apparently there is a Cancer Cure conspiracy

[Dcdrac]

no robert all you have done like your probable alter ego Clayton Moore is show you have no knowledge of real medicine

[dafydd]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

A gross misrepresentation. Typical Jay Utah hyperbole.

Typical Robert Prey non-answer.

[jaydeehess]

Quote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Prey
Unfortunately, many possible witnesses with contrary experiences are no longer with us.

Let's see, my mother is still with us, she needed the system about 15 years ago, my father is still with us, he needed the system last year, 4 co-workers who needed the system for various reasons last year are still with us, a former co-worker and friend of mine who has needed the system a couple of times in the last decade is still with us.
All of the above had serious ailments, were treated in a timely manner, with respect from various medical workers, in various locations within a few hours drive of this town, and have recovered well from those ailments.

A list of the problems the above persons were treated for:
Blown out knee cartilage
hip replacement
3 cancers (colon, skin, bladder)
gynecological problems
Blastomycosis(a life threatening fungal infection)

I can get into see my doctor in his office in about a week, sooner if its more urgent, and of course if its urgent there is the emergency dept at the hospital. Yes, if I have a less urgent reason at emergency then triage may well have me waiting hours. This occured last summer when I got a paint chip in my eye. Unfortunately a person with a broken leg and a couple of others who were in a car accident plus a few tourists with a case of picnic fever (food poisoning) and a few others who's ailments I do not recall, went ahead of me since they were more urgent.


So how much do you know about the Ontario Health Insurance Plan(OHIP)? Very little it seems.

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

Really? That would apply in the case of anecdotal reports sure. Here I have seven anecdotal reports of persons close to me who have used the Ontario and Manitoba medical systems and subsequently had their ailments cured. This would indeed suggest that the system works. One could perform a double blind test I suppose and take in a few cancer patients and simply not treat them while actually treating a control group.
I put forth that this would be rather unethical and result in quite the scandal in the Ontario gov't. If otoh, you wish to push for such a study in your hometown with volunteers taken from those you know, that would be your perogative.

Of the above ailments. The bad knee was not getting better with non-invasive treatments. He had been put at a desk instead of in a truck. He was working only 3 mornings a week. Then he spent two weeks at home moving as little as possible except for the mild exercise program he was given. Over the course of 4 months though his knee got worse rather than better and it was affecting his other knee as he was putting extra weight on it to compensate. He received surgey and after twoo week recovery is back doing his regular job, no further problems.

Ergo - the surgery worked

All three cancers were found and grew in the time between diagnosis and surgey. Perhaps they would have disappeared on their own, perhaps not. However waiting until they had grown to the point where it is obvious they are dangerous is not particularily prudent.

Blastomycosis IS fatal in many cases. It is a fungus that lives in damp acidic earth and as such the greatest danger is to dogs which have their noses to the ground a lot. Every summer a few dogs in this area contract Blasto and about half die. It can affect the skin first or the lungs, once in the bloodstream it begins attacking various organs. My friend above nearly lost his right foot to it. Luckily they caught it quickly. It is sometime mis-diagnosed as flesh eating disease until its noticed that its progression is slower.

However the derail in this case was you slamming the Ontario Health Insurance Plan, which I gave you seven examples of people being treated by the system quickly and effectively. You now tell me that my characterization of OHIP is a logical fallacy? You calimed that its a good system until anyone needs it and I demonstrated you are wrong in that characterization.


As far as having a system that works better than the American system described by you and the authors you cite, here is a snippet from the OHIP site

Quote:

Why is the Government not implementing a prostate cancer screening program? Scientific evidence is inconclusive as to whether or not PSA testing in men without symptoms is saving lives and improving health outcomes whereas the evidence for cervical and breast screening is conclusive.

Most international and national screening guidelines recommend against population-based or general screening purposes for prostate cancer because there is no conclusive evidence that prostate cancer screening reduces illness or death associated with prostate cancer.

The Government's policy will help to ensure that Government funds are being allocated based on evidence and that funding is supporting appropriate PSA testing.

