|
Post by jean on Jul 14, 2018 18:03:38 GMT 1
You asked if you could see the proof. And then you asked if I wanted you to dig the relevant paper up for me, and I said Yes, that would be nice.But I can understand your reluctance to follow up on your kind offer, rather rashly made.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Jul 14, 2018 22:21:24 GMT 1
260 plus million GP visits a year. NHS statistics. If doctors are fiddling their claims, that wouldn't surprise me. 260,000,000/65,600,000 = a bit less than 4, not 6 visits per capita per annum. Next time, I'll tell my wife to hang on for another dozen years in case someone produces a better treatment than the one being offered. Thanks for the completely useless information.
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Jul 15, 2018 0:20:19 GMT 1
No, that's not how the figures are compiled, I checked that one. These are actual visits to the GP. Hospital visits are on top of that. Then why did you say this, below? And also mention other NHS services like dentistry and surgery? I was flabberghasted the other day to read that on average Brits visit the NHS more than six times a year! What??! I had to research it to verify this amazing figure, but it does seem to be true. I'd say you were a chancer and a timewaster.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jul 16, 2018 5:50:44 GMT 1
You asked if you could see the proof. And then you asked if I wanted you to dig the relevant paper up for me, and I said Yes, that would be nice.Yes, it would. Like saying to Cruella De Vil, you want me to skin my dalmatians for you too? Now, you see, it's exactly that sort of creepy superciliousness that makes me insist you learn some manners if you want any further help from me in your education, young lady. It's many decades since you learned anything, you've forgotten how; I understand. But if you want to be taught instead, you need to try to remember how to behave in the classroom.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jul 16, 2018 6:17:35 GMT 1
260 plus million GP visits a year. NHS statistics. If doctors are fiddling their claims, that wouldn't surprise me. 260,000,000/65,600,000 = a bit less than 4, not 6 visits per capita per annum. I doubt they're counting babies, and people in old people's homes. Don't be so pompous, and wet. You think you're the only one who's lost relatives to cancer? The better treatment than the one offered has been around since the late 70s. I'm sorry you didn't know about it when it would have helped. and you could have flown her to Houston for the cure. I'm sorry I didn't, when my dad died, or my uncles, or my aunt. I'm sorry the medical establishment's primary interest is in making money rather than curing disease. That's just the way the world is.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jul 16, 2018 6:36:26 GMT 1
No, that's not how the figures are compiled, I checked that one. These are actual visits to the GP. Hospital visits are on top of that. Then why did you say this, below? And also mention other NHS services like dentistry and surgery? I didn't - I wasn't writing a civil service report, you tosser! It was a passing comment. Look the figures up yourself if you don't believe it, I don't give a f#*k. And I'd say you're a self-important pompous fool - so what? What on earth do you think I'm "chancing", ffs? And "timewasting"?? Well, you'd be the lifetime expert on that. I assure you, I don't waste my time here - it serves my purposes, and I don't really care what you do with yours. What the hell you're doing here would be a puzzle if it were worth solving, but, like a "Moron" level Sudoku, there's no reason to hope there would be. One day I suppose you might say something interesting, or even contribute an opinion on something - I don't say it's impossible. Ahhh - wait a minute, I geddit. I've trodden on your sensitive leedle toes, criticising "our" sacred cow national treasure, the NHS? Is that it? Offended your soppy liberal-lefty comfort-blanket credo?
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Jul 16, 2018 7:31:12 GMT 1
Face it Mr S, you've been caught lying. Or, as a parasite would put it, being selective with the truth.
Thus, given......
.....I would tend to believe the latter. Not that I'm much in favor of external beam radiotherapy either, but at least I'll admit my professional bias and a commercial interest.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jul 16, 2018 7:35:19 GMT 1
Face it Mr S, you've been caught lying. Or, as a parasite would put it, being selective with the truth. I never lie, as it happens, not since I was a twenty yr old or so. What untruth do you think I've told? "Selective with the truth" - don't know what that means, or how anyone could be otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jul 16, 2018 8:12:25 GMT 1
Where? Wiki, I suspect. You want a lesson on how wiki works? The Burzynski case is a classic in point. The systematic government lying on wiki and other sites such as the usual "skeptic science" sites, and the ruthless censoring of any counter correctives, is all well documented on Burzynski's own site. As do the NCI and the NIH, which is why they tried to steal his patents. Many thousands of his patients say they have been completely cured, as they have been - patients condemned as terminal in the leading cancer hospital in the US, which is to say the world, "sorry, there's nothing we can do for you, and if we try you'll only have a few months in a severely delibitated if not vegetative state in any case" - as has been shown in decades of court cases, including five Grand Jury attempted indictments, and before a Senate Investigation Committee. Every case thrown out. The man's a unique hero for enduring all that alone. But there is - abundant evidence. Which is why the NIH, the FDA, the FBI, the State courts of Texas, California, and New York (goaded on by the FDA and NIH) haven't been able to shut him down. Oh, and put him in prison for the rest of his life, incidentally. They've cost him millions of dollars and years of wasted time defending himself, though. All he does is present the scientific research proving the clinical efficacy of his methods - some of which was duplicated by the NCI during their attempted