I know I have been slipping on the steemitdude comics. Got some recent inspiration. Already have next one in the making. Hope you enjoy it and here are the past episode.
xD
notice the shot of him was from the pecks up, it because if I pulled the camera back it would have been considered porn because he was jacking off the whole time he was looking at porn and flagging it.
lol
I had to self censor as the flaggots would flag it for being yucky.
I flagged something once, not because it was porn. I'm not glad I had to do it, but I am quite convinced telling HIV patients they must drop their medicines (because someone calls HIV/AIDS a hoax) is a bad advice and thus very irresponsible act. Someone may very well die if they follow it.
i've never recommended anyone go against the advice of their doctor, but if i listened to doctors, i would be dead.
it does appear that there is a lot of misinformation surrounding HIV/AIDS. none of the issues are ever addressed by the establishment, only ridiculed when objections to overly expensive and side effect causing "management" are raised.
if i had followed the advice of my doctor when i had cancer, i likely would have ended up like my brother who died of the same two cancers that i had. the responsible advice killed him. i took another path, and am alive almost 6 years later, with no recurrence.
my guess would be that you are not a virologist, neither am i. i have seen excellent results without ever involving pharmaceutical companies. flagging something rather than admitting you may not have enough information to understand it, is not always the best policy. learning more, rather than accepting the popular belief, or even expert opinion, is usually the best policy. if deferring to experts is the choice, then there is not enough knowledge to do other than flag out of opinion.
"if i had followed the advice of my doctor when i had cancer, i likely would have ended up like my brother who died of the same two cancers that i had. the responsible advice killed him. i took another path, and am alive almost 6 years later,"
And Steve Jobs is dead not taking his doctors' advice. What's your point?
My mother died of cancer despite the treatment, my father is still living because his cancer was treated. Sometimes the treatment works, sometimes it doesn't, as there are many different cancers and there is no panacea to curing them all.
my point is i am smarter and/or more informed than my doctor.
Steve Jobs may have been an intelligent person in some areas, but apparently he fell down on the job when it came to his health. his choice of the Ornish diet is likely what killed him.
the implication that i indicated there is a panacea for anything is a strawman argument.
there are treatments for many things that are not popularized by the moneyed interests that control our news, FDA standards, and pharmaceutical availability. the death rate continues to mount from these agents of regulatory capture.
Glad you cured your own cancer. I personally know a guy who cured his own prostrate cancer within 6 months of being diagnosed and he never told a soul until he had been in remission for over a year. The guy starved himself, just juicing and eating that kefir stuff.
There's also some vegan doctor that reckons from studying Steve Jobs medical records, that his cancer was a slow growing tumour, that he'd developed decades earlier, as a result of working in silicon valley. The doctor reckons that his tumour grew slowly because of his vegan diet. That makes sense because meat is great for growth, which includes cancer.
Unfortunately, vegans miss out on the goodness of fermented dairy foods, which promote growth in healthy cells but not in cancerous ones and obviously, sick people need all the nutrition that they can get.
i mostly refrained from talking about it for the first couple years as well. since my own experience, i have kept looking, and i've found 27 different treatments for cancer that i understand well enough to think will work. if i don't understand it, it doesn't make the list. cancer, it seems, is not strictly a disease, as much as the body's reaction to poor treatment. if the environment of the body is changed, the cancer cannot sustain it's growth.
i think that one of the reasons meat plays such a significant role in many health issues is the contamination of the meat by growth hormones, antibiotics, fungal toxins used to increase feed efficiency, the feed itself being contaminated with GMOs, herbicides, pesticides, et cetera. there is also the fact that meat from grain fed animals contains a higher amount of omega6 fatty acids, that when consumed in excess causes inflammation.
organ meat from grass fed herbivores, contains some of the highest levels of many vitamins, minerals, fatty acids, and other nutrients. as long as this meat is not contaminated with all manner of unnatural garbage, it can be amazingly fortifying. care should be taken not to consume too much, as the organs contain some things, such as vitamin A and Iron, that in excess can be toxic.
I totally agree with your assessment of meat. When it's good quality, grass fed and organic it's great for healthy people and particularly children, but it's always bad for cancer patients because of it's nutritious, growth promoting properties.
"i am smarter and/or more informed than my doctor"
Ok, we are done. That's just too funny.
"the implication that i indicated there is a panacea for anything is a strawman argument."
