Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Breast Cancer Cells: Death By Peaches, Plums
Quote:
Breast cancer cells – even the most aggressive type – died after treatments with peach and plum extracts in lab tests at Texas AgriLife Research recently, and scientists say the results are deliciously promising. Not only did the cancerous cells keel over, but the normal cells were not harmed in the process. AgriLife Research scientists say two phenolic compounds are responsible for the cancer cell deaths in the study, which was published in the Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry. The phenols are organic compounds that occur in fruits. They are slightly acidic and may be associated with traits such as aroma, taste or


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Cool, if it works in the real world. Curing cancer in a petri dish is easy - the real world is quite another thing. Can the compounds be given at doses that are not toxic, what are the side effects, do the drugs even have the capacity to cross the blood stream and get into the tumor?

In my fridges and freezers at work we have - literally - thousands of compounds that kill cancer in petri dishes. Only a tiny handful - maybe 1:100 - actually work in the human body, and most of those are too toxic or too ineffective to make a useful therapeutic.

Curing cancer - or any disease - in a petri dish is easy. Patients are another ball game. Phenolics represent a huge family of potentially useful compounds, but I wouldn't go and hang my hat on any one just yet.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Cool, if it works in the real world. Curing cancer in a petri dish is easy - the real world is quite another thing. Can the compounds be given at doses that are not toxic, what are the side effects, do the drugs even have the capacity to cross the blood stream and get into the tumor?



why dont you look it up , heres a good place to start

Quote:
Curing cancer - or any disease - in a petri dish is easy. Patients are another ball game. Phenolics represent a huge family of potentially useful compounds, but I wouldn't go and hang my hat on any one just yet.



I have read that there are doctors who are silently treating cancer patients with non conventional remedies such as homeopathic treatments that have been found to cure cancer.

and with good results far better than todays mainstream treatments.

the problem for the most part is that the medical industry does not try to cure diseases they only want to control the desease.

this way more money can be made off of the patients.


more info on this here



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: paul
I have read that there are doctors who are silently treating cancer patients with non conventional remedies such as homeopathic treatments that have been found to cure cancer.


Did you hear it - that sound was the last of your scientific credibility beating a hasty retreat.

Keep in mind - if homeopathy is real, every time you drink a cup of water, the water remembers being shite.

Bryan

Last edited by ImagingGeek; 06/12/10 08:57 PM.

UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Did you hear it - that sound was the last of your scientific credibility beating a hasty retreat.


No bryan

I didnt hear it.

and I dont see it as a credibility issue , I see it as
a way to save lives.

If your hearing noises or voices there may even be a homeopathic cure or treatment for that also , you should look into it.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
Did you hear it - that sound was the last of your scientific credibility beating a hasty retreat.


No bryan

I didnt hear it.

and I dont see it as a credibility issue , I see it as
a way to save lives.


There are thousands of known cases where homeopathy has been known to take lives - usually through convincing patients not to continue with life-saving therapies.

in contrast, not one trial - including trials organized by homeopathic organizations - have ever found any benefit beyond placebo effects.

Take, for example:
Ernst E (2002). "A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy". Br J Clin Pharmacol 54 (6): 577–582.

Reality is simple:
1) Homeopathic preparations are unlikely to contain a single molecule of the diluted agent,

2) Even the purest water will have contaminants at far higher concentrations than even the best-case scenario for the homeopathic "agent",

3) There is no scientifically valid basis to their claims - notably that "like cures like" and the water "remembers" things diluted in it.

Its pure hokum - nothing more than a scam to get money out of stupid people.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Entirely true, ImagingGeek - except that I don't think all the victims are necessarily stupid. There are other reasons for financing the unscrupulous, e.g. (1) underexposure to the science and overexposure to misinformation; (2) reason is stonewalled by the tendency to believe in myth and magic before reality whenever the latter is less attractive. Still, stupidity or not, it all adds up to the glee and delight of quacks, racketeers, and their respective bank managers.


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
K
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
K
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 1,100
The funny thing is where there might be something to it, they steer clear of uncovering that.

There's a diagnostic technique where you put a piece of food on the patient's stomach, and their automatic response tells whether it's good or bad for them.

I can imagine it might actually work by smelling or seeing the food and that'll affect your feelings, just as you'd feel sick looking at an icecream after golloping down a 2l tub of it.

But they've found a way to save costs. Put small samples of the food in sealed vials instead! Well if it worked at all before it'll work even less afterwards.

