|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 19, 2018 17:44:45 GMT 1
Another one who gets so easily confused by the normal use of the English language. And has great difficulty constructing comprehensible sentences. I know it's not a female thing, because I know plenty of women who can use English perfectly well. Logic, not so much, it has to be admitted. That's always your standard argument. It's not only a meaningless platitude, it's also, as if you care, completely false. Many people pointed out the folly of this system, and the failures that it woud eventually inevitably entail - and the Education and Welfare systems you've also used this pathetic exculpation for - before the event.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 19, 2018 17:50:27 GMT 1
Of course he's right. Everyone I knew who has died from bowel cancer, worked for the NHS. In a world where the considered decisions of the US Supreme Court are labelled "absurd", what more proof could anyone want? And another one - not a female thing, as I suspected. More a side-effect of political ideology, perhaps. It is your contention, is it Alan, that the US Supreme Court has ruled that a woman has a right to an abortion without "any interference from politicians." You believe they have ruled that abortion is a natural right - presumably at any point of pregnancy, for whatever reason, under whatever circumstance? They've considered that this is not a matter for Law, for political determination in any way? I can only say: as usual, you're simply misinformed.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 19, 2018 17:58:00 GMT 1
He does, doesn’t he? Bu tell me: why should I accept that Nick’s bowel cancer was caused by the NHS any more than that my cancer has a similar origin? It is very easy to be wise after the event Very sorry to hear of your cancer Jean, can it be treated? She can immediately stop eating carbohydrates, for a start, and induce her body into ketosis. I've pointed this out to her before, as a scientifically demonstrated fact. Whatever barbaric "treatment" she is then "subjected to" at least we know that the cancer cells - of whatever sort they might be, even those deemed most untreatable - will not, as a simple physical fact, be able to grow any further. Given enough time - a few weeks at most - they will, inevitably, given this deprivation of any means of metabolising, start to die.
|
|
|
Post by alancalverd on Oct 19, 2018 20:34:24 GMT 1
You believe they have ruled that abortion is a natural right - presumably at any point of pregnancy, for whatever reason, under whatever circumstance? I have no beliefs, only judicial statements. I do not presume anything. It is true that Roe v Wade permitted a state "interest" in the second and third trimester.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 19, 2018 22:46:50 GMT 1
You believe they have ruled that abortion is a natural right - presumably at any point of pregnancy, for whatever reason, under whatever circumstance? I have no beliefs, only judicial statements. I do not presume anything. It is true that Roe v Wade permitted a state "interest" in the second and third trimester. It's a matter of Law how abortion may or may not be legal. The people who make laws are politicians. The Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade was about privacy of the citizen - the abortion issue was a matter of State law, not constitutional. Now, your objection to Kavanaugh is, you claim, that he's against abortion. He isn't. His objections run something along the lines of those that I made to you in our recent discussion about this issue. A developing foetus that can exist independently should be granted the rights, under the Constitution, of a person. Given that the Constitution does not define this term, it seems to me a perfectly reasonable, and ethical, stance. More than one that claims a foetus, of whatever age, is "a lump of protoplasm", at any rate. This is your expressed "belief", and it is nothing more than a presumption.
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Oct 20, 2018 0:21:52 GMT 1
Very sorry to hear of your cancer Jean, can it be treated? She can immediately stop eating carbohydrates, for a start, and induce her body into ketosis. I've pointed this out to her before, as a scientifically demonstrated fact. Whatever barbaric "treatment" she is then "subjected to" at least we know that the cancer cells - of whatever sort they might be, even those deemed most untreatable - will not, as a simple physical fact, be able to grow any further. Given enough time - a few weeks at most - they will, inevitably, given this deprivation of any means of metabolising, start to die. I think this is very harsh, and cruel. How on earth should you know? jean, please follow your doctors' advice, even if it coincides with mrsonde's.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 20, 2018 0:25:33 GMT 1
She can immediately stop eating carbohydrates, for a start, and induce her body into ketosis. I've pointed this out to her before, as a scientifically demonstrated fact. Whatever barbaric "treatment" she is then "subjected to" at least we know that the cancer cells - of whatever sort they might be, even those deemed most untreatable - will not, as a simple physical fact, be able to grow any further. Given enough time - a few weeks at most - they will, inevitably, given this deprivation of any means of metabolising, start to die. I think this is very harsh, and cruel. How on earth should you know? What??! Don't be ridiculous. I know because it's scientifically proven - the same way anyone else "knows" anything. What an idiot! To a very high degree of likelihood, she's eating a carb based diet - even if she's being fed in hospital. Her cancer cells are being fed to proliferate. This is not necessary. Instead, by slightly altering her diet, with no deleterious effects to her health, those cancer cells can be starved to death. This is proven fact. What difference does it make if the people who do not know these facts have passed the exams entitling them to call themselves "doctors"? What an authoritarian, solipsistic idiot.
