kyrani99 wrote:If I understand you correctly, you are saying that it would be criminal to help people with stage 4 cancer, who have been literally thrown in the trash by the doctors.

You do not understand correctly, to absolutely no one's surprise, I'm sure.

These patients have literally been thrown into the trash by doctors? Really?

Shrunk wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:If I understand you correctly, you are saying that it would be criminal to help people with stage 4 cancer, who have been literally thrown in the trash by the doctors.

You do not understand correctly, to absolutely no one's surprise, I'm sure.

These patients have literally been thrown into the trash by doctors? Really?

Some patients are poisoned or fried or carved up until there is nothing left of them, i.e., they die, while others are sent to a hospice to die or told to get their things in order, i.e., that they had no hope, they were going to die. I'd call that thrown in the trash.

But more importantly you are not responding to the fact I can help them get well, whether or not they want to give up any medical treatments or not. You obviously would rather the person dies than to seek out any alternative help.

Shrunk wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:I have evidence.

No, you don't.

But I have evidence that you lied. No conclusive proof, but then you just conceded that conclusive proof is not necessary in order to make a claim.

You don't have the first clue as to what evidence I am holding. Your statement is more defamation.
Science is about evidence, not conclusive proof. But come to think of it, once I can demonstrate that cancer is the result of a nocebo effect and that toxic people are involved and how they are involved, then perhaps that is conclusive evidence. It would satisfy a court of law to find a guilty verdict and convict the culprits of premeditated, calculated murder.

And there is one more fact. One doesn't need to go to all the trouble of getting justice in a court of law. There are natural laws of justice that every humane person can use. The battle is fought and won in the common platform of the mind. The guilty cannot avoid being annihilated. They simply perish. With the inhumane gone and the humane never getting cancer again, the cancer industry is dead.

kyrani99 wrote:

But more importantly you are not responding to the fact lie/delusion I can help them get well, whether or not they want to give up any medical treatments or not. You obviously would rather the person dies than to seek out any alternative help.

FTFY

kyrani99 wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:If I understand you correctly, you are saying that it would be criminal to help people with stage 4 cancer, who have been literally thrown in the trash by the doctors.

You do not understand correctly, to absolutely no one's surprise, I'm sure.

These patients have literally been thrown into the trash by doctors? Really?

Some patients are poisoned or fried or carved up until there is nothing left of them, i.e., they die, while others are sent to a hospice to die or told to get their things in order, i.e., that they had no hope, they were going to die. I'd call that thrown in the trash.

More misrepresentive lies. Again, fine if you delude yourself, but these unsubstantiated attempts to smear medical professionals who try their best to save other people's lives is just vile.

kyrani99 wrote:
But more importantly you are not responding to the fact I can help them get well,

Unsupported bullshit.

kyrani99 wrote: whether or not they want to give up any medical treatments or not. You obviously would rather the person dies than to seek out any alternative help.

Fuck off with your pathetic and made up accusations kyrani.

kyrani99 wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:I have evidence.

No, you don't.

But I have evidence that you lied. No conclusive proof, but then you just conceded that conclusive proof is not necessary in order to make a claim.

You don't have the first clue as to what evidence I am holding.

You don't have a first clue what your shitting about.
And that's all your comments ammount to; baseless shit your flinging around in a desperate attempt to defend your own fantastical notions.

kyrani99 wrote:Your statement is more defamation.

What? Unlike your defamatory statements about the medical industry, no to mention dishonest and defamatory accusations levelled at members in this thread?
Fucking hypocritical of you kyrani.

kyrani99 wrote:Science is about evidence, not conclusive proof.

Stop using word you clearly do not understand kyrani.

kyrani99 wrote: But come to think of it, once I can demonstrate that cancer is the result of a nocebo effect and that toxic people are involved and how they are involved, then perhaps that is conclusive evidence. It would satisfy a court of law to find a guilty verdict and convict the culprits of premeditated, calculated murder.

And yet you consistently fail to present any evidence whatsoever.
All you offer is baseless accusations and lies about the medical professions involved.

kyrani99 wrote:But more importantly you are not responding to the fact I can help them get well,

Because you can't. That's a lie.

kyrani99 wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:If I understand you correctly, you are saying that it would be criminal to help people with stage 4 cancer, who have been literally thrown in the trash by the doctors.

You do not understand correctly, to absolutely no one's surprise, I'm sure.

These patients have literally been thrown into the trash by doctors? Really?

Some patients are poisoned or fried or carved up until there is nothing left of them, i.e., they die,

Or as a result of which they live when they otherwise would not have. Especially if they had listened to charlatans offering the type of advice you provide here (which, sadly, is not uncommon).

