|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 07 2016 07:32 Nyxisto wrote:
It's not true though that we've not become more efficient at producing environment friendly goods, we have improved a lot. Just look at the advances in the solar industry over the last ten years. We can produce energy at much lower ecological cost now
Pull up google maps and take a look at the whole world.
Look at the deserts and how they have grown,Now look how the world is run on short term profits and prospects.
It is very easy to see where we will be 200-300 years from now by just looking at google maps and the deserts.
It will be a wasteland.
We are growing the population while we are shrinking the earths capacity to provide for that population.
Sooner or later they will cross eachoter.
|
On April 07 2016 10:34 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2016 07:32 Nyxisto wrote:
It's not true though that we've not become more efficient at producing environment friendly goods, we have improved a lot. Just look at the advances in the solar industry over the last ten years. We can produce energy at much lower ecological cost now Pull up google maps and take a look at the whole world. Look at the deserts and how they have grown,Now look how the world is run on short term profits and prospects. It is very easy to see where we will be 200-300 years from now by just looking at google maps and the deserts. It will be a wasteland. We are growing the population while we are shrinking the earths capacity to provide for that population. Sooner or later they will cross eachoter.
I know what you're trying to say--but that's not what Google Map is saying, like in the least bit.
|
On April 07 2016 10:04 Lord Tolkien wrote:As above, the primary destruction of infrastructure in former colonial countries was socio-political. If you can get a copy of it, or borrow it from either a university or public library, "Citizen and Subject:
Contemporary Africa and the Legacy of Late Colonialism", by Mahmood Mamdani ( here) is perhaps one of the greatest books on the subject.
It appears to be online.
|
Only the first 80 pages of it.
|
|
|
The moonshot analogy never made sense because what they did was stretch the engineering to its limits and in reality created fairly unsafe products that managed to get the job done, but much of the success was in luck as shown by how frequently tragedies ended up happening after the initial successes.
What does a moonshot for cancer look like? Giving people way more chemo and radiation than are prescribed.
|
can we like... not advocate the websites of con artists who try to cure cancer with food? I'm pretty sure this woman does not possess a legitimate PhD or Dr
|
On April 07 2016 12:34 Nyxisto wrote:can we like... not advocate the websites of con artists who try to cure cancer with food? I'm pretty sure this woman does not possess a legitimate PhD or Dr
I'd be careful. When i read briefly up on it (and checked the links he provided), it pretty quickly dawned on me that first, you didn't check at all, and second, it actually might have more merit than you'd think.
But for that to see, you'd need to understand that the lady (and other scientists, actually working at the university of quebec for example) doesn't try to cure cancer with food, but supplement the cancer treatment.
Which, apparently, at least looks promising if i were to believe medscape articles.
edit:
Calorie restriction has been shown in murine models of breast cancer to repress tumor growth in an additive manner during radiation therapy.
From medscape. Now, if you show me a person that actually states "i can heal cancer with some appleseeds, drinking milk and stuff", i'd be with you, it's idiotic. Food alone by itself will not cure cancer. But as a supplement, i don't see a reason why it shouldn't or wouldn't work.
|
The American state university has apparently been closed by authorities because it was a degree mill and relocated to the Bahamas, Holistic nutrition isn't even a science, and the "Bauman college" doesn't seem to be a real college either but some kind of glorified cooking school. I'm pretty sure using fake academic titles is some form of fraud. I'm also sure she mentions "conventional medicine" only so she doesn't get sued when someone isn't cured by her 'treatment'.
This person has no credibility to give you medical or nutritional advice, especially not if you're suffering from cancer.
|
On April 07 2016 12:57 Nyxisto wrote:The American state university has apparently been closed by authorities because it was a degree mill and relocated to the Bahamas, Holistic nutrition isn't even a science, and the "Bauman college" doesn't seem to be a real college either but some kind of glorified cooking school. I'm pretty sure using fake academic titles is some form of fraud. I'm also sure she mentions "conventional medicine" only so she doesn't get sued when someone isn't cured by her 'treatment'. This person has no credibility to give you medical or nutritional advice, especially not if you're suffering from cancer.
I concur, she might be a con artist.
That still doesn't change the fact that there's others, actual scientists, agreeing with the essence of what she was.. "promoting", lets say.
