Wow. Look in the mirror, Peter.

Separately: I recognize that some people make insults simply because they are frustrated with a person immaturity or stupidity, and that this has nothing to do with whether or not they have an intelligent rebuttal.

Proof of troll.

Then perhaps you would like to refute the points in the link?

I agree with Spider.

Volant, I do see a pattern to Bushido's posting, and I can see why a person in your position might think he's in someone's pocket. But there are other possible explanations for that pattern, and its unfair (and irrational) to jump directly to that one explanation as a conclusion.

Man let me tell you, if someone wanted to pay me to research cancer and present my findings online id eat it up.

Now if someone tried to pay me to present something I did not actually believe was true, id have nothing to do with it.

How valuable do you really think anything I say really is to anyone with money who would want to spend it on advertising something?

Id say, not at all. My impact on the discourse, and most especially the avenue (mingle) that is being used is negligible.

In fact to think that anything said on this forum by anyone has any impact is egoism at its finest.

This to me more than anything illustrates the irrationality of volants comment.

Delusions of grandeur tend to have that element, and you often see this in folks who hold onto conspiracies as the most likely outcome when given any kind of perceived controversy or disagreement.

Deal in facts, not accusations. That way we can all have an interesting conversation where objective discourse is the theme, not silly accusations without merit.

I might, but I would loose brain cells from the burning stupid just reading natural news, so I might need to fortify myself. Give me some time . . . lol.

Proof of troll? Like taking quotes out of context? Like resorting to ad-homs a majority of the time? Like backpedaling and changing the goal posts?

Here, I'll address this:


Yes, the microscope does have something to do with cancer. There are still photographs and motion video of LIVE microorganisms taken under that microscope. All at a time when detractors refused to believe he surpassed the optical limits. Watch the videos, see and hear for yourself what mechanism is in effect.

How does this support his device that was claimed to cure cancer?

. . . and you accuse me of moving goal posts. You have failed to make an intelligible argument.

I can deal in facts. Where are your facts that disprove any of the treatments you call "quackery"???

*edit
That bolded statement above is the problem with most of the treatments that you call "quackery". There is no profit to be made with any of them except for DCA and Dr Burzynski's antineoplastons. The FDA has already stated that they won't give approval to an individual. (however they did allow clinical trials and then took the Dr. to court...

You would rather sit here and debate about something you have no knowledge about instead of actually watching his videos?

It seems that there could easily be a hundred individual 'points' depending on how you break it down. Many of those points, take in isolation, I actually agree with...emphatically. Some of the claims are wrong. Maybe you'd like to pick out a few in particular for discussion?

One of the problems that page suffers from is a confusion between beliefs that are driven by market forces and beliefs that were actually held by the medical community.

That page also focuses attention on mistakes that were made regarding new, emerging technologies and social trends. When something is new, we often do not have enough data to really know one way or the other. We can truthfully say "we have no evidence that X causes harm" - but would we, if the harm took time to take effect? Have we had enough time to gather enough information for the absence of evidence of harm to be meaningful?

This is why I have more respect for the anti-microwave people of the 1970s and the anti-cell-phone people of the 1990s than I do for either group today.

Nah, I don't really want to argue any of the points. I know some are unfounded, especially the later ones.

That link served it's purpouse like the link to quackwatch served it's purpouse.

Your right, it does serve a purpose, to show that you are disconnected from any real argument and are just flinging poo around in an attempt to troll.

So you deny that most of them are true?

Says it all. You do not care, you are just trying to play gotcha. Straw is all you have. Your a waste of time and effort.

LOL! I care, massage admitted that most of the points on that page are correct and I agree with him. So go ahead, refute some points on that page and I'll pick apart you're quackwatch page, that is, unless your afraid...
What effort does you're gratuitous assertions require? Nun. Knot even capable of actually watching a video?

Ewe think a quackwatch paige proves anything? Your gnot even in close proximity to being considered a scientist. U make assertions about treatments with zero evidence to back up you're claims. The way yoo and other anti-natural cure "scientists" operate is to use appeals to ridicule and authority instead of actually conducting unbiased trials of the methods being espoused as "quackery". I understand why they act the way they do... There jobs would be in jeapordy if the natural cures are proven to work.

Your obviously upset that I make you realise you're shotcomings and it shows in you're extremely lame attempts at ridicule. Don't worry thow, I don't think that anyone in this thread will miss you're intellectual dishonesty and unbiased ignorance.

I recall saying 'many', not 'most'. There are so many claims being made on that page, the distinction between many and most is significant.

I also qualified it with "taken in isolation", because some of the correct claims are woven together in a misleading way.

A certain percentage of claims on that page cannot be refuted, and a certain percentage are easily refuted. I think we agree on the previous statement, and haven't discussed which are which. There are just so many, where should we begin?

You're right, you did say many. My appologies.

You can begin anywhere you like, just be advised that I'll probrably let you do all the work, then check your findings and either agree with you or not. If I don't agree, I'll post my analysis, and if I do agree, I'll respond with an affirmative.

Where I'd like to see you start is with the so-called "quack" remedies. If you know of any scientific studies that refute the efficacy of the treatments, I'd like to see them. All I can find is unfounded opinions and rehashes of other's opinions.

Here's Dr. Rife's principles being applied today:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120522154801.htm

massage, have you seen the Rife videos? Bare also has video of his machine allegedly killing paramecium...

That page is off topic. It serve no better purpose than to call into question modern medicine to support the business model of supplements and "natural" products.

Extolling mistakes and failures of science is a lot like extolling failures of the industrial revolution and then trying to say you shouldn't view it in its totality as a success.

The success stories outweigh the failures by an order of magnitude, and again its off topic. You have an agenda here, to make anyone supporting the establishment out in a negative light, but how does that have anything to do with Gerson therapy, or modern cancer treatments? (hint: it doesn't, its ad hom garbage.) If anyone is arguing from ridicule it is you. Modern medical research is tested and statistically shown to have a beneficial effect. Where is the research that supports Gerson therapy? OR the Rife device?


. . and how does that relate to cancer? How does this support the idea that his ray device cures cancer?

A visual representation of this conversation.