Cancer has been cured. But will the economy allow it?

Post Reply New Topic

When one side supposes incredible logical fallacies and stands fervently behind them, there automatically IS NO more discussion. I have already stated the facts and backed it up monumentally.

But as I have already stated a few times, the counter argument amounts to nothing more than ad-homs and logical fallacies. Making the supposition that I'm "so stubborn" and "not willing to incorporate points" does NOT address the subject matter at hand. Hense why it qualifies as an ad hom. Because you find yourselves INCAPABLE of dispelling the points I am making and istead resort to just accusing me of not listening or being inflexible.

I agree with you on the point that it will be better for oceandrop to walk away. Because this individual has demonstrated a determined effort to debunk my points and ignore everything I'm saying, armed with logical fallacies. Its like someone trying to debate the evolution argument using a taco. lol.

OF COURSE I'm willing to discuss this with ANYONE on the condition that they leave ego at the door and accept that information hense stances are transitory. To be TRULY open for discussion as opposed to being doggedly determined to debunk people.

Last edited by Adam-Anti-Um on 22 Aug 2011, 12:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Even if you think this is the case, you will never change someone's viewpoint or get anyone to take it seriously by treating them as below you. It's an instant turn-off that just encourages hostility, which is pretty counter-productive. Good day - I've already said more than I wanted to.

When that person has demonstrated a determined attitude that they are by themselves "right" and I am fair game for their debunking crusades, then no, I will not change their mind. However, changing the mind of those kinds of individuals is not my intention. For one thing I have found it to be impossible.



When people demonstrate a hostility towards information outside of their frame of reference, you cannot shoot the messenger. Refer back to my original post. I am acting as nothing more than a conduit of information relay. If people feels they have a problem with the information I present, then they should take it up with the originators of the data itself. Not those who convey it, like I have. In short, it is not my problem if people have an emotionally vested interest in maintaining the status quo and attempting to smear anyone who wishes to bring about changes. THAT my friend, is counter-productive. Take care now.

I'm sorry, I'm replying again even when I said to myself I wouldn't... Last reply now? *facedesk*
I understand your position, as I hold rather extreme/outside the norm views myself, yet on a different topic. It's amazing you feel so passionate about something and want things to change, but change starts with people. If people feel like you're treating them as below yourself, they're not going to listen - and then you've lost them. Some of your facedesk comments etc may appear quite insensitive and turn people off you, and thus the argument you present. Of course, you have the right to expect the same respect of your viewpoints, but if the interest is in conveying your information in the best way possible, it's best to really try to see why the other person believes what they believe and treat them how you'd like to be treated if you believed the same thing, if that makes sense? Which means really trying to see the logic (as they see it) in what they're saying rather than automatically discounting it. In debates about the thing I feel most strongly about (drug legalisation), I've been hit with some 'logic' I felt was off-key and presented in an incredibly rude manner, even in people like that I've managed to get them to consider my view by simply treating them 'nicely'.
Feeling strongly about something is great, but it's important to detach.

I don't mean to appear preachy, but yeah. Good luck, and this really is my last reply (as I have to let the rats out now).

Its ok, no-one's stopping you from posting. I invite it.



The "facedesk" comments as you have phrased them is in no way a judgemental, derogatory, insolent or desisory remark. Its satire. Tongue-in-cheek humour. I apologise if anyone has got offended by it, but we do not live in a PC world so we need to be mindful of where people are coming from.

If for example I were to say that George Bush is a circus clown in his off-time coz a squirrel I met the other day told me so, I can expect the same response.

As I have said, it is not my problem if people have a knee-jerk reaction against things that DON'T keep the status quo the way it is. Its not my job to as Bill Hicks once said "tickle them all individually" because its unreasonable to expect me to cater for everybody's pallette. I just present information, back it up and assert it. That's it. Any emotional reactions that people have are down to THEM and their OWN bias. ANY old fool can accuse ANYONE of talking down to them because perception is subjective and there is no way to garner everything around possible reactions, we aspies spend ENOUGH of our time trying to phrase things right.



