Cancer cure hypothesis

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by Selfexprt.SJ, Apr 16, 2018.

?

Can you disprove it?

Poll closed Apr 23, 2018.

  1. Yes

    1 vote(s)
    33.3%

  2. No

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%

  3. It Needs to be tested

    2 vote(s)
    66.7%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Page 4 of 4
  1. Selfexprt.SJ

    Selfexprt.SJ Registered Member

    Messages:
    30
    I apologize for wasting your time then, but I am only responding here, so I suppose I need to leave before you will stop insulting me, and calling me wrong
     
    Selfexprt.SJ, Apr 18, 2018
    #61

  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. DaveC426913

    DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,959
    It's not a waste of our time if you are learning. That's what most of us are here for.

    But you will make much better progress asking questions to learn about the subject of interest than you will making assertions and asking us to prove them wrong. As spidergoat said: the onus is not on us to refute your ideas.
     
    DaveC426913, Apr 18, 2018
    #62

  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. exchemist

    exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,509
    No, you are not "only responding". You are making a series of ridiculous assertions and suggestions, based apparently on complete ignorance of what you are talking about.

    Any fool can say "The moon is made of green cheese: now prove me wrong!" But does such a fool seriously expect a space programme to be put together to collect evidence to disprove that contention? No. Science does not work like that. It is the person making the new claim that is expected to support it with either observational evidence or reasoned argument. And in science the person making a new claim should expect to have the claim challenged and to have to defend it. That is how science tests new hypotheses and weeds out lousy ideas.

    As an acquaintance on another science forum often puts it: "In science, you cannot just make shit up". It is surprising, but this seems to come as a complete revelation to some people.
     
    exchemist, Apr 18, 2018
    #63

  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Michael 345

    Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    What do the ubiquitous they say about leukaemia?

    Oh dear god we have moved onto? "How to cure Supernovae now?"

    Now this genius has a cure for death??? Alice ainta got nufink on this one guv

    Oh the irony

    Wild shots in the dark have a chance to hit something. The stuff this bozo puts in post ain't going nowhere. I'd call it verbal diarrhoea but I don't like to insult diarrhoea

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Michael 345, Apr 18, 2018
    #64
  8. Q-reeus

    Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    Which is what I wrote.
    Again, as I wrote - some therapists emphasize.... e.g. Max Gerson. Otto Warburg himself strongly advocated and personally practiced such a dietary lifestyle approach:
    (paragraph towards bottom in: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4784299/)

    And I have no doubt the OP has picked up his/her ideas from reading such. Which is what I was driving at. Epidemiological studies have consistently shown a strong link between diet and many cancer incidence rates. While confusingly, some controlled studies find a weak link between adopting an 'alkalizing diet' and cancer mortality rates.
    Recalling the see-sawing 'butter is bad is good is bad is...', 'eggs are bad are good are bad are...' from successive controlled studies, it gets down to what and who one trusts. Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
     
    Q-reeus, Apr 19, 2018
    #65
  9. spidergoat

    spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Bring wrong is part of science. So is knowing the depth of our ignorance, which seems to grow the more we learn.
     
    spidergoat, Apr 19, 2018
    #66
  10. Michael 345

    Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    No there is a slim chance someone will continue to insult and call you wrong

    But it won't last because it's not fun if you have left the building

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Michael 345, Apr 19, 2018
    #67
  11. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    I think the word you are looking for here is malignancy.

    Cancer is a naturally occurring event that occurs in the bodies of living organisms which can sometimes become malignant - ie, cancer is an accelerated and abnormal cell division in whatever part of the body it is occurring in.. It is a natural process, that unfortunately, has the capacity to kill the living organism. Hence it is deemed a disease and treated with a variety of protocols.

    If I asked my doctor "what is a tumor" and he had "no detail to add", I would be questioning if he got his degree from a cereal box and I would find a different doctor.

    So let me see if I have this correctly.

    You have designed a cure for something you don't even "know what it is made of", you don't know what it is and you don't know "the exact material" and you think it is an organism?

    That last one nearly killed me.

    I'll give you a huge hint.

    Cancer and malignant tumors is not an organism. It is a part of an organism.

    Well it cannot be that common because you think cancer is an organism...

    Okay..

    Cancerous tumors (any kind of tumor really) tend to develop pathways, for example, blood supply, to grow. A tumor, malignant or not, will have ready access to your body's blood supply (not to mention the lymphatic system, which is how it often spreads throughout the body). It doesn't "eat" or "feed". Part of the treatment protocol is to restrict its ability to grow further access to blood, essentially they try to starve it. Avastin, for example, is sometimes used for some cancers to inhibit tumor growth.

    What does an exploding star, at the end of its life cycle, have to do with cancer? A supernovae occurs after the star has no fuel left to burn, it becomes denser and explodes (to put it in the most unscientific terms possible).

    Cancer is not contagious.

    Cancer is a fairly random thing. It has nothing to do with 'feeding cells'.

    Your body needs oxygen to survive. Starving your body of oxygen to prevent abnormal cell growth, would affect your wellbeing, because your healthy cells need oxygenated blood to survive.

    Because you weren't already in the land of woo woo, you now dive further in.

    No, cancer is not cured with a healthy lifestyle.

    Cancer patients who buy into that myth, who stop their treatments or ignore their treatment to adopt a healthier lifestyle end up dying. You are now peddling something that is inherently dangerous and deadly to cancer sufferers.

    If you starve you body's cells, you will die.

    Sometimes it is hereditary. Sometimes lifestyle choices can also increase one's chances of developing cancer. For example, we know that staying out in the sun without any form of protection can and will increase your chances of developing skin cancer (particularly if you are of European or Asian ancestry). Smoking increased your risk of developing lung, mouth, throat cancers.

    This makes no sense whatsoever.

    You did not "put in a thought". You are arguing from a completely unscientific standpoint, with little to no understanding of what cancer is and how it is treated.

    "A very basic concept" would be to understand the disease itself and the treatment protocols already in place before embarking on scientific studies to build up on what we already know.

    In other words, you are peddling woo. Dangerous woo. And you are doing so from a point of absolute ignorance.
     
    Bells, Apr 19, 2018
    #68
  12. exchemist

    exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,509
    Thanks for the extra explanation. Reading that link makes it fairly clear that Warburg, like many scientists, made an important contribution but seems towards the end of his life to have stretched his findings beyond what was really justifiable. (Pauling, Schrödinger and Hoyle went the same way....)

    I wonder if our poster has been reading the works of a charlatan called Travis Christofferson. This (unqualified) person has a quack theory that cancer is all caused by diet and sells books by the million on the strength of it.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2018
    exchemist, Apr 19, 2018
    #69
    Q-reeus likes this.
  13. Michael 345

    Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Pity there is not a crayon font - that might help also

    To think of the millions of dollars spent on cancer research and no one in the thousands of labs around the world thought

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Michael 345, Apr 19, 2018
    #70
  14. Bells

    Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    Mod note

    Woo thread now closed.
     
    Bells, Apr 20, 2018
    #71
Page 4 of 4
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page