theft of his work - and the testimony of his patients he's cured of cancers that were deemed inoperable and inevitably fatal by the medical establishment trying to prosecute him. Wrong. Wrong. It's proven to be twice the probability of any other treatment currently used. I can explain the credible mechanisms easily enough, merely from memory of reading Burzynski's thoroughly explored and verified account several years ago. It's fairly straightforward, as genetic biochemical mechanisms go. His research is top-class. He's single-handedly discovered a whole new class of proteins that no one had a clue existed, shown that they're responsible for genetically mediating the control of cancer cells, shown which genes they so modulate, developed highly sophisticated peptides to correct the failure of that mediation in cancer sufferers, proven that this is a highly effective treatment, even in the most intractable tumours to treat, reported on this research in the laboratories he built and funds himself in dozens of peer-reviewed scientific journals, and had that research replicated in the leading and most respected laboratories elsewhere in the world. He's been "investigated" alright - but the FBI raiding his home and workplaces time after time and the IRS setting punitive audits on him and the medical establishment trying over 100 times to imprison him for life is not "science". Nope. No side-effects. His "chemotherapy" uses entirely natural compounds that the body itself produces. The "neurotoxicity" claim comes from the NCI's own hamfisted attempts at reproducing his work by not following his protocol or his "recipe" (so they could cut him out and file their own patents) - and is in any case a highly dubious report, from such a demonstrated scandal-ridden corrupt outfit, deliberately doing their best to discredit him. There are no such side-effects reported from his patients. Yes, they have. Ii is available. As for Cancer Research UK - money, money, money... Look at Burzynski's site. You'll find links to all the scientific papers by him and other independent scientists that completely endorse his claims. I wasn't going to mention it. In truth, this is a much more important issue. It's yet another clear and well-proven example of how corrupt the scientific establishment has become. It wasn't always so - now the damage is so pervasive I think it's irreversible. The only hope is people like Burzynski - and the recent wresting of media outlets from the corporate world's complete control. The truth shall prevail, eventually.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jul 16, 2018 10:19:48 GMT 1
From a Christian Aid interview in 2016: medium.com/christian-aid-eu-referendum/eu-referendum-remain-or-leave-justine-greening-mp-has-her-say-ebcbaa660a2Justine Greening is Member of Parliament for Putney, London, and since 2012 has been Secretary of State for International Development. The 23 June EU referendum will be the most important vote on the future of our country that we are likely to have in our lifetimes. It’s a one-off vote. There’s no re-doing it if we change our minds. We’re all going to have to live with the result, but the younger you are, the more there is at stake.
Like millions of other people in the UK, I’ve never had the chance to vote on this before. I was too young to vote in the last EU referendum in 1975. There are pros and cons whichever direction we take. My view, on balance, is that we are better off staying in the EU.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jul 16, 2018 10:48:05 GMT 1
Yes, it would. Like saying to Cruella De Vil, you want me to skin my dalmatians for you too? Well, it looked to me like a genuine offer - and why wouldn’t it be? Why wouldn’t you want to set the record straight and publish the evidence you have that Burzynski isn’t a charlatan after all? But it turns out that you have no intention of letting us see it. And that is somehow my fault! What a very convenient excuse.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jul 16, 2018 10:58:52 GMT 1
Yes, it would. Like saying to Cruella De Vil, you want me to skin my dalmatians for you too? Well, it looked to me like a genuine offer - and why wouldn’t it be? It was genuine. All you have to do is ask, politely. I've told you where you can find it. The research and results published in reputable scientific journals is "the record." And the 100 plus legal cases falsely accusing him of charlatanry - proven to be false in the highest court in the country - is all the record anyone could and should ask for. Do you really not know how to use google? Your laziness and presumption anyone else owes you the effort of being spoonfed information is your fault. Your bone-idleness and incompetence at finding readily available information, even when you've been told where to find it, is not an "excuse", convenient or not. You merely have to ask, politely, given your childlike cluelessness on how to use google, and desperate need for assistance. As for your inability to be so ordinarily humble and polite - yes, I'd say that was your parents' fault, at root. But by now you should have learned your inadequacy in that regard, even so.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jul 16, 2018 11:05:49 GMT 1
So he is a charlatan, after all.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jul 16, 2018 11:15:25 GMT 1
So he is a charlatan, after all. Careful. You can be sued for defamation and, given that he has been proven innocent of that charge in three State courts, many many times, and in five Grand Juries, and in the Senate itself, you wouldn't have a leg to stand on. But you've never worried before about carelessly abusing and legally defaming people, have you? Such a charmer. We're still waiting, Jean. You want to know something so badly, it would appear (though anyone who has ever had the misfortune of meeting your know-it-all arrogance on these boards is fully aware that as usual you haven't an iota of such a desire), simply ask the person who can tell you, politely - if you know the meaning of that term?
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jul 16, 2018 11:27:08 GMT 1
So sue me...
Come on, Nick. Stop pretending. It’s quite obvious the evidence you boast of just doesn’t exist.
|
|