact, I honestly think this thread was made to try and draw BigLundi into the discussion so he could try (and I do mean Fail) to prove him wrong when all he as to back him (BlackShougunFox)up is insults. And Fox, since I know you are going to try and attack me over this, remember the last time you tried to challenge me in the 'Why I hate anti-vaxxers' thread.

I don't think it's that easy... Cancer cells are not all alike, they are usually a shitstorm of completely different failed cells. The hard part is finding a medicine that targets those specific cells, without killing healthy ones in the process.

Did not bother to read the thread to see if what he said has already been said... repeatedly.

give by how the same cancer can be so different for each people are, I doubt it can be cured with conventional treatment.

maybe once we have the technology to make fully programmed or controlled nano machines as medicine, then we can start to see the light.

Hmm...well if our cells are that weak is there some way to chemically utilize our white blood cells to help fight off the bad ones. From what I read about it on inchem.org they are calculating a theory on this however like Lundi and Daedalus stated with their links it could prove fatal. I think when it comes to individuals receiving treatment variables such as weight, height, and history of medical conditions should be of concern when possibly considering to give a patient treatment through chemotherapy. This is all purely theoretical in the long run.