[Yes, this long-term poster really is this dumb.]
23 comments
While there`s certainly much to be said about the evils of medical and quasi-medical corporations pushing the opiate pills, the Hursts wraith still hauting our civilisation to this day and the effectivenes of cannabis oil in destroying cancerous cells, the above is simply retarded gibberish.
100% naturalistic cures.
@heleninedinburgh
While his numbers are ridiculous, in the end the odds for a human being to get it are always 100%, barring the natural lifespan of our kind of course. The longer our lifespan, the closer one gets to these 100%. Without some miraculous solution a 1000 year old human would be comprised of more cancerous cells, than not.
" By 2001 the odds of getting Cancers was at 112% in the USA!"
I think that means 12% of people get cancer twice..
I didn't get any cancer yet. I'm so lucky.
By 2001 the odds of getting Cancers was at 112% in the USA!
112% chance of cancer means that not only will you definitely get it, but your neighbor might get it, too.
@Skidie
I didn't know that about cancer, but I was just wondering where the extra 12% came from - I don't have a huge lot of maths but it seems like it's saying that the odds of everyone in the world dying are 112% (rather than 100%*).
*which is another thing that pissed me off about this quote. If kids weren't dying from cancer in the 50s (and I'm not sure how many babies get cancer now anyway), they certainly died from plenty other things - polio was quite a popular one before THE EVIL VACCINES!!!and far fewer premature babies were saved. And if cancer is mainly something old people get, surely it just means they've managed to survive a long time without succumbing to any infectious disease/accident/war/whatever?
@heleninedinburgh
People always died of cancer, only for many centuries the cause could not be understood, as with many diseases and conditions. As I said, his percentage rates are absurd, specially in relation to any actual human beings, instead of hypotheticals.
Simply put, the longer you live, the bigger the odds, but as with all such things one will live to be over a hundred and never suffer the cellular mutations out of control till his natural death, while other will get a lung cancer at merely 30 years of age.
Cancer was indeed less of a problem "back in the day" but it was merely because people tended to live much shorter lives, on account of all the other now curable or even vanquished ills, much like polio. You`re right in this assumption.
ps. Babies usually don`t get the "it comes when it comes" type, but by all means they can be born with extremely deadly bone marrow disease, white blood cells deficency I believe it`s called(but I`m no medical specialist, so my terms might be off) which is a type of cancer one can get through heredity.
Stupid. Please give generously. Scientists are desperately searching for a cure, and they need your support.
Already we are making strides. Your dollars made it possible for our poster child here to master a keyboard. We're hoping some day he, or the other thousands like him, will produce a coherent thought on their keyboards. Won't you help?
By 2001 the odds of getting Cancers was at 112% in the USA!
That sounds reasonable.
a 100% all natural cure for all Cancers
Yup! It's called "death."
"By 2001 the odds of getting Cancers was at 112% in the USA!"
Wow, 112% huh? Sure you don't mean had increased by 112%? More people get cancer because a lot of the other stuff that used to kill people, such as infectious diseases, has had their mortality rate significantly decreased by medical science.
Cancer is also not a single disease but a range of diseases. That's what often makes it so hard to treat.
"By 2001 the odds of getting Cancers was at 112% in the USA!"
For your information: Cancer was known to Ancient Greek medicine (apparently, the way the veins leave a tumor cut open reminded them of the legs of a crab).
If Big Pharma only is "unable" to cure all cancers because PROFIT!, why are many cancers still fatal? Dead men buy no medicine. It would make more sense to turn cancer into a chronic illness so you can milk them for the rest of their natural lives (possibly gradually reducing side effects/improving quality of life to justify price increases).
And finally: "Big Pharma" is not a nebulous evil inhuman hive mind - it is composed of humans. Do you really think that no pharma executive, cancer researcher or oncologist ever lost a loved one, or even his/her own life, to cancer - or even worse, that every one of them would sacrifice their love and life for money?they don't want you to know the panacea" slander plays into those conspiracy theories according to which no famous person, no matter how old or unhealthy, could ever die a natural death, but instead must have been murdered - after all, if the Elites know how to cure all the diseases, they must be biologically immortal, and thus can only die via assassination)
@Pharaoh Bastethotep
While still technicaly not tested enough, certain types of cannabis oil do help a lot with some of these conditions, but it is by no means a miraculous cure. The Hursts wraith simply prevented us for many decades from using it to its full potential. Right now as I understand it, certain types of cancer can be reliably fought and destroyed with its use even in advanced stages and certainly it`s preferable to chemo or surgery but again, more tests are required(quite hard to get when in most countries it`s a controled substance) and it`s merely certain types that can be affected, not the problem itself, so to speak as some rastafarians would have folks believe.
*By Hursts wraith I mean the laws he influenced and their logical conclusion in Reagan`s war on all things psychoactive which included the cannabis plant. To clarify I do not believe we as citizens in a free, rights based society can be deprived of most drugs while some are clearly allowed by the"virtue" of tradition alone. Except the few natural ones we as a species simply cannot hold, like any opiate based stuff and some dealers personal "children" there can be no control other than that which already exists on alcohol and tobbaco to limit the usage of psychoactive substances. Anything else is tyranny and worse. We allow facebook and its contagious information bubble to exist uncontrolled, yet are made to believe if people were allowed to take whatever poison they wish without control and serious law made consequences, our precious civilisation shall collapse. To clarify, as an adult female of the age of about 30 in many countries I`m entitled to purchase deadly weaponry, which I could immidiately take to my head and end myself, yet I face literal torture in prison systems if I as much as wish to take a sniff of cocaine before sex, which from experience I know not to be in any sort deadly nor addictive enough to overwhelm my will./pet peeve off
In Sweden, it costs about 35 dollar to go to a specialist, and about half that to go to a general practitioner. Not much openings for greed there...
The longer we live, the higher the risk of getting cancer.
You do know the difference between lose and loose, right?
No doctor can retain his or her license if he/she harms or kills patients for fun, surely?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