Reminds me of the diluted water. If it might've worked, adjust it till you're sure it can't!

Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: redewenur
Entirely true, ImagingGeek - except that I don't think all the victims are necessarily stupid. There are other reasons for financing the unscrupulous, e.g. (1) underexposure to the science and overexposure to misinformation; (2) reason is stonewalled by the tendency to believe in myth and magic before reality whenever the latter is less attractive.


To me, the above would qualify as stupid (maybe "uneducated" would be a better word?)...no one's ever accused me of being a nice guy wink

The ones (snake-oil salesmen, not victims) that really piss me off are the ones who specialize on preying on the desperate - the guys/gals who target cancer patients, people with terminal diseases, people who have kids with genetic disorders like autism, etc. Its one thing to take money from the stupid and gullible - that is the heart of advertising after all. Its quite another to use false hope to drain the bank accounts of those in dire situations.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: kallog
The funny thing is where there might be something to it, they steer clear of uncovering that.


Probably because their clinical trial failure rate currently stands at 100%. That's not exactly a record they want to be adding to.

The one thing that people often misunderstand is the difference between so-called "alternate" medicine and real medicine - once something has been shown to work it becomes real medicine, and in many nations it is illegal for registered pharmaceutical companies to produce compounds that have not passed clinical trials. A small number of "naturopathic" compounds have been found to actually do something - the list is short, but revealing: ginger for nausea, melatonin for jet lag, and ginseng fuyranols (sold as coldFx) for colds, have all been shown in proper clinical trials to have beneficial effects, with reasonable side-effects and toxicities.

All three of those are manufactured and sold by major pharma companies.

If there was one iota of truth to homeopathy you can guarantee that the major drug companies would have patented concoctions of their own, which they would aggressively market to the public.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Originally Posted By: ImageingGeek
no one's ever accused me of being a nice guy


wether you are nice or not has nothing to do with how

stupid you are.

But to prove your personal stupidity or lack of stupidity.

you have said that :

Quote:
There are thousands of known cases where homeopathy has been known to take lives - usually through convincing patients not to continue with life-saving therapies.


since this thread concerns peach and plumb extracts please
post a link to information that these take lives.

and since these are expiremental extracts that may not have been tested on paitients you can post links
showing that vitamin B17 found in peach seeds and appricott seeds have taken lives as they are a current homeopathic treatment for cancer.

then to balance out your findings , please post a link to the number of lives taken by common treatments.

this will help the readers to understand your side of
the discussion other than you just offering lip service.

Quote:
A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy


LOL
worldwide:
7.6 million people are diagnosed with cancer each year.
7.3 million people die of cancer each year.

it doesnt look like the current medical practices are
doing such a great job.


Yes, and that's where the kemotherapy concept leads of course they piss you off , but they
make loads of money doing it - join the club.

no thanks.

I doubt they could make so much money selling
you a few appricott seeds each week , no naturaly there
not going to admit that homeopathic methods actually do work.








3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
R
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
R
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted By: ImagingGeek
Originally Posted By: redewenur
...(2) reason is stonewalled by the tendency to believe in myth and magic before reality whenever the latter is less attractive.

...The ones (snake-oil salesmen, not victims) that really piss me off are the ones who specialize on preying on the desperate


Yes, and that's where the homeopathy concept leads; of course they piss you off - join the club.

(No, on second thoughts, I won't mention religion)


"Time is what prevents everything from happening at once" - John Wheeler
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
There are thousands of known cases where homeopathy has been known to take lives - usually through convincing patients not to continue with life-saving therapies.


since this thread concerns peach and plumb extracts please
post a link to information that these take lives.

LOL, paul, dishonestly quoting people again, are we? That reply was clearly in response to your statement in post 34938, notably:

I have read that there are doctors who are silently treating cancer patients with non conventional remedies such as homeopathic treatments that have been found to cure cancer.

That statement is simply false. There is zero evidence homeopathy works, and a lot of evidence it causes harm.

These extracts, btw, are not homeopathic treatments - so why you brought up homeopathy in the first place is a mystery known only to you...

Originally Posted By: paul
and since these are expiremental extracts that may not have been tested on paitients you can post links showing that vitamin B17 found in peach seeds and appricott seeds have taken lives as they are a current homeopathic treatment for cancer.

