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.
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?
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.
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".
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?
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