5 ms·

Because it's a lot of wild claims without a single link to a reputable reference. Anyone can say anything on the internet, what reason do you have to trust any

• well_that_sucks 6y ago
  i swear to god - do you people even read i said: "i don't even know if you're right, but all the sudden I want to learn about macrophages on a saturday afternoon" how do you know he's wrong? why is your instinct to reject anything that challenges commonly held beliefs. i literally said i was grateful for his input and i have no reason to believe it, but it inspired me to look into it further. please exercise critical thinking skills
  • suckerbees 6y ago
    I might be overly-critical thinking, but it sure reads like "well_that_sucks" is a sock-puppet account for the OP.
    • dang 6y ago
      Such perceptions are notoriously unreliable. Please follow https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html when posting here: "Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data."
  • ndepoel 6y ago
    "how do you know he's wrong?" In short; we don't. Science is not about who's right and who's wrong. Science is about carefully formulating plausible theories, and then proving or disproving those through rigorous research, experimental results, referencing previous verifiable research work, and thorough peer review. Even then not a single research paper will claim to be absolute truth; there is always room for doubt, criticism and altering views based on followup research. It's a slow learning process based on a lot of trial and error. What was posted above were a lot of wild claims flying directly in the face of broadly accepted knowledge accumulated by decades of diligent cancer research. The lack of any reliable sources to back up those claims makes it more than likely to be just misinformation and not to be taken seriously. Besides, the way the post read and how quickly such a long epistle was posted felt more like it was simply copy-pasted from some conspiracy theorist's manifest, rather than written by someone genuinely interested in taking part in the discussion.
• jodrellblank 6y ago
  > It's all just appeals to the idea that there's some powerful, shadowy entity that doesn't want you to know this stuff That might be a good refutation if such a thing never happened, if pharmaceutical companies didn't lobby, if companies had never spread misleading information downplaying the harm of their products, or covered up problems, or had reputations for being honest and trustworthy earned by actually being honest and trustworthy. > There's zero actual substance, just lots of unverifiable claims. Are they? "Many of these cancers release a substance called Negalese" sounds verifiable. Is there such a substance? Are some cancers proven to release it? "Dr. Bradstreets clinics were raided" that should be a verifiable fact, no? "Apricot seeds contain high concentrations of B17 compared to other seeds". "the FDA itself did a story on the B17 substance in the 1970s". Even "these things cure cancer" should be verifiable by trying it. Is it any less verifiable claims than "depression is caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain"? That sounds verifiable, except people can't seem to verify which chemicals are imbalanced and how that's measured, or why a measured imbalance isn't the diagnostic criteria for depression in the first place. You're throwing around "unverifiable" and "no substance" as insults rather than honest descriptions. > Maybe the real conspiracy is that big pharma's medicine does work but people want to still you stuff that didn't work just to make money? Isn't simple greed a simpler explanation than some grand conspiracy? If I told you that greed is the grand conspiracy, would you
  • nkrisc 6y ago
    You picked the technical details that might be verifiable and goose over the grander claims: > The results were startling and tens thousands were treated successfully and reversed their cancer. If someone can verify this I'll eat my hat. Surely something as startling and revolutionary as that would have been well documented and explained being any shred of doubt. Of course, it would also be hard to market your ineffective treatment to desperate people by doing that, so I won't hold my breath. Better to play the victim of big pharma. Some individual details might be verifiable, but it's the brooder claims themselves that I am dubious about. I'm on my phone so it's a pain to reference the original post while writing this one. Here's my theory, no conspiracy necessary: Greedy pharmaceutical companies have developed cancer treatments that are moderately effective on most cancers. Cancer being what it is, however, there are many people for whom those treatments are not effective. Facing the prospect of a terminal illness, they seek alternative treatments, lest they do nothing at all. Greedy quacks develop their own "treatments", which conveniently, for one reason or another, they can never prove the effectiveness of. They always have an excuse, never the possibility that it just doesn't work. So yes, you're correct, the grand conspiracy is greed. The pharma companies are greedy and use underhanded tactics to sell the treatments they hold the patents for, and the con artists selling bleach to cancer patients are also greedy and blame the former for why they can't demonstrate their "treatments" are effective. I think for lots of people it's more comforting to imagine that there's some big conspiracy out there trying to keep effective care from them than the idea that there's just nothing that will save them from their terminal illness.