EPThttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4312930190281243507#
What is hidden from us: Cure for Cancer - Page 6
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
krispy
United States22 Posts
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4312930190281243507# | ||
|
Grend
1600 Posts
Good luck curing your cancer and different other illnesses with this wondercure! | ||
|
oni_link
Germany165 Posts
On April 08 2011 21:55 LonelyIslands wrote: Maybe we are the cancer? humans die, cancer doesnt. | ||
|
LonelyIslands
Canada590 Posts
Cells are the building blocks for a living organism are they not? Are cancer cells a foreign body looking for a host inside me or are they my own cells that have been mutated and changed by an outside factor, or on their own. So I guess only part of me dies? I also think you don't quite understand what I was saying.. | ||
|
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
Individual cancer cells die frequently but the rate of replication > rate of cell death. | ||
|
KarlSberg~
731 Posts
On April 08 2011 22:04 Grend wrote: I realize that for you to believe this you would have to have a world view so different from me that I seriously doubt we can debate this in a meaningful fashion. Therefore I will not even try. Good luck curing your cancer and different other illnesses with this wondercure! Agreed. I'm guessing most people defending that miracle cure are trolling though. The article in OP is a laughable mix of conspiracy theories and scientific bullshit made up to impress uneducated people. People using sick people's dispair to scam them is nothing new but still, it is sad. | ||
|
kataa
United Kingdom384 Posts
On April 08 2011 22:04 Grend wrote: I realize that for you to believe this you would have to have a world view so different from me that I seriously doubt we can debate this in a meaningful fashion. Therefore I will not even try. Good luck curing your cancer and different other illnesses with this wondercure! So true, if you're willing to go this far down the rabbit hole I'm not sure you can stop anywhere. Anyone interested in solid explanations with testable outcomes is going to be left scratching their head in wonder. I'm surprised by how consistently these threads pop up. 9/11 conspiracy, HIV denial, Zeitgeist, 'Big Pharms' wants us dead. I'm surprised there still has been no thread on the Hollow Earth theory (and the possibility that the nazis escaped there with special technology after the end of WW2.) | ||
|
Vain
Netherlands1115 Posts
No two species of molecule have the same electromagnetic oscillations or energetic signature Does he mean that for an example 2 water molecules have different electromagnetic oscillations or energetic signature becouse i don't see that happening anytime soon. If he means 2 different molecules have different oscillations or energetic signature i can live with that but it still woulnd be very helpfull in curing cancer becouse cancer cells are made up from the same molecules as our own cells Resonance amplifies light in the same way two ocean waves intensify each other when they merge together How does that work. Does the beam become stronger or does it converge the light beams in one point? I thought resonance worked with waves. (well you can see light as waves or as photon particles  ) | ||
|
n00b3rt
Bulgaria890 Posts
| ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5296 Posts
there was no important leap in science that came with the proof (first). even einsteins theory on gravity bending light, took years to prove. scientists were supposed to have an open mind about everything so what the fuck is this ridicule?. i doubt it helps science. certain frequencies can rupture human organs, burn the skin, cause internal bleedings and so on. go from there and use your imagination ffs because its always the idea that comes first and then the proof. so how about you shift the discussion into: what would it take to make this theory a little more practical?. dissmis whats proven wrong and fill in the gaps with whats needed. | ||
|
LonelyIslands
Canada590 Posts
On April 08 2011 22:12 xM(Z wrote: its kinda lame that most of the people in here object to the 'visionary' part of this. there was no important leap in science that came with the proof (first). even einsteins theory on gravity bending light, took years to prove. scientists were supposed to have an open mind about everything so what the fuck is this ridicule?. i doubt it helps science. certain frequencies can rupture human organs, burn the skin, cause internal bleedings and so on. go from there and use your imagination ffs because its always the idea that comes first and then the proof. so how about you shift the discussion into: what would it take to make this theory a little more practical?. dissmis whats proven wrong and fill in the gaps with whats needed. You know what is needed? The ability to recognize and eliminate every carcinogen in the human body effectively. Once you can do that, you can cure cancer. | ||
|
GreEny K
Germany7312 Posts
On April 08 2011 22:10 ZeaL. wrote: Individual cancer cells die frequently but the rate of replication > rate of cell death. And once the host dies, don't the cancer cells die as well? Anyway, I hate that people belittle anyone that posts threads like this. The research does not go with what todays scientists believe, we all know that, but there is no reason to dismiss it and call people stupid for believing this stuff. I like the idea and that this takes a different approach to the outlook on cancer and treatment. People who are just posting to say it's stupid, you might as well not post... If you don't have something meaningful or intelligent to say don't say anything at all -_- On April 08 2011 22:12 xM(Z wrote: its kinda lame that most of the people in here object to the 'visionary' part of this. there was no important leap in science that came with the proof (first). even einsteins theory on gravity bending light, took years to prove. scientists were supposed to have an open mind about everything so what the fuck is this ridicule?. i doubt it helps science. certain frequencies can rupture human organs, burn the skin, cause internal bleedings and so on. go from there and use your imagination ffs because its always the idea that comes first and then the proof. so how about you shift the discussion into: what would it take to make this theory a little more practical?. dissmis whats proven wrong and fill in the gaps with whats needed. This is pretty much a more well thought out response of what I am thinking. | ||