The claim I was implicating you indicated there is a panacea for something is false. I just told you that doctors can't always fix you (no panacea for everything), and that is not a conspiracy.
But, you already void your own argument in the first (quoted) sentence you wrote.
He should have said "...than my doctor with regards to cancer." That claim wouldn't be ridiculous as people with personal experience of ailments often become more informed than their GP, because they study all the latest developments and alternatives and often spend time with specialists.
The fact is that chemo therapy is poisonous chemical therapy. The nurses are ordered to pull the skull and crossbones label from the bottle, before hooking up the patient, because otherwise patients would freak-out.
Only cancer patients with positive attitudes, who are reasonably healthy, apart from the cancer, survive chemo.
There are also some crazy statistics that you will never hear from mainstream doctors. Like, of the people that refuse chemo around 40% go on to live a normal life span and the average lifespan of the whole group is about 12 years and I remember that the average lifespan of chemo patients was not nearly as high, but I can't remember the figure off-hand.
Another hidden fact is that autopsies on old people often show that they have a slow growing cancer that they have lived with for decades, but then gone on to die of something completely unrelated. Sadly, early screening now ensures that many middle-aged people with slow-growing tumours have chemo and risk death from poisonous chemicals to treat a cancer that wasn't about to kill them any time soon.
So, do doctors differentiate between fast growing and slow growing cancer before they begin chemo? I think not.
Lastly, there is a simple, cheap genetic test that indicates which patients are not going to respond well to chemo no matter how positive they are, but is this test routinely done and then patients testing positive advised that chemo will fail? Oh no, no way, chemo is big business, so these patients are put through hell until the doctors confess that they can do no more.
A minuscule number of these patients survive, but only those who have the resources and will to seek out alternative clinics in places like Germany.
You can't even blame doctors they are just teenagers who went to uni and learned everything in their textbooks and regurgitated it in order to pass exams and in practice they lack time to question anything that they've learned, meaning that they are only as good as the text books that the pharmaceutical industry allows them to read.
Did you ever sit in a history lesson in school and think that people in the past were dumb because it should have been obvious that, such and such was wrong? You say this to the teacher and the teacher replies that everyone believed it, they just did and you would have too if you'd been there. Future kids will be thinking the same thing about chemo therapy and radiation therapy: that it should have been obvious that it was a stupid cure and we are a bunch of retards for believing in it.
"here's a logical argument for you. you are wrong because Ha Ha Ha. oh, i see you already know that argument."
That's false. Your argument isn't wrong because I get a laugh out of it, I laugh because the argument is stupid. We are done. No more tinfoilhattery please.
but i love to bait idiots who use terms like tinfoilhat. which is only further fallacy in the form of ad hominem. calling names is easy. i haven't seen a real argument from you yet.
when i say idiot, it is not because i'm just calling you names, it's because i've done an immense amount of research on how to spot idiots, that is, people with an emotional age of less than two. if you are going to say i'm wrong because my argument is stupid, i do believe that is more ad hominem.
i may be stupid, depending on what standard you use, but i was diagnosed with lymphoma, and prostate cancer, fired my doctor when he prescribed chemo, and i'm alive, and cancer free six years later. i guess i'll take stupid if that is what it gets me.
Maybe that's because instead of making an argument, I was questioning yours?
"i was diagnosed with lymphoma, and prostate cancer, fired my doctor when he prescribed chemo, and i'm alive, and cancer free six years later. i guess i'll take stupid if that is what it gets me."
Correlation is not causation and all that jazz. I'm positive you can find someone to explain you the basics. Maybe it was misdiagnosed? Maybe your body fought the cancer itself. Who knows? But that doesn't mean chemotherapy or other medically prescribed cancer treatments are wrong.
Cancer is a curious thing, scary, but curious thing and like other curious things, it is being studied left and right. Many cancers can already be cured, and it's only a matter of time even more of them will be. But progress is slow, and sometimes the human body does surprise even the doctors and heal itself without help. Most of the time this is not the case though especially if the cancer has already spread.
But this is all I'm willing to say. You may think what you like about me. I won't have ill feelings if you think I'm an idiot. I just don't take "i'm smarter" as an argument. You may. I won't.