Your authors describe a system in which the PSA test is over used even though doctors know it is not associated with saving lives or reducing illness. Your authors describe a system in which this and other tests are performed in order to bump up the bill and enrich the doctor. This is specifically not possible in Canadian health insurance plans.
Thus it would seem, that I should rejoice in my province's health insurance plan and feel sorry for you who lives in a rampant free market, user-pay, medical system replete with all manner of shysters in lab coats ready to separate you from your money with little regard to the patient as a person.

So far you have done nothing whatsoever to dissuade me from this view. In fact the only posters to write anything to combat that version have been JU and a few others who write about being treated effectively and well.

[jaydeehess]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayUtah
The way I read it, in Robert's world there is no cure of any kind for cancer. In that sense he's arguing the opposite conspiracy theory of the one this thread is about. If there appears to be any cure from mainstream medicine, it is dismissed as an outcome that would have occurred naturally without intervention, or it wasn't a "real" cancer in the first place. Ergo all alleged cancer treatments/cures are bogus. (i.e., the No True Scotsman fallacy [ad hoc revision]) He says he also doubts cure claims from alternative medicine too. But the summary appears to be "Mainstream Medicine = Bad," no matter what the topic is.

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

A gross misrepresentation. Typical Jay Utah hyperbole.

Point one in Jay's post
-RP says there is no cure for cancerNot quite true. RP says that cancers are largely benign in one fashion or another. There need not be aggressive treatment in most cases. In cases in which it is an aggressive and dangerous cancer, Robert says little to nothing about how to treat it at all.

Which leads directly to point two
- If there appears to be any cure from mainstream medicine, it is dismissed as an outcome that would have occurred naturally without intervention, or it wasn't a "real" cancer in the first place

This is indeed true, Robert has repeatedly challenged mainstream cancer treatments as dangerous and ineffective. Robert also seems to consider treatments and screening as the same thing.

Point threeErgo
-all alleged cancer treatments/cures are bogus. (i.e., the No True Scotsman fallacy [ad hoc revision])

Robert has indeed all but stated this in those exact words, having argued that cancer screenings and treatments are dangerous and not proven effective or ineffective. His is an arguement from ignorance going something like "cancer treatments cannot be proven to have saved lives therefore any other story about how cancers manage to go away is as valid"

Lastly
-But the summary appears to be "Mainstream Medicine = Bad," no matter what the topic is
Its a take off of the Monty Python skit in which one asks for an arguement in which the opponent simply takes a position contrary to yours no matter how stupid.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

The way I read it, in Robert's world there is no cure of any kind for cancer.

Well, not quite:

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

There is no universal cure for cancer, but the Nothing Pill holds as much promise as anything Modern Medicine has come up with.

Note the word "universal" in there. What he's actually doing is attacking a strawman of medicine. "Modern Medicine" is fully aware that cancer is a whole lot of different diseases, which need to be treated in different ways, and doesn't claim to have a "universal cure for cancer". In fact it acknowleges that there will be no "universal cure for cancer.

Originally Posted by JayUtah

But the summary appears to be "Mainstream Medicine = Bad," no matter what the topic is.

I can't argue with that; not only have I seen what he's posted in this thread, I've also seen what he's posted about vaccines, for example.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

Point one in Jay's post
-RP says there is no cure for cancerNot quite true. RP says that cancers are largely benign in one fashion or another. There need not be aggressive treatment in most cases. In cases in which it is an aggressive and dangerous cancer, Robert says little to nothing about how to treat it at all.

Which leads directly to point two
- If there appears to be any cure from mainstream medicine, it is dismissed as an outcome that would have occurred naturally without intervention, or it wasn't a "real" cancer in the first place

This is indeed true, Robert has repeatedly challenged mainstream cancer treatments as dangerous and ineffective. Robert also seems to consider treatments and screening as the same thing.