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Oct 20, 2018 0:52:08 GMT 1
This is disrespectful.
jean is intelligent enough to choose.
jean, I'm sorry I intervened.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 20, 2018 1:01:29 GMT 1
This is disrespectful. jean is intelligent enough to choose. It's a matter of knowledge, not intelligence. She's ignorant of such matters, as she's demonstrated in our recent discussions. You should be. Your solipsistic pomposity may have persuaded her to be killed by indulging in that - hers, and yours - ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Oct 20, 2018 1:27:41 GMT 1
This is disrespectful. jean is intelligent enough to choose. It's a matter of knowledge, not intelligence. She's ignorant of such matters, as she's demonstrated in our recent discussions. You should be. Your solipsistic pomposity may have persuaded her to be killed by indulging in that - hers, and yours - ignorance. OK. I'm not interested in vying with you, only in jean's health.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 20, 2018 1:58:19 GMT 1
It's a matter of knowledge, not intelligence. She's ignorant of such matters, as she's demonstrated in our recent discussions. You should be. Your solipsistic pomposity may have persuaded her to be killed by indulging in that - hers, and yours - ignorance. OK. I'm not interested in vying with you, only in jean's health. No - if so, you'd be interested in the latest scientific knowledge about how to prevent and cure cancer. Instead, you're interested in the preserving and promoting the authority of her doctors, who will know nothing about such matters; or, even if they do, will be unable to implement such awareness through the authoritarian system that they're part of - and that you promote. You're not interested in jean's health at all. You'd rather see her unnecessarily die rather than accept that other people know more than you or the doctors you believe are part of your authoritarian system falsely believe. It's... Nazism, basically. The sort of mentality that has resulted in over 600 proven murders in one NHS hospital being regarded as sort of normal.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Oct 20, 2018 6:53:13 GMT 1
What you have said there about Aqua's supposed views is calumny, I am certain he would gladly see any method that really helps Jean, conventional or alternative, put to use. Enough of this please. It's bad enough calling people idiots, but if Jean and her illness are to be discussed it should be done politely with her welfare, not insulting and point scoring, always uppermost. If you think that there is scientific proof for your suggested regime just point to where it can be found (no saying "Well I am sure she can use Google", or some such, please) for Jean's advantage.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Oct 20, 2018 12:34:41 GMT 1
What you have said there about Aqua's supposed views is calumny Calumny, eh? Saying "I am interested in your health" is all well and good - easy to say, and it might even make Jean feel a bit better, who knows? But calling the pointing out of a scientifically proven practical step she might take to ensure her cancer doesn't get worse "harsh" and "cruel" and should not be followed unless her doctor happens to know about it, and the system he's part of happens to have come around to absorbing it - both of which does not pertain, and will not do so for many many years to come - is something else. It is at the very least a dogmatic cleaving to that authoritarian system, and a rejection of the rights and responsibilities of individuals to guide their own lives. , He's just rejected such a method, on the grounds that he doesn't know about it! How would you know?, he said. By reading scientific journals and following the research, that's how, unlike you. Point-scoring is exactly what you're doing now, and only that. Cancer cells necessarily depend on glycolysis for their metabolic pathways - they do not have the internal structures and mechanisms for anything else. By adopting ketosis for the body's metabolism - broadly, to simplify somewhat, burning fat instead of sugar - this source of energy is withdrawn - dramatically limited, at any rate - from its cells. The cancer cells no longer have the energy source to fuel replicatation or, after a while, respiration: they must die. Anyone can verify these facts with a few minutes of googling. Full scale tests of the efficacy of this method of countering cancer by the medical establishment have only just begun, a couple of months ago in fact - even though it's been used and understood and demonstrated for decades. I've pointed out where she or anyone else can find such demonstrations in the past. She calls the fact that people consistently go into complete remission when using such methods "anecdotal". The ketosis diet she rejects out of hand as "extreme". Instead she'll go along with methods of such sledgehammer brutality that they actually cause cancers, and are acknowledged by the doctors who use them to do such - not to mention the host of other ghastly "side-effects" of such toxic "treatment". I understand why the doctors and the medical establishment that they adhere to insists on such madness - it's not a mystery: It's nothing to do with being interested in "health" either.
|
|
|
Post by fascinating on Oct 20, 2018 21:36:20 GMT 1
As expected, mrsonde makes huge claims for a particular dietary regime, but fails to point to anything that shows it is "scientifically proven" and tells people to use google.
Does anyone on this board believe that anything he says here has any credibility?
|
|
|
Post by aquacultured on Oct 20, 2018 23:58:32 GMT 1
As expected, mrsonde makes huge claims for a particular dietary regime, but fails to point to anything that shows it is "scientifically proven" and tells people to use google. Does anyone on this board believe that anything he says here has any credibility? I'm not even sure he wants us to. What he wants is to demonstrate his superiority on every occasion. It's sickening, especially in the circumstances.
|
|