ScholasticSpastic wrote:

Shrunk wrote:
Why do I have to explain your own beliefs to you?

Well, someone has to think these things through.

I'm sceptical. Are we allowed to test this?

I propose the following experiment: Nobody, including Kyrani speaks about Kyrani's beliefs on this forum for a period of no less than one year. We all then reconvene to see if things are better or worse.

Thommo wrote:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

Shrunk wrote:
Why do I have to explain your own beliefs to you?

Well, someone has to think these things through.

I'm sceptical. Are we allowed to test this?

I propose the following experiment: Nobody, including Kyrani speaks about Kyrani's beliefs on this forum for a period of no less than one year. We all then reconvene to see if things are better or worse.

Firstly I am not merely talking about beliefs.
Secondly on what criteria do you judge "better or worse", skeptic criteria? or should I say skeptic's conformation bias!

kyrani99 wrote:

Thommo wrote:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

Shrunk wrote:
Why do I have to explain your own beliefs to you?

Well, someone has to think these things through.

I'm sceptical. Are we allowed to test this?

I propose the following experiment: Nobody, including Kyrani speaks about Kyrani's beliefs on this forum for a period of no less than one year. We all then reconvene to see if things are better or worse.

Firstly I am not merely talking about beliefs.

Well, there's certainly no reality to be found here. I'd agree that perhaps the things you are saying aren't only those you believe though. It is certainly possible that you are presenting things you do not believe (AKA lies) as well, but I see no need to make that determination for the purposes of this proposed experiment.

kyrani99 wrote:Secondly on what criteria do you judge "better or worse", skeptic criteria? or should I say skeptic's conformation bias!

Well, I had in mind that we would all score our enjoyment of the thread now on a 0 to 10 scale, and then again for the year when nobody posted at the end of that year absence. We could then compare the scores and check for significant differences based on fitting a normal distribution to the pre-absence scores at the p=0.05 level.

That said, if it will get you to take part I'm willing to adopt any other method you propose.

kyrani99 wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

kyrani99 wrote: Nocebo effect is what I am talking about.

No, it isn't. The term "nocebo effect" makes no reference to illness caused by the influence of "toxic people". Also, significantly, the nocebo effect by definition depends on the patient believing they are being given a drug or other substance, even though they are not. Your psychic death rays, you claim, work even when the person is not aware of the existence of the "toxic people".

Why do I have to explain your own beliefs to you?

This is intellectual dishonesty. You are trying to use the most narrowest definition and only as applied in drug trials. You also know that the garbage about death ray are only in your mind. Toxic people are two faced, they are generally unsuspected by non-toxic or humane people. The person is aware of the toxic people but not aware that they are toxic and the enemy. You know who they are, they are the people who psychiatrists call narcissistic, psychopathic and sociopathic.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3401955/
The narrow definition... a nocebo effect is the induction of a symptom perceived as negative by sham treatment and/or by the suggestion of negative expectations. A nocebo response is a negative symptom induced by the patient’s own negative expectations and/or by negative suggestions from clinical staff in the absence of any treatment.

But the paper admits to a wider definition: The verbal and non-verbal communications of physicians and nursing staff contain numerous unintentional negative suggestions that may trigger a nocebo response Patients are highly receptive to negative suggestion, particularly in situations perceived as existentially threatening, such as impending surgery, acute severe illness, or an accident. Persons in extreme situations are often in a natural trance state and thus highly suggestible (15, 16). This state of consciousness leaves those affected vulnerable to misunderstandings arising from literal interpretations, ambiguities, and negative suggestion

This is the medical definition, which doctors can talk about because the only evidence they have is as a result of observations in drug trials and in clinical practice. But this is clearly understood as the narrow view. Any negative idea can lead to a negative response.

This doctor can be said to have intellectual honesty, Dr Rankin MD.
"The nocebo effect is probably most obvious in “voodoo death,” when a person is cursed, told they will die, and then dies. The notion of voodoo death doesn’t just apply to witch doctors in tribal cultures. The literature shows that patients believed to be terminal who are mistakenly informed that they have only a few months to live have died within their given time frame, even when autopsy findings reveal no physiological explanation for the early death."

and here along the same lines as what I am saying:
"After reading through the 3500+ case studies documented in the medical literature in the Spontaneous Remission Project (http://noetic.org/research/project/onli ... y-project/), which was compiled by the Institute of Noetic Sciences, I now believe there’s no such thing as an incurable illness. If you or someone you love is suffering from a “chronic,” “incurable,” or “terminal” illness and you want to optimize the chance for spontaneous remission, you have to start by cleansing your mind of any negative beliefs that will sabotage your self-healing efforts. My upcoming book Mind Over Medicine: Scientific Proof That You Can Heal Yourself (at Amazon or Barnes and Noble!) offers tips for how you can change your negative beliefs to positive ones in order to optimize your chances."