Point threeErgo
-all alleged cancer treatments/cures are bogus. (i.e., the No True Scotsman fallacy [ad hoc revision])

Robert has indeed all but stated this in those exact words, having argued that cancer screenings and treatments are dangerous and not proven effective or ineffective. His is an arguement from ignorance going something like "cancer treatments cannot be proven to have saved lives therefore any other story about how cancers manage to go away is as valid"

Lastly
-But the summary appears to be "Mainstream Medicine = Bad," no matter what the topic is
Its a take off of the Monty Python skit in which one asks for an arguement in which the opponent simply takes a position contrary to yours no matter how stupid.

Congratulations. You have outdone JU in mis-representation and hyperbole. I've never asserted any of that junk. Questioned, yes. Asserted, no. You get the difference?

Nah!

[Hans]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

A gross misrepresentation. Typical Jay Utah hyperbole.

Sorry Robert but since you won't tell us what your position is - his representation stands.....so your response is baloney, dude

So why not just state what your position is? Oh that right, you're a troll

[Hans]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Congratulations. You have outdone JU Robert in mis-representation and hyperbole?

ftfy

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

A gross misrepresentation. Typical Jay Utah hyperbole.

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Congratulations. You have outdone JU in mis-representation and hyperbole. I've never asserted any of that junk. Questioned, yes. Asserted, no. You get the difference?

Nah!

Geez, obsess much?

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Actually, doctors (and dentists) DO give people cancer. X-rays, CT scans, Mammograms, radiation therapy, Chemotherapy all cause cancer. My deceased brother contracted cancer from chemo.

And

Cancers do cure themselves. Happens every day.

I believe that both points would be on topic.
.

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

No. I do not believe there is any cure for cancer, save what the human body cures all by itself. And I am suspicious of the claims of Modern Medicine that it's nostrums can and do cure cancer. But I do believe that when it comes to cancer, an ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure.

Quote:

I've never asserted any of that junk. Questioned, yes. Asserted, no. You get the difference?

Actually seems you did unless perhaps you were utilizing hyperbole in the above quotes.

Quote:

One has to presume that the cured cancer really was a cancer and not a pseudo-cancer or harmless non-spreading cancer and that the cure really was due to the therapy, and not due to nature, nor due to the Placebo effect. All that presumed, the 5 year number is increased the earlier the diagnosis, but if death occurs one day after 5 years, it's still considered and counted as a "cured" cancer. Maybe so. Maybe valid. But all that is a whole lot of presummin' since the diagnosis of many suspected cancers is often a guessing game for the doctors, pathologists and radiologists. Dr. H. Gilbert Welch points out there are three types of cancer, the fast growing deadly kind, the slow growing or not growing at all kind, and in the middle, a whole bunch that could be either.

This is a direct indication that you believe that most cancers are benign, in your words, pseudo-cancers or harmless cancers. If we have it all wrong, if we are using extremist language to describe your position then all you need do is TEL USS what your position actually is. You quote Mendelsohn for instance. How much do you agree and how much do you disagree with him?
I note as well that you would be doing a lot of presuming here, presuming that a cancer is benign and thus threatment was unlikely to have helped.Would you partake of surgey or chemo or radiation if you were diagnosed with any form of cancer Robert.

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Geez, obsess much?

I am of two minds in being directly compared to you. On the one hand although I consider myself quite knowledgable I do not believe myself to at your level thus making such a comparison a good thing.

On the other hand I would prefer if my posts stood for themselves.

Its like being compared to a jock validictorian older brother (though I believe I am the elder of the two of us).

[Hans]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Geez, obsess much?

Yeah Robert the Troll has become Robert the Troll wearing a I hate Jay tee-shirt and foaming at the mouth a bit..

Solution, mockery!

By the way Robert until you state differently this is your postion

Quote:

But the summary appears to be "Mainstream Medicine = Bad," no matter what the topic is.

[BazBear]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

Geez, obsess much?

I suspect most members of your anti-fan club just can't help themselves, Jay. They just can't seem to handle how eloquently and completely you demolish their arguments. Keep up the good work, and happy holidays!

[Hans]

Originally Posted by BazBear

I suspect most members of your anti-fan club just can't help themselves, Jay. They just can't seem to handle how eloquently and completely you demolish their arguments. Keep up the good work, and happy holidays!