Of course. However not very many people who have engaged me on here actually have their OWN reasons for taking a particular stance Most people repeat things without actually knowing what they mean. Hense why human nature is a logical fallacy, coz its an empty distinction, of as Stuart Chase would refer to it "and identifier without an identified", and as such people who propose "human nature" as the explanation for anything obviously haven't even given it much thought at all. Coz when you think about it, as I have proven on the previous page, it does not exist.



Absolutely. And when treated with amiability, I will mirror the same attitude in return. However when you go back through this thread you will notice that my information relay has been besmurched as something tantamount to intellectual, and conventional treason, and hense attacked.



I don't perceive you as preachy, so you don't need to worry. I don't jump the gun like so many on here make a habit of doing.

you do realize that one of the scientist from one of these "research" institutes came out saying that they purposely rig the studies to fail if they can't profit off of what's being studied, right?

and you also realize that he's had a higher success rate, around twice that of conventional, right?

it's not a miracle cure, but it has cured cancers that nothing else has.

You're right in saying that economy governs more facets of life than it probably should. We live in a money-oriented society and that won't change, I couldn't agree more with you. The only thing I'm not entirely sure about is whether a cure for cancer would have such a devastating effect on the economy as you claim. Undoubtedly it would mean billions of dollars would have to shift hands, but I can hardly imagine the entire 'cancer industry', so to speak, going bust immediately. The fact that a cure has been found doesn't mean the end of the road for those involved in industry. People will still need to treat cancer sufferers, that won't change. We will still need research to see if the cure is universal, what the side effects might be, whether all people respond as well or as quickly to the cure, how it works in animals. Research might become more focused, treatment might become more lean, if you would, but I can hardly see it disappear all in one go. How do you see these events transpiring? How do you imagine the cancer industry would respond if the cure for cancer was presented and was infallible tomorrow? I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm just curious to get to understand your point of view better!



Once again, I'm not trying to be snarky, but the article is about the effects of antineoplaston trials in mice, not humans. By comparison, there are hundreds of articles explaining the success of chemotherapy and radiation therapy on humans. Have there been no successful antineoplaston trials in humans yet? I can see how a treatment might take a while to be authorised to be used on humans, so that might be it, especially if you consider the economic claims you make to be true. Still, I remember Burzynski claiming to have cured people with his treatment, but given that these results haven't been reproduced, could it have been a more or less random recovery? Sometimes people with cancer simply recover without medical intervention. This could have happend in his trials. I'm not attempting to smite Burzynski for this, but science has taught me that research isn't valid until it can be reproduced. Of course, if he's really being shut down by the FDA, I wouldn't expect there to be any results available to the public. Do you happen to know any more on this specific matter?

You're right in saying that economy governs more facets of life than it probably should. We live in a money-oriented society and that won't change, I couldn't agree more with you. The only thing I'm not entirely sure about is whether a cure for cancer would have such a devastating effect on the economy as you claim. Undoubtedly it would mean billions of dollars would have to shift hands, but I can hardly imagine the entire 'cancer industry', so to speak, going bust immediately. The fact that a cure has been found doesn't mean the end of the road for those involved in industry. [/quote]

For the medical industry, not entirely. There are still thousands of other diseases out there, however the very fact that we would be forced to re-allocate those resources and man hours to the other conditions PROVES that in order for the healthcare industry to function at all in a monetary system, we HAVE to always have problems. Or as Michael Ruppert said "You have to create problems to create profit".

People will still need to treat cancer sufferers, that won't change. We will still need research to see if the cure is universal, what the side effects might be, whether all people respond as well or as quickly to the cure, how it works in animals. Research might become more focused, treatment might become more lean, if you would, but I can hardly see it disappear all in one go. How do you see these events transpiring? [/quote]

Well first off, just the erradication of the need to treat cancer ALONE would be too devastating for the economy to recover from. Its like taking a leg away from a 4 legged table that has a house of cards built on top of it. There may be 3 other legs there but you need 4 to hold the table up.