I'm sorry but your writing is so tedious and rarely worthwhle, so I have not read all of the above. Could you just highlight the part where it is confirmed that the nocebo effect has been observed to be induced by people standing in the driveway outside the hosptial, unbeknowst to the patient?

SafeAsMilk wrote:No they didn't. You can't find a single scientific paper that says "fat is bad". You're welcome to try, but you won't find it. That misinformation came from journalists, people who didn't understand what the science was saying. You seem to get all your information from sources like that. Dismissing actual research in favor of ignorant dumbing-down of that research, now THAT'S stupid.

I don't see that government recommending bodies took any notice of journalists when recommending diets but were selective of the scientific literature.
http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h4962
"Use of external reviews by professional associations is problematic because these groups conduct literature reviews according to different standards and are supported by food and drug companies. The ACC reports receiving 38% of its revenue from industry in 2012, and the AHA reported 20% of revenue from industry in 2014. Potential conflicts of interest include, for instance, decades of support from vegetable oil manufacturers, whose products the AHA has long promoted for cardiovascular health. This reliance on industry backed groups clearly undermines the credibility of the government report."

with respect to saturated fats in diet...
"Restrictions on saturated fats have been a foundation of nutrition policy since the first guidelines in 1980 and have had a dominant role in determining which foods, such as low fat dairy and lean meats, are considered “healthy.” Instead of requesting a new NEL review for the recent literature on this crucial topic, however, the 2015 committee recommended extending the current cap on saturated fats, at 10% of calories, based on a review by the AHA and ACC,8 a 2010 NEL review, and the 2015 committee’s ad hoc selection of seven review papers (see table A on thebmj.com).

(note NEL: The US Department of Agriculture set up the Nutrition Evidence Library (NEL) to help conduct systematic reviews using a standardized process for identifying, selecting, and evaluating relevant studies.

It began with an American scientist and his studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancel_Keys
https://www.lipid.org/sites/default/fil ... l_Keys.pdf

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/28/3/381.abstract
Coronary Heart Disease among Minnesota Business and Professional Men Followed Fifteen Years
ANCEL KEYS, HENRY LONGSTREET TAYLOR, HENRY BLACKBURN, JOSEF BROZEK, JOSEPH T. ANDERSON and ERNST SIMONSON
Published: September 1, 1963

and it is still going on: http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 015-4113-x
another paper:http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1846638 Association of Dietary, Circulating, and Supplement Fatty Acids With Coronary Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Conclusion: Current evidence does not clearly support cardiovascular guidelines that encourage high consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids and low consumption of total saturated fats.

It has nothing to do with journalists and everything to do with drug companies that want to sell anti-cholesterol and other drugs.

kyrani99 wrote:

monkeyboy wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:
Don't presume to tell me what serious illness is about. I have known serious illness, stage 4 ovarian cancer with metastasis to the uterus, cervix, bowel and both lungs. And I had been told by doctors that there is really no treatment other than palliative. That I should get my things in order because I had six months to a year to live. That was in 1993. In mid 1994 about a year later the medical tests confirmed NO EVIDENCE OF DISEASE. I could have given up hope and died but instead I investigated how I could survive and I had the first spontaneous remission.

Wow! That sounds truly amazing. I don't suppose there's a shred of credible evidence for this. A recovery like that is no everyday event, it's the kind of event often referred to as 'miraculous'. I've been reading medical journals routinely since around 1992 and don't remember seeing anything about this sort of thing happening. I would have thought oncologists would have been all over it.

When my ex was diagnosed with cervical cancer, we found nothing in our searches of treatments that mentioned a case like yours. We ended up going down the tried and tested surgical route. No recurrence of any cancer and we're 8 yrs on. Lucky for us, we caught it early. No change in attitudes really or acceptance of any odd sounding ideas, just old fashioned trust in evidenced medicine. Her case was nothing special and would only serve the advance of medical practice by being a statistic supporting regular screening and early intervention maybe. Yours sounds like it's truly amazing. How come we're only hearing about it now over 20 yrs later?