Now I am serious. I am not continuing this chat. It is over.
you're argument was that you were justified in flagging someone because they called HIV/AIDS a hoax. that was the argument you made. the cool thing about the blockchain is, if you type something, and forget, you can go back and read what you typed.
i can admit that i don't know enough about HIV/AIDS to know if it is a hoax or not. i have found doctors on both sides of the argument. i wouldn't flag someone over something i was ignorant about. that's the difference between you and me.
cancer holds absolutely no fear for me anymore.
my doctor sure seemed to think that the degree and license he has qualifies him to judge whether or not he was making a false diagnosis. the method i found for ridding myself of cancer, i'll put up against any other that i've seen so far, unless the sufferer decides it is wise to refer to me as a stupid tinfoilhatter. if your only arguments consist of, maybe and could be, then you might go find a mirror of which to make fun.
Since you provided no evidence, no proof at all, I decided to take interest at what other goofy unproven conspiracy theories you might have said here. And boy did I find a gold mine, here's one excerpt:
It turns out you are an anti-vaxxer too. That's goofy enough in itself, even to the point it would be truly hilarious if it weren't so sad. People have to die because you spout and spread that kind of bullshit. That's right on par with the HIV guy and his nonsense.
And to top it off your feed is full of this alternative crap. You know why alternative medicine is called that: "alternative medicine"? It's because it hasn't been proven to be real, medicine that actually works.
"Petered out", that supposed to the new "I don't know what I'm talking about so I try to spite them instead", or something else along those lines? Look, I'm not the one who backed out from providing evidence for my claims. I didn't make a superfluous claim that I'd need to defend. You and your HIV friend did. And I didn't accept your alt-med apologetics and conspiracy theories as proof. Simple, no?
more name calling and absolutely no scientific argument. do you actually know anything about vaccines? do you actually know anything about anything that you use as justification to call people names? your superfluous claims continue to flow from appeal to authority and appeal to ridicule. try to at least be a little more creative, and learn some new fallacies to use to make fun of people who know more than you do.
i told you that i am baiting you, not spiting you. there is a difference. spite is not much fun. baiting allows me to learn more about how the uninformed argue. there is a whole list of fallacies on wikipedia that you could use against me, or you could just keep calling people names, and act like those names are not superfluous claims all on their own.
tell me how i can provide you with evidence without giving my knowledge away to someone who does not deserve it. it reminds me of an admonition not to cast your pearls before swine.
Yea yea, and you've absolutely provided all the evidence I ever could have asked for. (None. So please disappear already.)
"how i can provide you with evidence without giving my knowledge away to someone who does not deserve it"
You say someone "doesn't deserve evidence/knowledge", that's perhaps one of the most stupid idiotic statements I've come across yet. You know what? I think you are lying through your teeth, Troll. You have no evidence and we all (you included) know it. You must hate yourself now.
"i told you that i am baiting you"
I should have listened you then. Since that's all you were after all; a troll.
"reminds me of an admonition not to cast your pearls before swine."
i wrote a reply. then i decided to make a post of it.
this is what i will say here. look in the patent record. everything can be found there.
my N of 1 evidence may be of no value to you. i was diagnosed with two cancers, by an M.D., i got no treatment other than what i did myself.
six years later, i have no cancer, and have not had a cold or flu in six years. i used to have cold and/or flu at least twice a year, every year. i also had a chronic sinus infection that i thought was normal, just the natural result of my genetics. now that is gone too. several other things have been repaired as well.
i don't really care if you believe me. i am unsure what you would even accept as evidence or proof. if you want a petition signed by every doctor on earth, god, jesus and all the angels, you won't get it. this is mostly because either they are incompetent or don't exist. you figure out which is which. please learn a word other than stupid, lying, idiot, troll, it's boring. i don't even hate you. you are a sad little child, whose only intellectual tool is name calling. this is becoming like playing chess with a vending machine, but at least a vending machine has more than two flavors. all you seem to have is appeal to ridicule and appeal to authority. i'm surprised you haven't at least trotted out appeal to popularity. this one usually rounds out the bunch. i guess i could add personal incredulity.
go ahead and laugh, call me names, engage in whatever fallacies you please. you are just practice, for when i happen across people who can understand. i know from your attempts at argument that you cannot, at this time. i do hope that one day you can see past your prejudices, and learn. i have talked to many caught in the same false skepticism as you present.
if you want an enlightening challenge, try proving to me that vaccines do what they are supposed to, without using any logical fallacies. betcha can't.
I think it would have been more effective to say that in the comments over flagging.