|
LonelyIslands
Canada590 Posts
On April 08 2011 22:14 GreEny K wrote: And once the host dies, don't the cancer cells die as well? Anyway, I hate that people belittle anyone that posts threads like this. The research does not go with what todays scientists believe, we all know that, but there is no reason to dismiss it and call people stupid for believing this stuff. I like the idea and that this takes a different approach to the outlook on cancer and treatment. People who are just posting to say it's stupid, you might as well not post... If you don't have something meaningful or intelligent to say don't say anything at all -_- Not necessarily, there was a woman who had cancer. The cancer, or some of it, was removed and placed in a pi-tree dish? Many years later it had evolved to a point where it was a species/organism? (i really dont know the correct word for this) of its own. I don't remember the case study, I remember learning about it in biology. Possibly someone else has information on this. | ||
|
vyyye
Sweden3917 Posts
On April 08 2011 21:59 Elegy wrote: Is that a real conspiracy theory? That's actually amazing! That's deep. I read something about it in some shitty book that wasn't even related to conspiracy theories. Here's something about a supposed Nazi base http://www.scribd.com/doc/25311/Hitlers-Antarctic-Base-the-Myth-and-the-Reality I found after a quick google search, I think it might just debunk it but yeah. You can also just google "Hitler UFO alive" or someshit, bound to come up with something. People are dumb. | ||
|
FranzP
France270 Posts
On April 08 2011 22:12 xM(Z wrote: its kinda lame that most of the people in here object to the 'visionary' part of this. there was no important leap in science that came with the proof (first). even einsteins theory on gravity bending light, took years to prove. scientists were supposed to have an open mind about everything so what the fuck is this ridicule?. i doubt it helps science. certain frequencies can rupture human organs, burn the skin, cause internal bleedings and so on. go from there and use your imagination ffs because its always the idea that comes first and then the proof. so how about you shift the discussion into: what would it take to make this theory a little more practical?. dissmis whats proven wrong and fill in the gaps with whats needed. Yeah it took years to prove that gravity bend light, but it was done rather easily by observing a solar eclipse. The theory showed in the OP hasn't been validated or taken into interest by scientist since the 30ies... It's not being narrow minded to say that this is just not valid from a scientific point of view. And maybe the guy really believed he cured cancer 70 years ago, but's it's not the governments who shut his theories down it's just that his theories are wrong. | ||
|
kataa
United Kingdom384 Posts
On April 08 2011 22:14 GreEny K wrote: Anyway, I hate that people belittle anyone that posts threads like this. The research does not go with what todays scientists believe, we all know that, but there is no reason to dismiss it and call people stupid for believing this stuff. Actually, there is. You see some of us believe that ideas like 'bad explanations', 'testable outcomes', 'growth of knowledge' are responsible for most of the progress human beings have made since the enlightenment. When someone posts a thread, with no peer review, justfied by only one giant cui bono against the medical establishment as it's only driving force - expect ridicule. Half of us are dumb founded by your standards of justification and reasonably so. If I made a post "I'm better than Idra, it's just he wont take the time to play me" and I'm a bronze leaguer. No one in their right mind should say "Yeah, Idra won't take the risk in playing with him, think of the humiliation if he lost." People should say "shut the hell up and stop making stupid posts." | ||
|
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
On April 08 2011 22:14 GreEny K wrote: And once the host dies, don't the cancer cells die as well? Yep. Unless they can somehow transfer themselves to another host. Kind of a sad analogy of what will happen with humanity and earth. | ||
|
KarlSberg~
731 Posts
On April 08 2011 22:26 ZeaL. wrote: Yep. Unless they can somehow transfer themselves to another host. Kind of a sad analogy of what will happen with humanity and earth. Cancer is not contagious. If a tumor were to be transplanted to another host, it would be destroyed by the imune system. | ||
|
ZeaL.
United States5955 Posts
On April 08 2011 22:29 KarlSberg~ wrote: Cancer is not contagious. If a tumor were to be transplanted to another host, it would be destroyed by the imune system. I know but if you were to transplant a tumor from one person to another it would grow. Thats all I'm saying. Edit: You're right, I was thinking of nude/genetically identical mice. | ||
|
KarlSberg~
731 Posts
On April 08 2011 22:30 ZeaL. wrote: I know but if you were to transplant a tumor from one person to another it would grow. Thats all I'm saying. Edit: well yes, for identical twins/clones, that would indeed work  | ||
| ||