Why wasnt this all over the journals and the international news? Sounds a bit of a dubious claim without some sort of supporting evidence. If pushed, I could produce testimony from my ex, copies of legal paperwork regarding a related life insurance claim and copies of details of her diagnosis from the consultant surgeon who treated her and followed her up for the next 5 yrs. Do you have anything to support what you say happened? I'm just a touch sceptical.

Why isn't it in medical journals?
"...how often spontaneous remission occurs. While it is often quoted that spontaneous remission occurs in approximately one in 60,000 to 100,000 cases, it is not clear from where this figure is derived. However, based on the number of incidences of spontaneous remission this author collected in a short period of time, it would appear that the number could easily be 10- to 20-fold greater than what is reported in the medical literature. http://www.noetic.org/research/projects ... ssion/faqs The reason has to do with money. There is no money in remission. What oncologist is going to advise a patient in a way that puts him or her out of business? And what drug company is going to fund the research that does not bring profits?

Who cares if your skeptical or not. Even if I did publish my records they don't prove how remission occurs. All there is is some tests saying I had this and that cancers and later records with no evidence of disease.

.

But yours was the first spontaneous remission and it was brought about by your actions, not the unexplained spontaneous remissions that other people have. You did it. That was your claim. You were the first person to do this and you keep it to yourself, why?

You admit there's no way of proving that it had anything to do with your actions why not cooperate with any research to establish what did? If it were me, I'd be willing to help in any way to save someone else going through that. Why not explain to your oncologist what you did and see if he had another patient willing to try what you did. If they are being told there's nothing left but to accept the inevitable, what would they have to lose? The oncologist would have the opportunity to be the one to write up the start of the successful treatment of cancer. Who wouldn't want to be in on that?

Sorry, I'm not buying the big pharma conspiracy shit. There's a pot of gold waiting at the end of the cure for cancer. That's why the big pharmaceutical guys are researching like mad. It's why the genetics folks are slaving away. I would guess there's a bloody huge Nobel Prize awaiting the person who unlocks cancer. If they achieve it without the use of surgery or chemo or mega bucks expensive drugs, the kudos achievable is amazing.

Doctors weren't lining the streets begging when TB, polio, mumps,rubella, tetanus etc vaccines came out. Sure some might have had to switch specialities but don't try telling that oncologists would stifle the opportunity to sit someone down to tell them they have cancer but not to worry because there now exists a reliable, non invasive, side effect free treatment. We're still going to need the oncologists. Who else will diagnose the cancers or monitor people through treatment and post treatment?

Populations are swelling. We're evolving wonderful new illnesses, diseases, viruses all the time. There's plenty for medicine to work at to keep any decent doctor and pharmaceutical researcher in business way beyond their individual careers.

So I'm left suspecting there's another reason your cancer cure isn't in the forefront of cancer treatment and it's related to testicles and the produce of bowels.

kyrani99 wrote:Firstly I am not merely talking about beliefs.
Secondly on what criteria do you judge "better or worse", skeptic criteria? or should I say skeptic's conformation bias!

The criteria are infinitely variable and depend on personal 'judgements'. A 'sceptic' viewpoint is not a 'fixed' viewpoint - it is just an approach to another point of view or a statement of 'fact' and a person's belief or non-belief is irrelevant. Just as your beliefs are irrelevant - except to you.

What is 'better' for one person can be 'worse' for another. 'Better' or 'worse' and 'good' or 'evil' are relative.

monkeyboy wrote:So I'm left suspecting there's another reason your cancer cure isn't in the forefront of cancer treatment and it's related to testicles and the produce of bowels.

Except in Kyrani's case the testicles are purely imaginary...

kyrani99 wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:It's a bit like the small pox vaccine. No company would ever develop such a product that would eventually make the product obsolete. Oh wait...

Shit, it gets worse. Vaccines... mercury... autism... Illuminati...

Vaccines are NOT CURES, vaccines are PREVENTATIVE TREATMENT.

So what? The vaccine has lead to the eradication of smallpox, thereby making the vaccine now worthless. Your conspiracy theory is busted.

Thommo wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:

Thommo wrote:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:
Well, someone has to think these things through.

I'm sceptical. Are we allowed to test this?

I propose the following experiment: Nobody, including Kyrani speaks about Kyrani's beliefs on this forum for a period of no less than one year. We all then reconvene to see if things are better or worse.

Firstly I am not merely talking about beliefs.

Well, there's certainly no reality to be found here. I'd agree that perhaps the things you are saying aren't only those you believe though. It is certainly possible that you are presenting things you do not believe (AKA lies) as well, but I see no need to make that determination for the purposes of this proposed experiment.

kyrani99 wrote:Secondly on what criteria do you judge "better or worse", skeptic criteria? or should I say skeptic's conformation bias!