I wonder if they really believe it is a hoax or if they are just trolling.
xD
Yeah well I did say it in the comments too. But the reason I flagged is because he's advocating for people to drop medication that keeps them alive, also it might encourage HIV-positive people to spread their contagion.
Interesting conversation. Did you know that there are a growing number of doctors that off record confess that they would never ever take an HIV test because they are so ridiculously flawed? One of those doctors advises people who are forced to test by say, insurance companies, to keep taking tests until they get a negative result and then use that result.
Seriously, not a troll a doctor and he considers the medication to be worthless because it's a type of chemo that doctors stopped using to treat cancer, because it was considered to be too poisonous for cancer patients.
"Did you know that there are a growing number of doctors that off record confess that they would never ever take an HIV test because they are so ridiculously flawed?"
No, I didn't know this. Where do these doctors confess such things, and who are they? How do you know "a growing number" of doctors confess this if it's done "off the record"? Can I see some on the record statistics that prove your claim? Or is this just hearsay?
Good questions. By off the record I mean in interviews rather than as articles in medical journals. As to who they are, I'm afraid you'll have to research for yourself as I never keep records of my own research as it's for my entertainment.
Of course it's hearsay but since this is not a court of law (and sometimes hearsay is admissible in court under certain circumstances), it's irrelevant, as this is not a forum for scientific proofs but rather a chat amongst friends. You may wish to take yourself a little less seriously, it will expand your mind.
Since I'm unable to respond to you in the other conversation (6-levels deep) I have to reply to you in this one.
He should have said "...than my doctor with regards to cancer."
No. He should not have said anything. His whole conspiracy theory was unproven and that particular statement made him look stupid even before his futile little argument, which was nothing different to the HIV guy's irresponsible "quit your meds" rant.
The rest of your post was non-passable as evidence, since you provided no references to any of your claims or mentioned statistics. At least for now, I will consider everything you said anecdotal hearsay.
Its being hearsay doesn't affect whether or not it's true or false and with a comment, as opposed to an article, there is no requirement for references!
Whether or not you wish to retain an open mind and research for yourself is, of course, entirely up to you.
Also, it appears that you believe theories shouldn't be discussed until they are proved. Not exactly a logical point of view.
you'd better not be flagging in there!
flag
flag
flag
flag, oh yeah.
xD
notice the shot of him was from the pecks up, it because if I pulled the camera back it would have been considered porn because he was jacking off the whole time he was looking at porn and flagging it.
lol
I had to self censor as the flaggots would flag it for being yucky.
for it being yucky, or for them feeling guilty?
adults who do things like flag porn, without knowing why, are doing it out of guilt or shame.
It cracks me up trying to talk with them too.
xD
people who don't understand the difference between use and abuse, or addiction and recreation, are impossible to convince.
That is an amazing point I am suprised that no one has made it yet.
moderation in all things, even moderation.
xD
lol, I think you are hysterical.
Thank you.
xD
I flagged something once, not because it was porn. I'm not glad I had to do it, but I am quite convinced telling HIV patients they must drop their medicines (because someone calls HIV/AIDS a hoax) is a bad advice and thus very irresponsible act. Someone may very well die if they follow it.
i've never recommended anyone go against the advice of their doctor, but if i listened to doctors, i would be dead.
it does appear that there is a lot of misinformation surrounding HIV/AIDS. none of the issues are ever addressed by the establishment, only ridiculed when objections to overly expensive and side effect causing "management" are raised.
if i had followed the advice of my doctor when i had cancer, i likely would have ended up like my brother who died of the same two cancers that i had. the responsible advice killed him. i took another path, and am alive almost 6 years later, with no recurrence.
my guess would be that you are not a virologist, neither am i. i have seen excellent results without ever involving pharmaceutical companies. flagging something rather than admitting you may not have enough information to understand it, is not always the best policy. learning more, rather than accepting the popular belief, or even expert opinion, is usually the best policy. if deferring to experts is the choice, then there is not enough knowledge to do other than flag out of opinion.
And Steve Jobs is dead not taking his doctors' advice. What's your point?
My mother died of cancer despite the treatment, my father is still living because his cancer was treated. Sometimes the treatment works, sometimes it doesn't, as there are many different cancers and there is no panacea to curing them all.
my point is i am smarter and/or more informed than my doctor.