How do you imagine the cancer industry would respond if the cure for cancer was presented and was infallible tomorrow? I'm not trying to be snarky, I'm just curious to get to understand your point of view better! [/quote]

Such a treatment would never be allowed within a monetary system. The reason myself and the other speakers for TZM talk about the devastating effect on GDP a cancer cure would have is in part to demonstrate what WOULD happen if such a cure were to somehow find its way into the mainstream market, and a smear and character assassination campaign upon the developers were NOT put into action.



Considering what Burzynski has had to deal with over the years, this is WONDERFUL progress.



I believe there have been, but to find the actual trials that WEREN'T the bastardised trials done with the severely diluted versions of only 1 of the antineoplaston drugs (the least effective by the way) is hard to find and I haven't had the time to track them down.



For people to recover "randomly" from non-operable brainstem glioma at the rate they have been under Burzynski's treatments, will be the first time in human history that people would have been experiencing "random recovery" in such numbers.



Of course, and I understand the scepticism. Its good. Its healthy.

There is no cancer industry. There are oncologists. There are oncology departments in hospitals. There are hospitals devoted entirely to cancer. There are anti-cancer drugs. But I don't think that's enough to consitute an industry. It's just a sub-set of the healthcare industry. If cancer disappeared right this minute, oncologists would have to find a new specialty and cancer departments and hospitals would need to de-specialize in order to start treating different types of patients. But that's easier than you might think given that so much of the equipment could be used for non-cancer uses. (I have no idea how long it takes a doctor to find a new specialty.) Pharmaceutical companies wouldn't be hurt because they have so many other things bringing in money. It is probably only oncologists themselves who would have a tough time adapting.

You are also forgetting about the industries that would instantly benefit if cancer disappeared. Insurance companies would be at the top of that list. They would still collect the same amount of money to insure people but would suddenly never have to pay for another costly cancer treatment. Nobody pays for that out of pocket. It all comes from insurance companies. So they would instantly benefit and I doubt they would instantly lower their premiums to adjust until the government forced them to (if it ever did). Other, lesser beneficiaries would include all businesses in general who lose worker time to lengthy cancer treatments and especially benefitting would be businesses accused of causing cancer who have lost money in settlements. Imagine what a boon it would be to the tobacco industry if lung cancer was no longer a threat!

The world is full of diseases and the healthcare industry would be in no financial danger whatsoever if one of them went away. But what if all of them went away? (I'm not saying that's possible.) The health care industry would be left with nothing but trauma. Would it collapse? Nope. I think it would adapt and morph into an enhancement industry. It already dabbles in that with viagra, minoxidil and cosmetic enhancement plastic surgery. The balance would just wildly shift.

You are underestimating how adaptable people are (and it is people who make up industries). You are also forgetting the balance that when one thing in the equation goes down, another goes up. A cure for cancer would bring smoking back in full force, for example.

I'll play a bit of conspiracy too. If oncologists are threatened by this guy, maybe they are trying to shut him down. But if he has a real cure, don't you think the tobacco industry would be pumping him full of money so they could go back to selling cigarettes at the scale they used to?

copied/pasted from my post in PPR

Dude forget about this. We CAN breathe in space, but they are LYING TO US and TRYING TO KEEP US HERE.

Don't freaking debate me on this or I will *facepalm* and upload a tonne of YouTube videos.

If I ever got cancer, chemo is the last thing I would do. I doubt I would do anything special anyway and would just acept it and die. I remember wishing to die as young as three. I think I had this belief that sucide was physicaly impossible because I surely would have tried it if I knew it was possible. I remember envying kids with terminal illnesses. Charities like Make a Wish surely didn't help my case. But anyway, if I ever did get cancer, I would just accept it and happily await my vist with Mr. Grim.

Well I'm sorry to hear of your lifelong trauma. I hope one day you find a reason to live. Myself personally, I don't consider the development of cancer as a signal that someone has outlived their uselfullness on the planet. Because If I had died 3 years ago, which I very easily could have done, I wouldn't have joined The Zeitgeist Movement, and become focussed on the solutions for our global problems and hense not done the productive things that I am now constantly doing to help move humanity into a better direction.