...while others are sent to a hospice to die or told to get their things in order, i.e., that they had no hope, they were going to die. I'd call that thrown in the trash.

So that was another falsehood of yours, that doctors are literally throwing patients into the trash. (I'm not going to see this one as a lie. You just don't understand the meaning of "literally.")

kyrani99 wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:If I understand you correctly, you are saying that it would be criminal to help people with stage 4 cancer, who have been literally thrown in the trash by the doctors.

You do not understand correctly, to absolutely no one's surprise, I'm sure.

These patients have literally been thrown into the trash by doctors? Really?

Some patients are poisoned or fried or carved up until there is nothing left of them, i.e., they die, while others are sent to a hospice to die or told to get their things in order, i.e., that they had no hope, they were going to die. I'd call that thrown in the trash.

No one gives a shit what you would call anything, because your posts have been shown to include a high hit-rate of words and phrases used in idiosyncratic or mendacious ways which do not conform to the usual rules of the English language. This means that any claim about what you would do has ceased to carry any persuasive weight whatsoever.

But more importantly you are not responding to the fact I can help them get well, whether or not they want to give up any medical treatments or not.

Again, you're using an idiosyncratic or mendacious interpretation of the word 'fact' which does not occur in the English language. You cannot help cancer sufferers get well. Until you show the first simple fucking thing which backs up your assertion, the sum total of evidence you have here is sweet fuck-all, and your claim can simply be dismissed. Quite clearly you don't like that, but guess what? No one fucking cares what you don't like. Your feelings are entirely your own concern. Incidentally, I see how you skirt around claiming to be able to cure cancer.

You obviously would rather the person dies than to seek out any alternative help.

Add 'obviously' to the list of words being given an idiosyncratic or mendacious interpretation by you. Your emotional outbursts are going to get you suspended pretty soon unless you keep yourself under control and stop personally attacking and misrepresenting other people. Bear in mind I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, by concluding that your reprehensible comment is down to strong emotion, and not just a deliberate attempt to provoke an emotional reaction in the target.

BlackBart wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

BlackBart wrote:You really love assuming your conclusion don't you? What evidence do you actually have that it would put them out of business?

You're hot on the trail, here, BB, but not quite there, yet. There is a wish here floating around to put the pharmas out of business. It's useful to distinguish between wishful thinking and circular reasoning.

I'm just being charitable and assuming for the moment there's a possibility some fact checking and actual reasoning has occured in Kyrani's corner... Hmmm, now I am being NAIVE

My reasoning is straight forward.
1. When the humane people understand that disease is all about nocebo effects, they can get themselves well and never get cancer, or any of the other "modern diseases", ever again.

2. That means there is no more narcissistic supply for the inhumane. Without what they call their "quintessential", they can't survive. So regardless of the fact that they can't make themselves well, even knowing the reality, there is no money there either.

3. Thus the pharmaceutical industry as it stands today can't stay in business because there are no more sick people in the millions and millions as there are today. There will always be some doctors but they will again be small time. Only those that are humane will survive and continue to practice medicine.

kyrani99 wrote:My reasoning is straight forward.
1. When the humane people understand that disease is all about nocebo effects, they can get themselves well and never get cancer, or any of the other "modern diseases", ever again.

1 - evidence needed.
2 - "modern" diseases?

kyrani99 wrote:3. Thus the pharmaceutical industry as it stands today can't stay in business because there are no more sick people in the millions and millions as there are today. There will always be some doctors but they will again be small time. Only those that are humane will survive and continue to practice medicine.

Blind counterfactual nonsense that runs contrary to the evidence of history of the millions of lives saved by modern medicine.

Sendraks wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:My reasoning is straight forward.
1. When the humane people understand that disease is all about nocebo effects, they can get themselves well and never get cancer, or any of the other "modern diseases", ever again.

1 - evidence needed.
2 - "modern" diseases?

kyrani99 wrote:3. Thus the pharmaceutical industry as it stands today can't stay in business because there are no more sick people in the millions and millions as there are today. There will always be some doctors but they will again be small time. Only those that are humane will survive and continue to practice medicine.

Blind counterfactual nonsense that runs contrary to the evidence of history of the millions of lives saved by modern medicine.

The nocebo effect is the evidence. People react to ideas that they treat seriously and their reaction is somatic, i.e., changes in body functions, eg unnecessary inflammatory responses. There is voluminous data available. In every drug trial there is evidence one way or the other. Even how people are informed of side effects of a drug can have a huge impact. Plenty of patients in control groups end up with side effect and they have not been given the drug. All of this is being swept under the carpet.