Well, I had in mind that we would all score our enjoyment of the thread now on a 0 to 10 scale, and then again for the year when nobody posted at the end of that year absence. We could then compare the scores and check for significant differences based on fitting a normal distribution to the pre-absence scores at the p=0.05 level.

That said, if it will get you to take part I'm willing to adopt any other method you propose.

I don't see myself posting here a year from now, so it matters nothing to me what sort of scale etc you use. I was only interested to see how you were going to judge"better or worse".

Shrunk wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

kyrani99 wrote: Nocebo effect is what I am talking about.

No, it isn't. The term "nocebo effect" makes no reference to illness caused by the influence of "toxic people". Also, significantly, the nocebo effect by definition depends on the patient believing they are being given a drug or other substance, even though they are not. Your psychic death rays, you claim, work even when the person is not aware of the existence of the "toxic people".

Why do I have to explain your own beliefs to you?

This is intellectual dishonesty. You are trying to use the most narrowest definition and only as applied in drug trials. You also know that the garbage about death ray are only in your mind. Toxic people are two faced, they are generally unsuspected by non-toxic or humane people. The person is aware of the toxic people but not aware that they are toxic and the enemy. You know who they are, they are the people who psychiatrists call narcissistic, psychopathic and sociopathic.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3401955/
The narrow definition... a nocebo effect is the induction of a symptom perceived as negative by sham treatment and/or by the suggestion of negative expectations. A nocebo response is a negative symptom induced by the patient’s own negative expectations and/or by negative suggestions from clinical staff in the absence of any treatment.

But the paper admits to a wider definition: The verbal and non-verbal communications of physicians and nursing staff contain numerous unintentional negative suggestions that may trigger a nocebo response Patients are highly receptive to negative suggestion, particularly in situations perceived as existentially threatening, such as impending surgery, acute severe illness, or an accident. Persons in extreme situations are often in a natural trance state and thus highly suggestible (15, 16). This state of consciousness leaves those affected vulnerable to misunderstandings arising from literal interpretations, ambiguities, and negative suggestion

This is the medical definition, which doctors can talk about because the only evidence they have is as a result of observations in drug trials and in clinical practice. But this is clearly understood as the narrow view. Any negative idea can lead to a negative response.

This doctor can be said to have intellectual honesty, Dr Rankin MD.
"The nocebo effect is probably most obvious in “voodoo death,” when a person is cursed, told they will die, and then dies. The notion of voodoo death doesn’t just apply to witch doctors in tribal cultures. The literature shows that patients believed to be terminal who are mistakenly informed that they have only a few months to live have died within their given time frame, even when autopsy findings reveal no physiological explanation for the early death."

and here along the same lines as what I am saying:
"After reading through the 3500+ case studies documented in the medical literature in the Spontaneous Remission Project (http://noetic.org/research/project/onli ... y-project/), which was compiled by the Institute of Noetic Sciences, I now believe there’s no such thing as an incurable illness. If you or someone you love is suffering from a “chronic,” “incurable,” or “terminal” illness and you want to optimize the chance for spontaneous remission, you have to start by cleansing your mind of any negative beliefs that will sabotage your self-healing efforts. My upcoming book Mind Over Medicine: Scientific Proof That You Can Heal Yourself (at Amazon or Barnes and Noble!) offers tips for how you can change your negative beliefs to positive ones in order to optimize your chances."

I'm sorry but your writing is so tedious and rarely worthwhle, so I have not read all of the above. Could you just highlight the part where it is confirmed that the nocebo effect has been observed to be induced by people standing in the driveway outside the hosptial, unbeknowst to the patient?

This is more intellectual dishonest. You simply don't want to acknowledge that the nocebo effect is about ideas, belief or expectations giving rise to negative bodily reactivity.

kyrani99 wrote:This is more intellectual dishonest. You simply don't want to acknowledge that the nocebo effect is about ideas, belief or expectations giving rise to negative bodily reactivity.

No, that is exactly what I understand it to be about. Which is why it cannot be caused by "noxious people" of whose existence one is not aware. That is what you claim, remember?

Shrunk wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:This is more intellectual dishonest. You simply don't want to acknowledge that the nocebo effect is about ideas, belief or expectations giving rise to negative bodily reactivity.

No, that is exactly what I understand it to be about. Which is why it cannot be caused by "noxious people" of whose existence one is not aware. That is what you claim, remember?