Food does help with cancer treatment. Again, not by itself, obviously - but overall (edit: as a supplement to actual treatment), it does.
|
United States44439 Posts
Wouldn't any pseudo medical regimen? By giving a bunch of goals which are artificially restricting but entirely achievable with a little effort and willpower you not only narrow your test sample to those willing to aggressively tackle their cancer (as opposed to those resigned to death) but also give them an empowering routine which they can follow to do their bit in the fight. It returns a sense of initiative to the patient so that they feel like they are not at the mercy of a disease which may or may not kill them but rather are bringing the fight to the disease, one apple pip at a time. I suspect with the right keywords and salesmanship a diet that was built around only eating orange skittles and throwing the others away would work (orange skittles to be part of a healthy diet of other foods, but no other colours of skittles). If it works better than the skittles diet then maybe they're onto something.
|
Yes, the problem with these things isn't that there is some merit to it which is virtually true for any scam but that they're trying to show off as professionals and this is very dangerous in the health industry where people need to be able to rely on experts. In Switzerland after the newest popular vote 'holistic and alternative medicine' is now also covered by public health insurance. This kind of stuff is just shitty.
|
On April 07 2016 13:16 KwarK wrote:
Wouldn't any pseudo medical regimen? By giving a bunch of goals which are artificially restricting but entirely achievable with a little effort and willpower you not only narrow your test sample to those willing to aggressively tackle their cancer (as opposed to those resigned to death) but also give them an empowering routine which they can follow to do their bit in the fight. It returns a sense of initiative to the patient so that they feel like they are not at the mercy of a disease which may or may not kill them but rather are bringing the fight to the disease, one apple pip at a time. I suspect with the right keywords and salesmanship a diet that was built around only eating orange skittles and throwing the others away would work (orange skittles to be part of a healthy diet of other foods, but no other colours of skittles). If it works better than the skittles diet then maybe they're onto something.
I'm not sure that skittles would go up for medical trials though, as do some diets.
And yes, of course mindset can play a huge role - that doesn't make it less "working". As long as it's correctly explained, as supplement to actual cancer treatment, not advertised as the "cancer treatment skittle".
I btw do still not why certain diets/foods shouldn't have a positive (like, actual measurable, not "mindset") impact on cancer. Even if it's small. Especially considering that it's proven to work the other way around.
|
Canada2764 Posts
Holy crap, Clinton is actually *pissed* right now. I'm really excited for the Democratic debate, and this reinforces the idea of 'whoever wins NY is the favorite'. Not because of delegates, but because the Clinton campaign is going nuclear and if they lose NY then there's a very real chance of them just falling apart- it'll also prove that their attacks haven't worked, and as we learned last time Clinton doesn't really stop attacking. This is a very slippery slope into full on clown fiesta shitfest territory, and I love it.
Seriously, America. You guys have the most entertaining political races to watch, it's amazing!
|
I don't even know why Clinton would get pissed. She has a lock on the nomination unless she does something stupid, which getting angry can do. Just look at what happened to McCain, after the Palin blunder he became increasingly frustrated and mad and that just lost him more votes.
Clinton getting pissed and turning the Dem side ugly like the GOP one is not a good move. I don't care how idiotic some of Sanders supporters are and whatever stupid memes they throw around. Besides, even if she considers Sander's attacks to be dishonest, both sides still are in the political equivalent of a pillow fight. Neither party has taken the gloves off yet and they should stay on until the general.
|
Canada2764 Posts
On April 07 2016 15:46 Slaughter wrote:
I don't even know why Clinton would get pissed. She has a lock on the nomination unless she does something stupid, which getting angry can do. Just look at what happened to McCain, after the Palin blunder he became increasingly frustrated and mad and that just lost him more votes.
She's getting flashbacks from her 'free win' in 2008 and is getting desperate, meaning that she's going negative because she thinks that she could just attack Sanders and because he's a weaker candidate he'd fall apart first. Going negative is a bit dumb because - similar to what you said - it'll just make things more extreme. Either it'll work and she'll absolutely clean house on Bernie, or it won't work and Bernie will start to steamroll her going into NY and PA- I doubt it'll remain very close. However, this is bad because (at current rates) Hillary would quite easily win the nomination, so what Bernie *needs* is desperation and frustration to come out so he has a chance to really gain from it even if it's just a chance. I have no clue who this actually will end up benefiting, and we'll probably have to wait for the next round of polls to be sure, but as a whole I think Bernie's chances (and the entertainment of viewers/despair of people who actually like Bernie and Clinton) go up.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
lol sanders jumping the shark. saw this a few miles away. ptsd from dealing with these types
|
Canada2764 Posts
On April 07 2016 16:29 oneofthem wrote:
lol sanders jumping the shark. saw this a few miles away. ptsd from dealing with these types
At least give us a quote or a reason or something this is just the comment equivalent of click-bait at this point ?_?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
no
User was warned for this post
|
On April 07 2016 16:29 oneofthem wrote:
lol sanders jumping the shark. saw this a few miles away. ptsd from dealing with these types
Are you implying he had intercourse with a shark?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