Steve Jobs may have been an intelligent person in some areas, but apparently he fell down on the job when it came to his health. his choice of the Ornish diet is likely what killed him.
the implication that i indicated there is a panacea for anything is a strawman argument.
there are treatments for many things that are not popularized by the moneyed interests that control our news, FDA standards, and pharmaceutical availability. the death rate continues to mount from these agents of regulatory capture.
Glad you cured your own cancer. I personally know a guy who cured his own prostrate cancer within 6 months of being diagnosed and he never told a soul until he had been in remission for over a year. The guy starved himself, just juicing and eating that kefir stuff.
There's also some vegan doctor that reckons from studying Steve Jobs medical records, that his cancer was a slow growing tumour, that he'd developed decades earlier, as a result of working in silicon valley. The doctor reckons that his tumour grew slowly because of his vegan diet. That makes sense because meat is great for growth, which includes cancer.
Unfortunately, vegans miss out on the goodness of fermented dairy foods, which promote growth in healthy cells but not in cancerous ones and obviously, sick people need all the nutrition that they can get.
i mostly refrained from talking about it for the first couple years as well. since my own experience, i have kept looking, and i've found 27 different treatments for cancer that i understand well enough to think will work. if i don't understand it, it doesn't make the list. cancer, it seems, is not strictly a disease, as much as the body's reaction to poor treatment. if the environment of the body is changed, the cancer cannot sustain it's growth.
i think that one of the reasons meat plays such a significant role in many health issues is the contamination of the meat by growth hormones, antibiotics, fungal toxins used to increase feed efficiency, the feed itself being contaminated with GMOs, herbicides, pesticides, et cetera. there is also the fact that meat from grain fed animals contains a higher amount of omega6 fatty acids, that when consumed in excess causes inflammation.
organ meat from grass fed herbivores, contains some of the highest levels of many vitamins, minerals, fatty acids, and other nutrients. as long as this meat is not contaminated with all manner of unnatural garbage, it can be amazingly fortifying. care should be taken not to consume too much, as the organs contain some things, such as vitamin A and Iron, that in excess can be toxic.
I totally agree with your assessment of meat. When it's good quality, grass fed and organic it's great for healthy people and particularly children, but it's always bad for cancer patients because of it's nutritious, growth promoting properties.
Ok, we are done. That's just too funny.
The claim I was implicating you indicated there is a panacea for something is false. I just told you that doctors can't always fix you (no panacea for everything), and that is not a conspiracy.
But, you already void your own argument in the first (quoted) sentence you wrote.
here's a logical argument for you. you are wrong because Ha Ha Ha. oh, i see you already know that argument.
define conspiracy. i don't think you know what it means.
He should have said "...than my doctor with regards to cancer." That claim wouldn't be ridiculous as people with personal experience of ailments often become more informed than their GP, because they study all the latest developments and alternatives and often spend time with specialists.
The fact is that chemo therapy is poisonous chemical therapy. The nurses are ordered to pull the skull and crossbones label from the bottle, before hooking up the patient, because otherwise patients would freak-out.
Only cancer patients with positive attitudes, who are reasonably healthy, apart from the cancer, survive chemo.
There are also some crazy statistics that you will never hear from mainstream doctors. Like, of the people that refuse chemo around 40% go on to live a normal life span and the average lifespan of the whole group is about 12 years and I remember that the average lifespan of chemo patients was not nearly as high, but I can't remember the figure off-hand.
Another hidden fact is that autopsies on old people often show that they have a slow growing cancer that they have lived with for decades, but then gone on to die of something completely unrelated. Sadly, early screening now ensures that many middle-aged people with slow-growing tumours have chemo and risk death from poisonous chemicals to treat a cancer that wasn't about to kill them any time soon.
So, do doctors differentiate between fast growing and slow growing cancer before they begin chemo? I think not.
Lastly, there is a simple, cheap genetic test that indicates which patients are not going to respond well to chemo no matter how positive they are, but is this test routinely done and then patients testing positive advised that chemo will fail? Oh no, no way, chemo is big business, so these patients are put through hell until the doctors confess that they can do no more.
A minuscule number of these patients survive, but only those who have the resources and will to seek out alternative clinics in places like Germany.
You can't even blame doctors they are just teenagers who went to uni and learned everything in their textbooks and regurgitated it in order to pass exams and in practice they lack time to question anything that they've learned, meaning that they are only as good as the text books that the pharmaceutical industry allows them to read.