Yeah I've been keeping track (of those threads I follow) right now the score is

Jay 149

Robert -17 (own goals)

[BazBear]

Originally Posted by Hans

Yeah I've been keeping track (of those threads I follow) right now the score is

Jay 149

Robert -17 (own goals)

And you're not even including all the goal moving disqualifications.

[Hans]

Originally Posted by BazBear

And you're not even including all the goal moving disqualifications.

Well the scorce board doesn't show display thousands

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by jaydeehess

Actually seems you did unless perhaps you were utilizing hyperbole in the above quotes.



This is a direct indication that you believe that most cancers are benign, in your words, pseudo-cancers or harmless cancers. If we have it all wrong, if we are using extremist language to describe your position then all you need do is TEL USS what your position actually is. You quote Mendelsohn for instance. How much do you agree and how much do you disagree with him?
I note as well that you would be doing a lot of presuming here, presuming that a cancer is benign and thus threatment was unlikely to have helped.Would you partake of surgey or chemo or radiation if you were diagnosed with any form of cancer Robert.

I do not address compound questions (one at a time, please) , but any person reading the four books I've cited will likely think twice before submitting to any exam or treatment.

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

I do not address compound questions (one at a time, please)

The forum has no such rule. Please answer any and all questions put to you regarding your claims or concede that you are unwilling to do so.

Quote:

but any person reading the four books I've cited will likely think twice before submitting to any exam or treatment.

Begging the question. Others have read your books and have come to somewhat different conclusions about them than you have. Kindly do not try to ram your interpretation down other people's throats. You have cited these works as documented support for your previous claims. Therefore you either endorse their findings as your claims in turn, or you owe the forum an explanation for why you cite authors who do not support your claims. Kindly provide one or other other.

The topic of the thread is the alleged existence of a secret cure for cancer. Try to stay on topic and make relevant posts.

[Hans]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

I do not address compound questions (one at a time, please)

Then you concede them - thanks for admiting you are wrong - yet again

[LSSBB]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

I do not address compound questions (one at a time, please) , but any person reading the four books I've cited will likely think twice before submitting to any exam or treatment.

I didn't know Chrysler was working on Transparent Dodges. Congratulations on being selected as a test driver.

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by JayUtah

The forum has no such rule. Please answer any and all questions put to you regarding your claims or concede that you are unwilling to do so.



Begging the question. Others have read your books and have come to somewhat different conclusions about them than you have. Kindly do not try to ram your interpretation down other people's throats. You have cited these works as documented support for your previous claims. Therefore you either endorse their findings as your claims in turn, or you owe the forum an explanation for why you cite authors who do not support your claims. Kindly provide one or other other.

The topic of the thread is the alleged existence of a secret cure for cancer. Try to stay on topic and make relevant posts.

And I have tried to illustrate that in my view there is absolutely no for sure universal cure for cancer, secret or otherwise. And that is the conspiracy foisted upon a gullible public by Modern Medicine. But these are not "conclusions" of the cited authors, either. If you had actually read the books you would know that. All these authors do is present the facts, pro and con, and raise questions. The conclusions are up to the reader.
The questions they raise are in my view, enough for anyone with an open mind, and a half a brain to think twice when considering exams or traditional treatment. That doesn't mean to never submit, but to just

THINK.

.

Surely, as a professed academic, how can you be opposed to thinking? Get it now?????

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by Hans

Yeah I've been keeping track (of those threads I follow) right now the score is

Jay 149

Robert -17 (own goals)

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

And I have tried to illustrate that in my view there is absolutely no for sure universal cure for cancer, secret or otherwise. And that is the conspiracy foisted upon a gullible public by Modern Medicine.

No, it isn't. "Modern Medicine" does not claim that there is, or is going to be, a "universal cure for cancer". That is just a strawman that you have set up in order to claim that there is a conspiracy.