B17 is not a homeopathic treatment for cancer, but rather a naturopathic one. Maybe you should learn what the difference is before you start making silly claims like these.

B17 isn't experimental either - it was thoroughly tested in the 1970's and early 1980's.

And its well established that B17, does not cure cancer - not that those facts keeps naturopaths from needlessly "prescribing" it:
Ellison NM, et al (1978). "Special report on Laetrile: the NCI Laetrile Review. Results of the National Cancer Institute's retrospective Laetrile analysis". N. Engl. J. Med. 299 (10): 549–52.

Moertel CG, et al. (1981). "A pharmacologic and toxicological study of amygdalin". JAMA 245 (6): 591–4. doi:10.1001/jama.245.6.591.


Moertel CG, et al. (1982). "A clinical trial of amygdalin (Laetrile) in the treatment of human cancer". N. Engl. J. Med. 306 (4): 201–6. doi:10.1007/s00520-006-0168-9.


Originally Posted By: paul

then to balance out your findings , please post a link to the number of lives taken by common treatments.


Why not use a useful metric, like improvements in cancer survival, based on medical methodology used:

Modern Medicine:
[img]http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/104535482/nfig002[/img]

The image doesn't show up well - follow the link. It shows the big drop in cancer mortality over the past 70-ish years...

Naturopathy and Homeopathy: there was no homeopathic remedy that was demonstrated to yield clinical effects that are convincingly different from placebo

Originally Posted By: paul

worldwide:
7.6 million people are diagnosed with cancer each year.
7.3 million people die of cancer each year.

it doesnt look like the current medical practices are
doing such a great job.


Getting cancer data from natural "news" is like asking a blind man what colour your shirt is. If you think they're a valid source, then I have a bridge for sale...

Maybe try some real statistics:

USA cancer stats, 2009 AND USA Cancer Stats, estimated, 2010,


Year | New Cases | Deaths | Cure Rate
2009 | 1,479,350 | 562,320 | 61.98%
2010 | 1,529,560 | 569,490 | 62.76% (est)


In 2008, world wide, there was an estimated 7.57 million deaths each year, and an estimated 12.68 million new cases. That's a international cure rate of 40%.

Bryan

Last edited by ImagingGeek; 06/16/10 11:18 PM.

UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
I have read that there are doctors who are silently treating cancer patients with non conventional remedies such as homeopathic treatments that have been found to cure cancer.


Yes , I did read it. even though you claim that I didnt.

Quote:
And its well established that B17, does not cure cancer


by who? the companies that sell cancer medicines?
or cancer treatments?

Quote:
Getting cancer data from natural "news" is like asking a blind man what colour your shirt is. If you think they're a valid source, then I have a bridge for sale...

Maybe try some real statistics:


sort of like the way you also believe that newton was a idiot.
my believing ANYTHING you say is based on the other things you say.

I find the other things you say unbelievable , your credibility has been shot as far as Im concerned.

I will admit that I posted the wrong number "the 7.6 million diagnosed each year"

but I can admit that because I found that I was wrong.
unlike yourself finding that you are wrong then hiding behind newtons shirtales spouting misconcieved lies based on his work.

all the while newton telling you your wrong with his original wording.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
I have read that there are doctors who are silently treating cancer patients with non conventional remedies such as homeopathic treatments that have been found to cure cancer.


Yes , I did read it. even though you claim that I didnt.

I never made the claim that you did not read it, paul. I simply pointed out the claim - wherever it is written - is false.

Quote:
And its well established that B17, does not cure cancer


by who? the companies that sell cancer medicines?
Nope, by publically funded researchers, such as myself, who are paid by the gov to seek out therapies, even if the research itself isn't economically viable.

You don't think drug companies do any *real* research - do you?

Quote:
Getting cancer data from natural "news" is like asking a blind man what colour your shirt is. If you think they're a valid source, then I have a bridge for sale...

Maybe try some real statistics:


sort of like the way you also believe that newton was a idiot.[/quote]
LOL, lying about my claims again, are we. Newton was a genius - its not my fault you cannot understand what he discovered.

Doesn't change the fact that:
1) Your "stats" from natural "news" were fraudulent,
2) You clearly don't understand the difference between homeopathy and naturopathy (although both are quackery),
3) We (as in modern medicine) do quite well treating many forms of previously lethal cancer, and
4) There is not one single naturopathic/homeopathic treatment that's been shown to improve cancer survival.