Did you ever sit in a history lesson in school and think that people in the past were dumb because it should have been obvious that, such and such was wrong? You say this to the teacher and the teacher replies that everyone believed it, they just did and you would have too if you'd been there. Future kids will be thinking the same thing about chemo therapy and radiation therapy: that it should have been obvious that it was a stupid cure and we are a bunch of retards for believing in it.
That's false. Your argument isn't wrong because I get a laugh out of it, I laugh because the argument is stupid. We are done. No more tinfoilhattery please.
but i love to bait idiots who use terms like tinfoilhat. which is only further fallacy in the form of ad hominem. calling names is easy. i haven't seen a real argument from you yet.
when i say idiot, it is not because i'm just calling you names, it's because i've done an immense amount of research on how to spot idiots, that is, people with an emotional age of less than two. if you are going to say i'm wrong because my argument is stupid, i do believe that is more ad hominem.
i may be stupid, depending on what standard you use, but i was diagnosed with lymphoma, and prostate cancer, fired my doctor when he prescribed chemo, and i'm alive, and cancer free six years later. i guess i'll take stupid if that is what it gets me.
Maybe that's because instead of making an argument, I was questioning yours?
Correlation is not causation and all that jazz. I'm positive you can find someone to explain you the basics. Maybe it was misdiagnosed? Maybe your body fought the cancer itself. Who knows? But that doesn't mean chemotherapy or other medically prescribed cancer treatments are wrong.
Cancer is a curious thing, scary, but curious thing and like other curious things, it is being studied left and right. Many cancers can already be cured, and it's only a matter of time even more of them will be. But progress is slow, and sometimes the human body does surprise even the doctors and heal itself without help. Most of the time this is not the case though especially if the cancer has already spread.
But this is all I'm willing to say. You may think what you like about me. I won't have ill feelings if you think I'm an idiot. I just don't take "i'm smarter" as an argument. You may. I won't.
Now I am serious. I am not continuing this chat. It is over.
then stop responding.
you're argument was that you were justified in flagging someone because they called HIV/AIDS a hoax. that was the argument you made. the cool thing about the blockchain is, if you type something, and forget, you can go back and read what you typed.
i can admit that i don't know enough about HIV/AIDS to know if it is a hoax or not. i have found doctors on both sides of the argument. i wouldn't flag someone over something i was ignorant about. that's the difference between you and me.
cancer holds absolutely no fear for me anymore.
my doctor sure seemed to think that the degree and license he has qualifies him to judge whether or not he was making a false diagnosis. the method i found for ridding myself of cancer, i'll put up against any other that i've seen so far, unless the sufferer decides it is wise to refer to me as a stupid tinfoilhatter. if your only arguments consist of, maybe and could be, then you might go find a mirror of which to make fun.
Well if you insist.
Since you provided no evidence, no proof at all, I decided to take interest at what other goofy unproven conspiracy theories you might have said here. And boy did I find a gold mine, here's one excerpt:
No, no tinfoilhattery there, none at all. LOL.
It turns out you are an anti-vaxxer too. That's goofy enough in itself, even to the point it would be truly hilarious if it weren't so sad. People have to die because you spout and spread that kind of bullshit. That's right on par with the HIV guy and his nonsense.
And to top it off your feed is full of this alternative crap. You know why alternative medicine is called that: "alternative medicine"? It's because it hasn't been proven to be real, medicine that actually works.
"Petered out", that supposed to the new "I don't know what I'm talking about so I try to spite them instead", or something else along those lines? Look, I'm not the one who backed out from providing evidence for my claims. I didn't make a superfluous claim that I'd need to defend. You and your HIV friend did. And I didn't accept your alt-med apologetics and conspiracy theories as proof. Simple, no?
more name calling and absolutely no scientific argument. do you actually know anything about vaccines? do you actually know anything about anything that you use as justification to call people names? your superfluous claims continue to flow from appeal to authority and appeal to ridicule. try to at least be a little more creative, and learn some new fallacies to use to make fun of people who know more than you do.
i told you that i am baiting you, not spiting you. there is a difference. spite is not much fun. baiting allows me to learn more about how the uninformed argue. there is a whole list of fallacies on wikipedia that you could use against me, or you could just keep calling people names, and act like those names are not superfluous claims all on their own.
tell me how i can provide you with evidence without giving my knowledge away to someone who does not deserve it. it reminds me of an admonition not to cast your pearls before swine.
