3 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- jodrellblank 6y ago
  > Surely something as startling and revolutionary as that would have been well documented and explained being any shred of doubt Against the claim of thousands of people documented as cured, you argue that such a documentary can't exist because if it existed there would be documentation? I'm not asking you to believe onion juice cures cancer based on an unverified claim that it does, but what you're doing is pre-deciding that it can't and then refuting the claim that thousands of people were cured because if they were, there would be thousands of cured people. Your logic is bad, and unscientific. But even then - would it be? You'd think if the Catholic Church was systematically abusing children on a massive scale, it would be well documented and chased by the police. But they were, and they were covering it up on a massive scale too. What about the tobacco companies misleading people on the harms of tobacco so badly they agreed to indefinite $10Bn/year payouts, or the 1971 Ford Pinto with a fire risk where Ford calculated that paying out for burns victim lawsuits would save them $70M over fixing the cars and then buried that in mountains of Department of Transport paperwork ... surely that can't be happening, if it was there would be evidence - and there was. The VW emissions scandal? Coverups do happen. "It's not happening" until it is happening, then "of course it was happening, everyone knew it". > 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. That ineffective quack treatments exist is not evidence that all treatment claims are ineffective quack treatments. > 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. It's plausible that America's largest killer - heart disease - is preventable with dietary and lifestyle changes, and maybe curable/reversible[1]. A test for non-invasively measuring calcium buildup in the heart as a proxy for atheroscletoric plaque and diet and lifestyle changes which improve that value. Claims that the mainstream medical view is that it can't be done. Maybe he's wrong, maybe he's right, but if you decide that he's wrong because if he was right it would be mainstream, there's no way for your reasoning to allow any change. [1] https://www.wheatbellyblog.com/2017/11/reduce-heart-scan-score/ https://www.wheatbellyblog.com/2017/11/reduce-heart-scan-sco...

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.

jodrellblank 6y ago
> Surely something as startling and revolutionary as that would have been well documented and explained being any shred of doubt Against the claim of thousands of people documented as cured, you argue that such a documentary can't exist because if it existed there would be documentation? I'm not asking you to believe onion juice cures cancer based on an unverified claim that it does, but what you're doing is pre-deciding that it can't and then refuting the claim that thousands of people were cured because if they were, there would be thousands of cured people. Your logic is bad, and unscientific. But even then - would it be? You'd think if the Catholic Church was systematically abusing children on a massive scale, it would be well documented and chased by the police. But they were, and they were covering it up on a massive scale too. What about the tobacco companies misleading people on the harms of tobacco so badly they agreed to indefinite $10Bn/year payouts, or the 1971 Ford Pinto with a fire risk where Ford calculated that paying out for burns victim lawsuits would save them $70M over fixing the cars and then buried that in mountains of Department of Transport paperwork ... surely that can't be happening, if it was there would be evidence - and there was. The VW emissions scandal? Coverups do happen. "It's not happening" until it is happening, then "of course it was happening, everyone knew it". > 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. That ineffective quack treatments exist is not evidence that all treatment claims are ineffective quack treatments. > 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. It's plausible that America's largest killer - heart disease - is preventable with dietary and lifestyle changes, and maybe curable/reversible[1]. A test for non-invasively measuring calcium buildup in the heart as a proxy for atheroscletoric plaque and diet and lifestyle changes which improve that value. Claims that the mainstream medical view is that it can't be done. Maybe he's wrong, maybe he's right, but if you decide that he's wrong because if he was right it would be mainstream, there's no way for your reasoning to allow any change. [1] https://www.wheatbellyblog.com/2017/11/reduce-heart-scan-score/ https://www.wheatbellyblog.com/2017/11/reduce-heart-scan-sco...