You must be a scientist.....clearly using more than 20%.....

Still comes down to the luck of the draw?

I have known people in there 90's smoked & drank all there lives and died of old age, yet 6 month old babies developed cancer?

I put it down too s**t happens?

Cancer conspiracy theory? Seems to have a lot in common with other conspiracy theories.

Is There a Conspiracy to Suppress Cancer Cures?

[QUOTE=JCL;905324]Cancer conspiracy theory? Seems to have a lot in common with other conspiracy theories.



REALLY???? Written by an MD. Wow, could've never guessed. :rolleyes:

Well JCL, just keep believing in the establishment...who are KNOWN liars. I'm sure they want to keep you safe and healthy.

Don't forget...BAD DRUGS prescribed by MD's are the NUMBER 1 cause of death in the USA. But, they have family and loved ones...so, I'm sure they'd NEVER let their own family members take those drugs. But wait, I happen to know several that will not allow their family to take any meds that they prescribe. Yeah, what's good for you is not good for their own family.:bustingup

Nice try JCL :rolleyes:

You are quick to dismiss the author. Did you check out his CV before you lumped him in with all the other doctors you believe are crooks and frauds? You think he represents the establishment?

Take a look. Stephen Barrett, M.D. Biographical Sketch

/rant
/resume tinfoil hat protective shield. :rofl:

From Wiki...

Barrett has become a "lightning rod" for controversy as a result of his criticisms of alternative medicine theories and practitioners. Barrett says he does not criticize conventional medicine because that would be "way outside [his] scope."[16][25] He states he does not give equal time to some subjects, and has written on his web site that "Quackery and fraud don't involve legitimate controversy and are not balanced subjects. I don't believe it is helpful to publish 'balanced' articles about unbalanced subjects."[26] Barrett is at the forefront of exposing questionable aspects of chiropractic.[2

A number of practitioners and supporters of alternative medicine oppose Barrett and Quackwatch for its criticism of alternative medicine.[25][29] Donna Ladd, a journalist with The Village Voice, says Barrett relies mostly on negative research to criticize alternative medicine, rejecting most positive case studies as unreliable due to methodological flaws. She further writes that Barrett insists that most alternative therapies simply should be disregarded without further research. "A lot of things don't need to be tested [because] they simply don't make any sense," he says, pointing to homeopathy, chiropractic, and acupuncture as examples of alternative treatments with no plausible mechanism of action.


AGAIN...REALLY???? Another useful idiot for the establishment. It's all about deflection and ad homonyms.

I don't pretend to have all the answers...but, at least I know what questions to be asking.
You've completely ignored the fact that our food, water and air are being poisoned. I would think that any rational person would question...why.
Anyway, I feel sorry for you JCL. You seem so content in the way things are. Trying to make people like myself seem like wild crazy conspiracy theorists. It's not working anymore JCL. Those days are over. People are waking up and asking the hard questions.
JCL, did you spend all day trying to pull up some kind of bs article written by an MD that admits he "does not criticize conventional medicine because that would be way outside his scope".

I generally like a good debate. But, can't help but think that you're just looking for ways to call me crazy. So, have it your way...stick your head firmly in the sand. But know this...with your head in the sand...you're on your knees...bowing to tyranny...and in a perfect position to get your ass raped!:thumbup:

By "rabbit hole" do you mean any particular hallucinogenic substance?

The shortcomings of using a solar system model to describe particles that behave as waves. Energy states. Quantum mechanics. Relativity. String theory.

This could be a really long thread. ;)

Here is a question to ask.

You started off with a rant about big companies making a profit off of health issues. When I referenced an individual that runs a non profit consumer education organization fighting that problem, you called him an idiot working for the establishment.

How do you reconcile those two positions? It seems to me that he is working to help educate people.

I'm up way past my bedtime. Last response tonight from me..."Barrett says he does not criticize conventional medicine because that would be "way outside [his] scope."[16][25] He states he does not give equal time to some subjects, and has written on his web site that "Quackery and fraud don't involve legitimate controversy and are not balanced subjects. I don't believe it is helpful to publish 'balanced' articles about unbalanced subjects."[26] Barrett is at the forefront of exposing questionable aspects of chiropractic.[27]"

Hmm, doesn't criticize conventional medicine? Why? It's "way outside of [his] scope". You mentioned that he's non-profit? I'm too tired...but, is it a 501-c3...tax exempt by any chance? I'll look into it tomorrow for sure.

I'm done for the night JCL. Thanks for playing!

I'll address your other post...no to hallucinogenics...I'm not pretending to have any...let alone all the answers with quantum physics...I do find it a bit intriguing. I will attempt to educate myself with both sides of the argument.

Good night.

Yes, we are poisoning our water and air. And our oceans. I think it is because we as a society haven't figured out the consequences of our actions, or how to develop the political will to do something about it. Take climate change...there are still disbelievers, despite the scientific consensus.

That doesn't make me content to accept things. I'm debating with you, aren't I?

And you know that Sheryl Crow doesn't have brain cancer, don't you? And that she is probably not very qualified to determine a causal link between radio frequencies and cancer, given the distinction between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation? Why would you accept her comments on a talk show as proof, or even as a credible theory? It is another example of people not applying critical thinking skills. Not just you, lots of people. But you quote her comments as if they are founded on some logical basis.

And how about if we cut the rape comments? They have no place in a debate.