Thread Derailment Thread

#1
Perhaps we can come here to follow our derailments, rather than staying on the derailed thread or else having to go to private conversation . . .

I'm very familiar with Price. I think he...came up with some goofy ideas, but was kinda on to some things, too. The idea that "those people" never had heart disease, etc, is interesting.

What do you think their life expectancy was, and what do you think eventually killed them?
I wonder what you could mean by goofy: he basically said that people should eat what they've been eating for one million, nine hundred and ninety thousand years . . . not the things that have been suddenly added (or taken away, actually) that we haven't had time to evolve to handle . . . I would think the goofy idea would be the latter

Why do you put "those people" in quotes? Are you implying I said something in bad taste?

Life expectancy: he spent a lot of time, in fact, looking at populations with higher numbers of people living to be 100+. But as far as life expectancy and what killed them, well, the idea is that as long as people are eating what they evolved to eat, they're gonna be healthy . . . I mean, if a wolf has evolved for tens of thousands or a couple hundred thousand years to eat, say, 90% raw meat and 10% grass (I have no idea what they eat, statistically broken down, but would guess much meat), then they should be healthy, right? Would they still be healthy if they ate 40% wheat, and 20% corn, and 15% overcooked vebetables, and 25% cooked meat? I mean, look at our teeth. Do you see any wolves with crooked teeth and cancer or diabetes? One might look long enough and find a wild animal with this or that ailment. I'm sure that does happen, but it certainly couldn't be much. The poeple that Weston Price studied - populations where they still ate what they'd eaten for tens of thousands of years - this is exactly what he found: the health you'd expect of any other (undomesticated) animal. And with the teeth thing, which is a result of low nutrients, I've never once seen a single animal with crooked teeth. But, I'd wager if we keep feeding our dogs and cats soy, wheat, and corn - grains, which they haven't evolved to eat - that we'd eventually see such a thing.

Our dog, before we were savvy to this stuff, was a female Jack Russell. She should've been very active and relatively thin. She wasn't at all. She became very overweight at a relatively young age . . . not that it should've even really mattered what age she was . . . And she had a serious heart problem for a couple years which eventually killed her. The dog she grew up with (a friend of our's) also became overweight and had health problems. They both coughed like crazy and had major breathing issues! What did we feed them? Something - heavy grains - in a bag labelled "dog food," which any dog, left to it's own devices, would never eat.

And that's basically what humans have done: breads and pasta and such in massive amounts that, even if it were originally of some marginal value, has been modified to be almost nothing like what it was - devaluing a pretty bad food even further - so that harvests could be drastically increased; sugar; low-nutrient, normally genetically modified corn that's wholly unlike maize from hundreds of years ago; foods with natural fats extracted; manmade transfats; cooked and overcooked and packaged foods of all kinds with sugar and endless other what-not added; almost, quite literally, no raw meat whatsoever despite the fact that every single group that Price looked at ate raw meats; meat that is consumed is fattened with grains normally and likely almost nothing like wild game that was consumed 12 thousand or even 2 thousand years ago; no organ meats, though every "food-indigenous" group he looked at consumed every single part of the animal; very, very little traditional fermented foods like sauerkraut or kefir; high consumption of soy, which Asians considered poison unless fermented . . . and so on.

Yet, yet, yet, the cancer industry says they don't know what's causing the problem! And they also keep the "we're closer to a cure" mantra going year after year.
 
Last edited:
#3
To derail the thread you mentioned somewhere here Bursynski. Have you read the scathing USA Today article?
/http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/15/stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-controversy/2994561/
I watched part of the video then paused it. I'll return to it momentarily, I suppose.

I can't help myself here because my biggest pet-peeve with anything concerning a challenge to the status-quo view is someone immediately telling you what the status-quo says when challenged . . . instead of fully investigating why it's being challenged first.

If you don't think my - or not really "my," rather Burzynski's - challenge is worthy enough to investigate, then don't bother responding. I already know there are gonna be hatchet-job, pseudo-skeptical articles against this man who has basically challenged the entire pharmaceutical and medical industry . . . I mean, you've been told your whole life long that treating cancer a certain way is the only serious and viable thing to do. Maybe so, but before sticking with this view and pre-emptively defending that position, one should at the very least read the book that I suggest in the other thread: "The Cancer Industry" by Moss and actually watch the documentary on Burzynski I mentioned! The book alone is absolutely devestating, and I believe it tends to speak pretty much for itself . . . If, after reading that book and possibly a few others and actually watching the video that present Burzynski's (and other's) "case(s)," so to speak, a person wanted to come back and decide that the status-quo was, after all, correct and thus defend it and link up hatchet-job pseudo-skeptic journalism stuff, then fair enough. If a couple books and a documentary seem too much to ask, let's simply contrast that with a life-time of the opposite. I somehow doubt you're overly familiar with what I've referenced . . . perhaps I'm wrong (?).

To use your phrase, have you read the scathing book I referenced? Or even watched the documentary which takes only 2 hours of one's life?

Let me also add here for the record that I initially had no dog in the fight, so to speak. I, too, believed that "traditional" means of treating cancer were legit and worked over other options enough to justify their use . . . I mean, I believed this 100% and would've thought someone telling me otherwise was crazy (back before I knew enough to question the corporate status-quo).

Now let me force myself into a "it might actually be a legit criticism" mindset and trudge on through the MSM's take on Burzynski.
 
Last edited:
#4
To derail the thread you mentioned somewhere here Bursynski. Have you read the scathing USA Today article?
/http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/15/stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-controversy/2994561/
Scathing?

It's close to, if not complete bunk . . . You oughta educate yourself, read the Moss book for starters, possibly "Our Daily Meds," too, then get back with me on what you think of the National Cancer Institute, Pfizer, and the FDA.

This thing's a smear and nothing more . . . in fact, it's even weaker and more predicatble than I would've guessed. It frames the things with a big emblem that says, "Science or Snake Oil?" Is that leading in anyway? The video relies on the NCI and "experts/doctors," unnamed, mind you, that "dismiss" him . . . and pulls the ol' "there's no evidence" trope. Jeez . . .

It starts with Josia, a full-frontal, emotional appeal . . . even though the boy was already only 2 months from death! As though that were the standard: can you save someone this far gone? If not, you're a "quack."

It talks much about the money the treatment costs . . . as though this were a legit subject for the medical and pharmaceutical industry to bring up!

Then most laughable is the critique that though the things are now synthesized in a lab they still smell unpleasant! Wow, as though chemo and radiation were pleasant . . . It's almost unbelievable that this gets press. That they were once derived from urine is also a low-level - intellectually and morally - silly jab.

Then they deride Mary Jo Siegel by saying that she "believes" his treatment cured her.

The things with "why haven't they approved his drug?" Ah, they say, "he's 'never asked'." Pure shite. They were trying to raise the money to have the FDA consider it or whatever the process, last I knew . . . money that the pharmaceutical industry throws around like nothing . . . and that they can use to have their drugs pushed up the list on being approved by the FDA, which is a fox gaurding the henhouse sitaution.

As far as an industry that shifts things here and there to make their success rates look much better than they are, the cancer industry leads the way. . . their numbers simply can't be trusted . . . and if you don't know that, then we're not even at a point where we can seriously discuss . . .

. . . I mean, really, it's ridiculous: before you've even taken in the information or know what you're talking about - why relying on the NCI is, again, like the fox gaurding the henhouse - I'm already, basically, because of a pre-emptive strike, having to defend what hasn't been taken in. It's silly . . .
 
Last edited:
Top