Quote:

my believing ANYTHING you say is based on the other things you say.

And therein, paul, lies your problem. Science isn't about what you believe - beliefs (i.e. hypothesis) are a dime a dozen, and 99% are wrong. Nor is science about the messenger - the most nobel of scientists can be wrong, and the most ignobel correct, from time-to-time. Science is about what you can prove to be true.

I provided direct quantification of cancer incidence, mortality, long-term trends, and analysis of the impact of modern medical techniques verses homeopathy/naturopathy on all of the above.

Those external proofs are evidence that what I said is factual.

In contrast, you're "proof" is "I read somewhere", and "I don't like you, so I'll disregard whatever you said".

Quote:
I find the other things you say unbelievable , your credibility has been shot as far as Im concerned.

But you shouldn't believe anything I - or anyone else - says on face value. You should demand evidence, proof of claim, citation, etc - that is how science works.

Now, I provided that evidence, via citations to analysis conducted by others.

What is your "opinion" on that data?

Quote:
I will admit that I posted the wrong number "the 7.6 million diagnosed each year"

but I can admit that because I found that I was wrong.
unlike yourself finding that you are wrong then hiding behind newtons shirtales spouting misconcieved lies based on his work.

Paul, you're wrong about newton and his laws. I don't know why you're in such denial - that you're wrong is self-evident, both in the way Newton phrased his own laws (in which he clearly states external forces - impressae), and in the simple fact that enough perpetual motion devices like yours have been shown to not work.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Paul, you're wrong about newton and his laws. I don't know why you're in such denial - that you're wrong is self-evident, both in the way Newton phrased his own laws (in which he clearly states external forces - impressae), and in the simple fact that enough perpetual motion devices like yours have been shown to not work.


bryan it is you that is wrong about newtons laws , its clear that he wasnt a idot like you think he is , on the contrary
he was smart.

you are denying his laws because you think they are being violated when they are not.

Quote:
Newton phrased his own laws (in which he clearly states external forces - impressae)


impressae
does not translate into external.
dummy.

it translates into press or to press

nothing external there , dummy.

heres the latin:
Lex I: Corpus omne perseverare in statu suo quiescendi vel movendi uniformiter in directum, nisi quatenus a viribus
impressis cogitur statum illum mutare.

impressis thorough consideration to stand that change

nothing external there either , dummy.


can you show where impressis means external?

can you show where any of the above means external?

no you cant , because none of the above can translate into external.

and the closest word in the 1st law that could be translated into force is impressis.

dummy.


heres the translation:

a body will preserve in its state stiched in place and will move in its uniform direction , if not pressed through consideration to stand that change









3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I see paul, that you've used Newton as an out to avoid the thread-relevant questions I poised to you.

What's the matter - too scared to answer them, or are you simply unwilling to admit that you cannot support your claim that homeopathy is even vaguely valid as a medical methodology?

Impressae, but the way, literally translates to "impress upon" - upon, as in outside. Outside = external, dummy.

Bryan


UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Impressae, but the way, literally translates to "impress upon" - upon, as in outside. Outside = external, dummy.


no press upon does not mean outside , dummer than I , it means
press upon.

latin has words for outside also they are --> outer, foreign, outside , foris, extra, foras, extraneus, externus

so why wouldnt newton have used the latin words normaly used for outside or external , do you think he was just trying to get your goat?

maybe he was afraid of the inquisition ?

he was illiterate?

I think he would have used the word externus dont you?

I think he said what he meant , all you other dummys changed what he said to fit your thinking , if thats what you call it.

call it newtons revenge.
for using his work to accomplish so many lies.
and for educating or creating so many stupid people.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
I
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
I
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 410
Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
Impressae, but the way, literally translates to "impress upon" - upon, as in outside. Outside = external, dummy.


no press upon does not mean outside , dummer than I , it means
press upon.

latin has words for outside also they are --> outer, foreign, outside.



I see you're still cowering away from answering the thread-related questions. The fact you do not understand latin doesn't change that.

Commune hoc ignorantiae vitium est: quae nescias, nequicquam esse profiteri, so ascendo tuum

Bryan

Last edited by ImagingGeek; 06/17/10 09:14 PM.

UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
I see you're still cowering away from answering the thread-related questions.


no , dummy I was just letting you know that you dont know anything other than lies.

and Im not the one publicly displaying my ignorance in public
that trait is yours alone in this thread as is in many others.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5