Modern diseases are not strictly speaking those that never occurred in the past but never occurred in the huge number that they occur in the last half century or so. Cancer, heart disease, strokes, mental disorders, autoimmune diseases including allergies and diabetes. All of these disease have increased an enormous extent and none are cured. All are treated enough to sustain the person on drugs either over the short or longer term. The vast majority become long term patients.

The evidence of history is the reliance on a track record for treating infectious diseases, where there has been success. But here too there are misconceptions. I am in the process of compiling a list of all the epidemic in history and I am finding that all so far happened because of some life threatening conditions that had nothing to do with pathogens. They had mainly to do with oppression (Catholic inquisitions that went on for hundreds of years), wars, natural catastrophes, and adverse political climates.

When people are afraid due to some external danger they react with fear and when the danger is seen to be external their body will decline their immune system. It happens to give the muscles an advantage for fuel materials so the person can take action to ward off an aggressor or run away. Fear in the short term does no harm. However if the danger persists over months or years then people are trying to survive with either a partially or wholly decline immune system. That means that they will become vulnerable even to the bugs, for which they already have immunity, because their immune system is not functioning.

The trumpets for the great success stories of vaccines and antibiotics are blasted in the absence of half the truth. I agree that vaccines and antibiotics have been helpful but we should see the whole picture. People are lead to believe that they have to have these when really our immune system beats any vaccines and antibiotics hands down, given the right conditions and some of that is knowledge.

Lies.

kyrani99 wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:My reasoning is straight forward.
1. When the humane people understand that disease is all about nocebo effects, they can get themselves well and never get cancer, or any of the other "modern diseases", ever again.

1 - evidence needed.
2 - "modern" diseases?

kyrani99 wrote:3. Thus the pharmaceutical industry as it stands today can't stay in business because there are no more sick people in the millions and millions as there are today. There will always be some doctors but they will again be small time. Only those that are humane will survive and continue to practice medicine.

Blind counterfactual nonsense that runs contrary to the evidence of history of the millions of lives saved by modern medicine.

The nocebo effect is the evidence.

No more than god is evidence of god.
Circular reasoning at it's finest.

You haven not demonstrated that nocebo exists kyrani. Until you do, you cannot cite it as evidence for anything, least at all nocebo itself.

kyrani99 wrote: People react to ideas that they treat seriously and their reaction is somatic, i.e., changes in body functions, eg unnecessary inflammatory responses. There is voluminous data available. In every drug trial there is evidence one way or the other. Even how people are informed of side effects of a drug can have a huge impact. Plenty of patients in control groups end up with side effect and they have not been given the drug. All of this is being swept under the carpet.

Modern diseases are not strictly speaking those that never occurred in the past but never occurred in the huge number that they occur in the last half century or so. Cancer, heart disease, strokes, mental disorders, autoimmune diseases including allergies and diabetes. All of these disease have increased an enormous extent and none are cured. All are treated enough to sustain the person on drugs either over the short or longer term. The vast majority become long term patients.

The evidence of history is the reliance on a track record for treating infectious diseases, where there has been success. But here too there are misconceptions. I am in the process of compiling a list of all the epidemic in history and I am finding that all so far happened because of some life threatening conditions that had nothing to do with pathogens. They had mainly to do with oppression (Catholic inquisitions that went on for hundreds of years), wars, natural catastrophes, and adverse political climates.

When people are afraid due to some external danger they react with fear and when the danger is seen to be external their body will decline their immune system. It happens to give the muscles an advantage for fuel materials so the person can take action to ward off an aggressor or run away. Fear in the short term does no harm. However if the danger persists over months or years then people are trying to survive with either a partially or wholly decline immune system. That means that they will become vulnerable even to the bugs, for which they already have immunity, because their immune system is not functioning.

The trumpets for the great success stories of vaccines and antibiotics are blasted in the absence of half the truth. I agree that vaccines and antibiotics have been helpful but we should see the whole picture. People are lead to believe that they have to have these when really our immune system beats any vaccines and antibiotics hands down, given the right conditions and some of that is knowledge.

More blind assertions without any evidence to back it up.

Thommo wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:

Thommo wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:
wrong. I also have dark skin and it could just as equally apply to me.

No, it's not wrong. Saying that you could have isn't the same as saying you did. These aren't similar words or concepts.

Out of interest are you an African American?

all you are doing is trying to insist on your interpretation of my words.
I am Greek Australian.

