My "lack of knowledge" (about cancer or anything) is completely irrelevant. It does not apply to the logic of your statement.

You made a statement, I asked a few questions.

If I accept the premise of your statement as being true, (that too much exposure to the sun CAUSES SKIN CANCER) ... THEN... everyone who gets "too much" exposure to the sun should, get skin cancer. ---> cause that's what causes it according to you.

You are just too proud to retract your statement, even though you did do some back peddling.

(Please don't jump on the Metalwing bandwagon with your ego by harping about my "lack of knowledge.")

You have no idea how much I know or don't know about skin cancer or any other kind of cancer.

Sun burns. Repeated trauma to the skin cells causing mutations.

So tell me, what "exactly" was the cause of his skin cancer?

No, it is your lack of knowledge. The meaning of my statement is clear, I said Sun burns cause the trauma, which causes the mutations which causes the cancer. I used fewer words, but the meaning is the same. What I said was EXTREMELY simplistic, hence why I posted sources for more detailed information in the hopes that anyone who was interested would read it. Instead of reading any of it, you made your statement.

Your question should have not made any conclusions if you did not understand the pathways of mutation, which you dont.

This is just you trying to defend your ignorance and nothing more, you are playing word games in defense of ignorance.

You fail at critical thinking and logic repeatedly. Even if I was wrong, the answer is to withhold judgement until you understand what is and is not correct. Clearly not at all what you do. You take what people say, ignore digging into the subject matter and make sweeping conclusions from ignorance.

This is not personal for me, I and just making an observation that you consistently blame other people for your lack of understanding and get snippy when anyone points it out to you.

Also this was your question
You asked specifically what was the cause of HIS skin cancer. I answered what the cause of HIS skin cancer was . . . that does not mean that ALL skin cancer MUST originate in that same way. Your logic is fallacious on almost every count, and you dont even see it.

This is what critical thinking is all about, trying to be precise with understandings, and making sure that all conclusions are well founded in the specific context applicable.

I am not a cancer researcher, or doctor, or anyone who studies cancer in any real depth, its fully possible I have no clue what I am talking about, however your terribly sloppy logic and complete lack of critical thinking make it impossible for you to be able to know one way or the other.

Do you know what happens when a scientists has determined that something may be the cause of a disease. They attempt to falsify that assertion, ie they try to prove themselves wrong. They explore every pathway that could create an incorrect conclusion. This is what quacks will avoid like the plague.

Do you know what happens when a scientists finds examples of things like skin cancer and have nothing to indicate it may have been caused by sun burn, or really any other mechanism they believe to be true?

They try to find out if it could be another cause for the same disease, becuase not all things have a single cause. Your assumptions ignore all of these distinctions, and you wonder why people call it out.

I am not trying to make you feel bad, and so it should not be taken personally, but you have serious issues with science, and any attempt to disabuse you of those issues should be seen as someone trying to help you.

People like peter and volant do not help at all. They are even worse, it almost appears they have a specific motivation to spread misinformation, and enjoy nothing better than trolling science. The naturalnews article was a great example. Don't have a real argument . .. just post some "facts" about the failures of science to discredit that which refutes you.

If anyone really thinks these kinds of tactics are intellectually sound they need some time with a philo of science course, and some remedial study.

Still waiting on your research that disproves natural cures among other therapies...

Honestly I am waiting for you to make claims and stop spamming links.

Make a claim, im happy to engage, I dont have time to go through every link you can dredge up from the internet with every "alternative" cancer theory.

"Scientific studies have been done on only a small fraction of the quackery." I would like to see one, just one.

I live the cure every day.

Really? You seriously don't know of any of the research that has been done to confirm that certain quack claims are false?

Wait...maybe I was unclear. I'm not saying that the quackery of the 'Rife machines' being sold in recent decades have been specifically researched, but that quackery in general has been given at least a little attention by real scientists.

Do you need me to show that some quack claims have been investigated?



I'm assuming you had a health condition, and that you improved.

You consider your own life experience to be sufficient evidence to evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment? You know that there is no chance that your own immune system may have been the real cause of your improvement?

Of course his own immune system is the cause of improvement. That is PRETTY MUCH THE WAY IT WORKS.

There are no drugs or treatments that I know of that will work at all if your immune system is shot.