Yea yea, and you've absolutely provided all the evidence I ever could have asked for. (None. So please disappear already.)
You say someone "doesn't deserve evidence/knowledge", that's perhaps one of the most stupid idiotic statements I've come across yet. You know what? I think you are lying through your teeth, Troll. You have no evidence and we all (you included) know it. You must hate yourself now.
I should have listened you then. Since that's all you were after all; a troll.
Haha, right back at ya. Mr. Zero Evidence
i wrote a reply. then i decided to make a post of it.
this is what i will say here. look in the patent record. everything can be found there.
my N of 1 evidence may be of no value to you. i was diagnosed with two cancers, by an M.D., i got no treatment other than what i did myself.
six years later, i have no cancer, and have not had a cold or flu in six years. i used to have cold and/or flu at least twice a year, every year. i also had a chronic sinus infection that i thought was normal, just the natural result of my genetics. now that is gone too. several other things have been repaired as well.
i don't really care if you believe me. i am unsure what you would even accept as evidence or proof. if you want a petition signed by every doctor on earth, god, jesus and all the angels, you won't get it. this is mostly because either they are incompetent or don't exist. you figure out which is which. please learn a word other than stupid, lying, idiot, troll, it's boring. i don't even hate you. you are a sad little child, whose only intellectual tool is name calling. this is becoming like playing chess with a vending machine, but at least a vending machine has more than two flavors. all you seem to have is appeal to ridicule and appeal to authority. i'm surprised you haven't at least trotted out appeal to popularity. this one usually rounds out the bunch. i guess i could add personal incredulity.
go ahead and laugh, call me names, engage in whatever fallacies you please. you are just practice, for when i happen across people who can understand. i know from your attempts at argument that you cannot, at this time. i do hope that one day you can see past your prejudices, and learn. i have talked to many caught in the same false skepticism as you present.
if you want an enlightening challenge, try proving to me that vaccines do what they are supposed to, without using any logical fallacies. betcha can't.
I think it would have been more effective to say that in the comments over flagging.
I wonder if they really believe it is a hoax or if they are just trolling.
xD
Yeah well I did say it in the comments too. But the reason I flagged is because he's advocating for people to drop medication that keeps them alive, also it might encourage HIV-positive people to spread their contagion.
Not sure if it's a troll. May be a tinfoil-hat.
you would have to be wearing a couple foil hats to go that far off from reality.
:D
Interesting conversation. Did you know that there are a growing number of doctors that off record confess that they would never ever take an HIV test because they are so ridiculously flawed? One of those doctors advises people who are forced to test by say, insurance companies, to keep taking tests until they get a negative result and then use that result.
Seriously, not a troll a doctor and he considers the medication to be worthless because it's a type of chemo that doctors stopped using to treat cancer, because it was considered to be too poisonous for cancer patients.
No, I didn't know this. Where do these doctors confess such things, and who are they? How do you know "a growing number" of doctors confess this if it's done "off the record"? Can I see some on the record statistics that prove your claim? Or is this just hearsay?
Good questions. By off the record I mean in interviews rather than as articles in medical journals. As to who they are, I'm afraid you'll have to research for yourself as I never keep records of my own research as it's for my entertainment.
Of course it's hearsay but since this is not a court of law (and sometimes hearsay is admissible in court under certain circumstances), it's irrelevant, as this is not a forum for scientific proofs but rather a chat amongst friends. You may wish to take yourself a little less seriously, it will expand your mind.
Since I'm unable to respond to you in the other conversation (6-levels deep) I have to reply to you in this one.
No. He should not have said anything. His whole conspiracy theory was unproven and that particular statement made him look stupid even before his futile little argument, which was nothing different to the HIV guy's irresponsible "quit your meds" rant.
The rest of your post was non-passable as evidence, since you provided no references to any of your claims or mentioned statistics. At least for now, I will consider everything you said anecdotal hearsay.
Its being hearsay doesn't affect whether or not it's true or false and with a comment, as opposed to an article, there is no requirement for references!
Whether or not you wish to retain an open mind and research for yourself is, of course, entirely up to you.
Also, it appears that you believe theories shouldn't be discussed until they are proved. Not exactly a logical point of view.
I managed to break the reply chain, you probably didn't see my reply to you, so I'll link it here.