Perhaps I am. My interpretation is based on the standard meanings of the words as defined in English language reference books though. And I most certainly do insist that if people pretend to converse in English, that they stick to the agreed conventions to at least a basic, primary school level.

"He's tan up really well!" is not what anyone would normally say in reference to themself. Rather than the gender mismatched third person pronoun "he" (which is used to substitute in for a previously mentioned proper noun of a person who is neither the speaker, nor the individual the speaker is speaking to and is male) it would be normal in English to use the first person pronoun "I" (i.e. the speaker, gender neutral) if one referred to themself. Clearly you did not in fact do that. Your comment is not about you, it is about Obama.

This is why I said that you weren't laughing about yourself - because you weren't. Your comment was directed at someone who comes from a completely different ethnic group to what you claim for yourself, an ethnic group identifier which has been subjected to a long history of racial prejudice.

You are completely wrong. When I was an undergraduate student I had a boyfriend from Zimbabwe, who was a LOT darker than Obama. If I was racist I would hardly have had a boyfriend that was African. You are being influenced by Shrunk and his bias.

Here you see Obama has a gorgeous tan, I wish.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Ncf9LODjs
We’re Being Played By The Establishment - False Concern, Fake Election & Political Nightmare!
I used to tan well but not as good as this.

Obama speech is just in the first 5 or so minutes. He’s having some cheap shots at the loose cannon and backing the alternative( the one, who IMO, doesn’t bear thinking about). After that some crazy Canadian comes on, who starts bible bashing in the last 10mins.

kyrani99 wrote:
You are completely wrong. When I was an undergraduate student I had a boyfriend from Zimbabwe, who was a LOT darker than Obama. If I was racist I would hardly have had a boyfriend that was African. You are being influenced by Shrunk and his bias.

I imagine this will help you look less racist to the same extent to which, "How can I be sexist? I've fucked a lot of women!" would help Trump appear to be less misogynistic.

kyrani99 wrote:

Thommo wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:

Thommo wrote:

No, it's not wrong. Saying that you could have isn't the same as saying you did. These aren't similar words or concepts.

Out of interest are you an African American?

all you are doing is trying to insist on your interpretation of my words.
I am Greek Australian.

Perhaps I am. My interpretation is based on the standard meanings of the words as defined in English language reference books though. And I most certainly do insist that if people pretend to converse in English, that they stick to the agreed conventions to at least a basic, primary school level.

"He's tan up really well!" is not what anyone would normally say in reference to themself. Rather than the gender mismatched third person pronoun "he" (which is used to substitute in for a previously mentioned proper noun of a person who is neither the speaker, nor the individual the speaker is speaking to and is male) it would be normal in English to use the first person pronoun "I" (i.e. the speaker, gender neutral) if one referred to themself. Clearly you did not in fact do that. Your comment is not about you, it is about Obama.

This is why I said that you weren't laughing about yourself - because you weren't. Your comment was directed at someone who comes from a completely different ethnic group to what you claim for yourself, an ethnic group identifier which has been subjected to a long history of racial prejudice.

You are completely wrong.

Counterfactual blind assertion.

kyrani99 wrote:When I was an undergraduate student I had a boyfriend from Zimbabwe, who was a LOT darker than Obama. If I was racist I would hardly have had a boyfriend that was African. You are being influenced by Shrunk and his bias.

'I'm not homophobic! I have gay friends!

kyrani99 wrote:

Thommo wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:

Thommo wrote:

No, it's not wrong. Saying that you could have isn't the same as saying you did. These aren't similar words or concepts.

Out of interest are you an African American?

all you are doing is trying to insist on your interpretation of my words.
I am Greek Australian.

Perhaps I am. My interpretation is based on the standard meanings of the words as defined in English language reference books though. And I most certainly do insist that if people pretend to converse in English, that they stick to the agreed conventions to at least a basic, primary school level.

"He's tan up really well!" is not what anyone would normally say in reference to themself. Rather than the gender mismatched third person pronoun "he" (which is used to substitute in for a previously mentioned proper noun of a person who is neither the speaker, nor the individual the speaker is speaking to and is male) it would be normal in English to use the first person pronoun "I" (i.e. the speaker, gender neutral) if one referred to themself. Clearly you did not in fact do that. Your comment is not about you, it is about Obama.

This is why I said that you weren't laughing about yourself - because you weren't. Your comment was directed at someone who comes from a completely different ethnic group to what you claim for yourself, an ethnic group identifier which has been subjected to a long history of racial prejudice.