[Hans]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

http://forums.randi.org/picture.php?...pictureid=6604

Now that's funny Robert - you don't even seem to know what 'sour grapes' means

Quote:

It refers to pretending not to care for something one wants, but does not or cannot have

So you are showing a sour grapes reaction to your constant defeat, failure to even troll properly, inability to debate but what you have been successfully at is being a source of amusement to all

lol

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

Congratulations. You have outdone JU in mis-representation and hyperbole. I've never asserted any of that junk. Questioned, yes. Asserted, no. You get the difference?

Nah!

Ah... the famous and yet unconvincing no denial denial.

[Hans]

Originally Posted by Craig4

Ah... the famous and yet unconvincing no denial denial.

Coming soon to this thread

Robert will deny denial of the denial

lol

[JayUtah]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey

And I have tried to illustrate that in my view there is absolutely no for sure universal cure for cancer, secret or otherwise.

Indeed. But you do this by equivocation, suggesting that no cure exists because there's no such thing as cancer in the sense we all (and most of your authors) intend. You redefine cancer to fit your belief about it. This is probably why you refuse to answer any question designed to test your knowledge about what cancer is.

Please tell us what you think cancer is.

Quote:

But these are not "conclusions" of the cited authors, either.

Indeed, on the subject of cancer most of your authors disagree with you -- when they discuss it at all. This is why we are asking you to justify having cited them in a thread about cancer. And the answer is to be found clear back in post #21 when you tried to derail the thread into a general "Let's bash mainstream medicine" rant.

Quote:

If you had actually read the books you would know that.

I have read them, and it's becoming increasingly obvious from your blatant cherry-picking and your unwillingness to discuss them in any depth, that you have not. You don't even recognize your own quotes from them, and you seem to be unaware of the many times they disagree with your claims about them.

Quote:

All these authors do is present the facts, pro and con, and raise questions. The conclusions are up to the reader.

No, the authors do indeed draw conclusions. Those conclusions have nothing to do with the topic of this thread, and you have disavowed them anyway. You simply harvested their books for the undocumented horror stories about mainstream medicine and are now trying to tap dance around the fact that the books don't say what you tell us they say, and that they have nothing to do with the subject of the thread. Yes, you, I, and other readers are free to disagree with the conclusions they draw, if we wish. That doesn't answer why you brought them up, and what argument pertinent to this thread you proposed to argue from them.

You're simply being asked to state an on-topic argument, if any. You can't do that. You just keep foaming.

Quote:

The questions they raise are in my view, enough for anyone with an open mind, and a half a brain to think twice when considering exams or traditional treatment.

Neither you nor your authors have shown that this isn't what already happens, and what has been happening for at least a decade or two. And since Welch is the only author who speaks in any suitable detail about cancer (and consequently the author you've spent the least time employing), none of the rest of that is relevant. We've endured a dozen pages of your misguided attempts to force-feed your irrelevant rant into another topic using authors whose conclusions you don't share and whose theses you are misappropriating.

Quote:

Surely, as a professed academic, how can you be opposed to thinking? Get it now?????

I'm not a professional academic. I never advocated not thinking. So kindly stop trying to stuff words in my mouth, as you have tried to do so many times before. Deal with the argument I made, not the one you wish I had. And I note that you are still personally obsessed with me, to a degree that others have also frankly noticed. Get help. Well, think twice and then get help.

[Robert Prey]

[quote=Hans;8872611]Now that's funny Robert - you don't even seem to know what 'sour grapes' means
/QUOTE]

No. In this case, It reflects the state of the loser who feels the need to cry "victory".

[dafydd]

[quote=Robert Prey;8872878]

Originally Posted by Hans

Now that's funny Robert - you don't even seem to know what 'sour grapes' means
/QUOTE]

No. In this case, It reflects the state of the loser who feels the need to cry "victory".

Stop crying ''victory'' then.

[Hans]

Quote:

No. In this case, It reflects the state of the loser who feels the need to cry "victory".

Very funny Robert, you've lost every single exchange you've engaged in to include shooting yourself in the foot numerous times.

You haven't won an argument yet but of course that'S not your purpose for being here now is it...but even at trolling you've failed - and you know why don't you <wink>


lol