And I think a person's own life experience is probably one of the best and most personal bits of evidence (for them) whether or not the scientific community takes it seriously or not.

If you are sick, and you do something to make yourself well, and then you get well, you cannot reasonably conclude that the action you took to get well was a causal factor in your recovery.

That's simple logic - correlation is not causation.

Further, doing a proper trial on yourself is nigh impossible, when you consider the need for controls, double blinding, and a large data set.

Though most people who use their own experience don't even attempt to keep the most basic of objective records - they rely instead on their memory. Their memory!

One of the greatest things that will effect your health is what you think.

Your thoughts.

Scientists would dispute this but they can't. In fact they have admitted it when they acknowledge the placebo effect.

Also power of suggestion can cause a person to have all the symptoms of a disease when they don't actually have the disease.

Also, people have been healed by the simple fact that they believe they have been healed.

If that turns out to be verified by doctors, the doctors will claim that they were never sick in the first place and someone mis-diagnosed.

That's often what happens, and sometimes the doctors are right.

Example:
Migraine headaches.

A wise woman once told me that if you suffer from migraine headaches you should first examine your life. Chances are you hate what you are doing, and if you change that your migraines will stop.

I suffered from migraines when I was young and I saw a doctor about it. He examined me and he did not know what to say. Then he asked me if I liked my job. I almost burst into tears. I hated it. He told me to quit my job, and the migraines would stop.

I didn't quit my job, but I got transferred to a different department. It was the art department. I worked there for three months. I did not have a single headache.

It appears he was right.

Migraine is a true organic neurological disease. A Migraine is caused when a physiological (not psychological) trigger or triggers cause vasodilatation in the cranial blood vessels, which triggers nerve endings to release chemical substances called neurotransmitters, of which the neurotransmitter serotonin (5-HTT) is an important factor in the development of Migraine.
Dr. Saper stated in his endorsement letter to M.A.G.N.U.M. that "[Migraine] is not a psychological or psychiatric disease but one which results from biological and physiological alterations." Similarly, Dr. Fred D. Sheftell, M.D., Director and Founder for the New England Center for Headache specifically stated in his letter of endorsement that "Migraine is absolutely a biologically-based disorder with the same validity as other medical disorders including hypertension, angina, asthma, epilepsy, etc. Unfortunately, there have been many myths perpetrated in regard to this disorder. The most destructive of which are 'It is all in your head,' 'You have to learn to live with it,' and 'Stress is the major cause.'"

No amount of good thoughts will cure melanoma skin cancer.

A headache is a symptom, not a cause. A migraine is not a headache, migraines are genetic, and are different than headaches, it is extremely common for people to assume a bad chronic headache is a migraine, but they are wrong.

This anecdote illustrates two things. One you are assuming you had migraines. Two you are assuming stress was the cause. You may be correct about stress being the cause, but if that is the case then it was not likely migraines.

Not trying to beat up on ya JB, but this is systemic in these discussions. Your examples are as bad as your ability to interact with the discussions. Full of assumptions. If you saw a neurologist and were officially diagnosed with migraines, then excuse my skepticism, however know this . . ..they will come back, and they can be triggered by a lot more than just stress.

In fact migraines are a great example of medical mythology. Here is a good site that offers information about them vs the myths.

http://www.migraines.org/myth/mythreal.htm

Its about vasodialator interaction. The causes are well known, but often misdiagnosed.

I only used it as an example of one of the many things which you assume to be so, and make conclusions based on that assumption, which leads you to false conclusions, so common as to be the rule vs the exception when it comes to you.

And it seemed like when I was happy with my life and what I was doing, I would not get them.

My "lack of knowledge" (about cancer or anything) is completely irrelevant. It does not apply to the logic of your statement.

You made a statement, I asked a few questions.

If I accept the premise of your statement as being true, (that too much exposure to the sun CAUSES SKIN CANCER) ... THEN... everyone who gets "too much" exposure to the sun should, get skin cancer. ---> cause that's what causes it according to you.

You are just too proud to retract your statement, even though you did do some back peddling.

(Please don't jump on the Metalwing bandwagon with your ego by harping about my "lack of knowledge.")

You have no idea how much I know or don't know about skin cancer or any other kind of cancer.