You are completely wrong. When I was an undergraduate student I had a boyfriend from Zimbabwe, who was a LOT darker than Obama. If I was racist I would hardly have had a boyfriend that was African. You are being influenced by Shrunk and his bias.

On what am I completely wrong? You respond with a non sequitur. I have not commented on any of your boyfriends past or present, I do not care to.

It is a fact that you talked about "he" not "I". It is a fact that "he" is accepted to be a third person pronoun and that "I" is the accepted first person pronoun. It is a fact that Greek Australian is a different ethnic group with a different history to African American. It is a fact that people who are African American have been subjected to a unique, persistent and severe racial prejudice right up to the present day.

So, on what am I "completely" wrong? Perhaps you think I am wrong to call you a racist? As this might be the interpretation from reading between the lines? Well, if that's the case (and it's a sad case of affairs that your posts are so airy fairy as to force me to guess, as opposed to you having expressed yourself clearly at any point of the exchange, I would say) then I'd invite you to carefully quote where I did that.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:
You are completely wrong. When I was an undergraduate student I had a boyfriend from Zimbabwe, who was a LOT darker than Obama. If I was racist I would hardly have had a boyfriend that was African. You are being influenced by Shrunk and his bias.

I imagine this will help you look less racist to the same extent to which, "How can I be sexist? I've fucked a lot of women!" would help Trump appear to be less misogynistic.

Hardly. Most men who fuck a lot of women are misogynist.

If I was a racist I wouldn't have had friends, teachers of my choosing and a boyfriend that were non-white. And from my experience most interpret 'white' to be Northern European. I was labelled black myself and I am from Southern European genetic pool and possibly some Egyptian because some distant relatives came from Egypt to Greece.

I have studied under Buddhist masters from Tibet, Burma, Malaysia, Japan and Vietnam.
I have studied under Hindu and yoga masters from India.
I have studied under Sufi masters from Turkey and Iran.
All of these men I revere.

Nelson Mandela is one of my heros.

It is absurd to call me a racist.
Shrunk was shooting his mouth off out of ignorance or maybe out of racism himself.

Thommo wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:

Thommo wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:
all you are doing is trying to insist on your interpretation of my words.
I am Greek Australian.

Perhaps I am. My interpretation is based on the standard meanings of the words as defined in English language reference books though. And I most certainly do insist that if people pretend to converse in English, that they stick to the agreed conventions to at least a basic, primary school level.

"He's tan up really well!" is not what anyone would normally say in reference to themself. Rather than the gender mismatched third person pronoun "he" (which is used to substitute in for a previously mentioned proper noun of a person who is neither the speaker, nor the individual the speaker is speaking to and is male) it would be normal in English to use the first person pronoun "I" (i.e. the speaker, gender neutral) if one referred to themself. Clearly you did not in fact do that. Your comment is not about you, it is about Obama.

This is why I said that you weren't laughing about yourself - because you weren't. Your comment was directed at someone who comes from a completely different ethnic group to what you claim for yourself, an ethnic group identifier which has been subjected to a long history of racial prejudice.

You are completely wrong. When I was an undergraduate student I had a boyfriend from Zimbabwe, who was a LOT darker than Obama. If I was racist I would hardly have had a boyfriend that was African. You are being influenced by Shrunk and his bias.

On what am I completely wrong? You respond with a non sequitur. I have not commented on any of your boyfriends past or present, I do not care to.

It is a fact that you talked about "he" not "I". It is a fact that "he" is accepted to be a third person pronoun and that "I" is the accepted first person pronoun. It is a fact that Greek Australian is a different ethnic group with a different history to African American. It is a fact that people who are African American have been subjected to a unique, persistent and severe racial prejudice right up to the present day.

So, on what am I "completely" wrong? Perhaps you think I am wrong to call you a racist? As this might be the interpretation from reading between the lines? Well, if that's the case (and it's a sad case of affairs that your posts are so airy fairy as to force me to guess, as opposed to you having expressed yourself clearly at any point of the exchange, I would say) then I'd invite you to carefully quote where I did that.

You are the one that is off base. Your remarks were originally about racism. You followed on from Shrunk's remarks and said that saying Obama had a good tan was racist. I pointed out that I was just saying something amusing about going from pink to tan and that we should be able to laugh at ourselves. Then you said I was referring to him and not me. Your comment assume individualism where I spoke collectively. I said "we". I put myself in there as well because I also had a chocolate tan when I was younger. Now I don't tan as dark. You are the one that is taking the "we" and tried to make it a "he" and not "I". "WE" includes both "he" and "I".

All this is, is trying to make a case where there is no case.