Discussion in 'Chemistry' started by river, Aug 5, 2017.
Dumbness comment ever
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
You didn't know better . At the time , neither did I about treatment .
My husband is an ICU nurse. My sister is an Oncology NP. My step mom's best friend is a Gyno. What do you mean, "not know better"? I come from a medical family. Be specific here. What "better" should she have known?
When nothing else works , look outside the box .
So your technique is to not provide anything specific, then drop cowardly nonsense and pretend to be wise? Be specific, what is this "out of the box" stuff you're referring to? I mean, you're the one pretending to be in the know. What specifically is this magical thing that others should've considered?
Cancer is now condsidered a metabolic problem .
The communication between the mitochondria and RNA has been distorted . And apparently is true in ALL cancers .
I didn't ask you to blather about what you thought the cause was. I asked you for your magical treatment for high grade neuro-endochrine carcinoma that had already spread to the lungs and liver when it was caught, giving her a few weeks if not treated immediately with aggressive chemo.
Since you're swimming in Dunning-Kruger and know more than a team of doctors, what SPECIFICALLY is your magical treatment for that. You know -- SPECIFICALLY your magical out of box cure that should've been tried.[/QUOTE]
Can you support that assertion with peer reviewed science or are people to take you at your word?
You apparently didn't bother reading that journal. Since I do this for a living, let me do this for you genius: " the information presented here supports the notion that cancer originates from damage to the mitochondria in the cytoplasm rather than from damage to the genome in the nucleus. "
That's an inconclusive assertion requiring further research. Right now, in essence, all it's saying is, "This is highly plausible."
Not a peer reviewed scientific or medical study. Go back. Start again.
Are you just going to admit that you've got nothing but science woo or are you going to keep coming back with uninformed dreck?
Yeah , highly plausible .
There many biochemists who have resisted the mitochodria malfunction theory , from way back in the 30's .
The research is on going .
So in other words:
You made an incredibly insulting comment about something I wrote about my mom dying.
I asked you for clarification.
You pretended like you had a clue by encouraging some kind of experiment when the woman had a few weeks to live.
You asserted unsubstantiated science woo.
Still haven't provided a hint as to what this magical alternative thing is that should have been tried.
Sorry. Mind providing any of us your scientific or medical qualifications? Or is, like, the research that, like, you like, do online, and stuff, like totally good enough?
I do not think you understand what that word means.
There's only "plausible". That's it. It's either plausible or not. There's no "highly plausible". Maybe you mean, "highly probable". If that's the case, do share your research with us, doctor! Like, how probable is it -- give us the numbers.
Let me put it this way ; what I knew then ; to what I know , could very well haved saved my mothers life . AND the ONLY way I would have found this information is by a willingness to question . To find other perspectives on anything .
I would have understood how to defeat cancer from an entirely different angle.
Have you not noticed by now that science , any science , has lost its perspective . Its about ego , the inability to face the truth of being wrong . And admitting when one is wrong . Politics , power and money is what science has become and this general attitude has filtered down to the general populas .
So in your post #90 , last sentence , highly plausable , as an argument . I suppose . But when you read a book , I prefer a book , it just gives much , much , much more detail , or context , in which to evaluate the theory .
I understand your point , but all things being equal , I would have delved into the metabolic mitochrondria malfunction alot more .
In other words, River, you called someone's recounting of the death of their loved one stupid because you didn't feel they "tried hard enough" to save her...
What the actual fucking hell is wrong with you, you sick bastard?
You know what... Don't even bother trying to answer for yourself; you have perfectly demonstrated your true colors for all to see.
Well I understand the backlash I get , and deserved .
I just think of my own mother . And that I could have done better .
Nevertheless I appologise to superstring01 for my comments in post # 81 .
In fact, I suspect, though I cannot prove it, that this thread may have been started by River to get at me, because River will be aware from other discussions on this forum that my wife died from cancer last year. The thread was started with an invitation to me, specifically, to comment.
But as I have had him on Ignore for some time I did not notice this for a while.
Does this forum really need River?
Okay. Then let's put it this way. No fluff:
What SPECIFICALLY would you have done? Do you know what 'specifically' means? I mean SPECIFICALLY?
How would you have run those tests?
How would you have paid for those tests?
Who would have drawn the blood for you?
Who would have created the new magical treatments you're proposing?
What hospital would do that for you?
Which SPECIFIC labs would have done whatever process you demanded of them? (and just to be clear: the LITERAL and SPECIFIC name and address of the labs + plus the specific technicians and scientists who'd be doing the work; or do you have this equipment in your basement?)
All you've done is offer up conspiracy fluff. Fine. That's who you are. But when a human being has LITERALLY two weeks to live and her son was overseas fighting for this country and couldn't get home for five days and she was LITERALLY going to die, I'm asking you not what you think you would have done but SPECIFICALLY. I mean, SPECIFICALLY and LITERALLY what specific tests would you have done.
Where is the machinery to do these tests? Where are the people to process these tests? Where is the lab to formulate your magic cure?
If you can't answer that, then all you're going to do is do the standard conspiracy theory cowardly rhetoric, "Well, like, and um, I would have like, gotten a book and stuff and like read it and stuff." Great. Got it. But spare me what you think causes cancer. I'm asking you SPECIFICALLY how you would have over-ridden her husband (my dad) and her best friend (her Gyn) and every one around her and how you SPECIFICALLY would have gotten the blood out of her body and the SPECIFICALLY how you would have over-ridden Ohio laws on the possession of human bio samples and how you would have selected your lab and how you would have gotten all of this done.
Specifically. Not what you maybe read in a book. But SPECIFICALLY what you would have done in two weeks to literally rewrite the laws of medicine in the US to get these magical results you were after.
Right. And brave River on a website has blown this story WIDE OPEN. Dear River -- My name is Daniel Bradbury Holliday. I have a BSc in Computer Science. I'm currently enrolled with the University of Florida (Tampa) to get my Masters in Electrical Engineering. I'm not a scientist but I spent the better part of the past five years learning how the scientific method and logic works. Go ahead. Grow a spine and tell me your full name and where you got an education in science. I mean SPECIFICALLY where this education comes from. Thereafter, offer me up your empirical, verifiable evidence that withstands the scientific method.
Here -- let me answer that for you:
You're too afraid to reveal your real name.
You're too afraid to reveal your university education.
You're too afraid to show how you gained any insight into the scientific and medical method.
You won't offer up any empirical evidence to support your case.
You'll chime in with more conspiracy nonsense that feeds your science woowoo-ism.
You'll run away like a coward in the face of considerable scrutiny into what you think, dropping a few bon mots, pretending that you've gotten the inside scoop, but will otherwise shrink from any challenge into the abstruse details of science because the real truth is this: You have no real scientific understanding an depend upon fluff, conspiracy nonsense to make yourself feel like you've got a set of balls.
We know what will happen. Go ahead. Prove me wrong.
Separate names with a comma.