To elaborate, kyrani99, the nocebo effect is about what YOU do to you, not what OTHERS do to you. Thus your evil others hypothesis has nothing to do with nocebo. If your cancer came about due to nocebo, you effectively gave YOURSELF cancer. Not something most people would brag about.

monkeyboy wrote: But yours was the first spontaneous remission and it was brought about by your actions, not the unexplained spontaneous remissions that other people have. You did it. That was your claim. You were the first person to do this and you keep it to yourself, why?

I am hardly keeping it to myself. I have written about it on my blogs and I am in the process of making a series of videos, which when viewed, will help a cancer patient, even with terminal cancer, to have an ah ha experience that will lead their body to effect spontaneous remission.

monkeyboy wrote: You admit there's no way of proving that it had anything to do with your actions why not cooperate with any research to establish what did? If it were me, I'd be willing to help in any way to save someone else going through that. Why not explain to your oncologist what you did and see if he had another patient willing to try what you did. If they are being told there's nothing left but to accept the inevitable, what would they have to lose? The oncologist would have the opportunity to be the one to write up the start of the successful treatment of cancer. Who wouldn't want to be in on that?

It is not about proof. There is never proof in medical science. I am in the process of trying to understand the genetics and other body processes to try and gain insight into what I observed and explain this in scientific terms. That will provide me with a testable theory, which I can then publish in a medical journal and on my blog sites.

My oncologist was not even remotely interested. You would reasonably think that it is worth a try as they have nothing to risk and nothing to lose but you only need to see the attitudes on here. Some are saying it is more sensible to do nothing other than accept the inevitable death, but of course they are not the ones with the cancer. If they get cancer they may of course think differently.

You don't understand oncology. It is a medical practice, which means they are in the business of selling drugs and medical procedures. Enlightening a patient as to have their body reverse the changes has no financial benefit. It is economic ruin.

To try and give a parallel.
If you see a snake in the grass you will experience some fear, which is your body moving into high metabolism to prepare for some possible rapid action, as for example you may jump back or run away.

However if you then suddenly realize that "hey it is not a snake but a fancy garden hose", your body will stop maintaining a high metabolism and return to resting metabolism and you will feel relief, you may laugh about it.

This is the same thing. While there are ideas that are unwittingly treated as real owing to concurrent fear or hot feeling etc., ie manufactured belief, the person's body will be reacting and may ignite inflammation and /or an attempt to protect the area with a barrier. The barrier of course can only be made with cells, so a mass develops..

Once the person realizes that the idea are a hoax and that the fear/ hot feeling is due to an unrelated threat, then they will stop reacting, so their body will undo the changes made and return to resting metabolism, i.e., health. Furthermore they will become aware that people they trusted were not trustworthy. It takes many to play the game but the chief offender is always someone related to the targeted person somehow and someone who is in a position to expose the person to the potential threat.

monkeyboy wrote: Sorry, I'm not buying the big pharma conspiracy shit. There's a pot of gold waiting at the end of the cure for cancer. That's why the big pharmaceutical guys are researching like mad. It's why the genetics folks are slaving away. I would guess there's a bloody huge Nobel Prize awaiting the person who unlocks cancer. If they achieve it without the use of surgery or chemo or mega bucks expensive drugs, the kudos achievable is amazing.

You're naive. There is NO pot of gold. There is no cure and no treatment whens the body moves into spontaneous remission automatically once they wake up to what bullshit ideas they are being conned into believing. The whole cancer industry is geared to milk cancer for all they can get. The ultimate dream of big pharma is life long patients, better than the five to ten years, needing ongoing drugs and various tests and procedures.

No drug can be found, it is a fairy tale because while the body continues to react there is no drug that is going to do any good other than on the short term. People have chemo and the cancer becomes more aggressive in some cases.

As far as a Nobel Prize in Medicine for the solution to cancer, yet that is true but this is NOT what motivates me. I am interested in fighting evil in the world. Disease is the damage taken from the foul games played for power and influence or revenge. I mean to expose the rubbish and awaken the humane so that they can stand against the foul game play and be able to win against evil. It is the war between good and evil that I am here to fight.

monkeyboy wrote: Doctors weren't lining the streets begging when TB, polio, mumps,rubella, tetanus etc vaccines came out. Sure some might have had to switch specialities but don't try telling that oncologists would stifle the opportunity to sit someone down to tell them they have cancer but not to worry because there now exists a reliable, non invasive, side effect free treatment. We're still going to need the oncologists. Who else will diagnose the cancers or monitor people through treatment and post treatment?

There will always be a need for some doctors. People do suffer accidents or may want some cosmetic surgery etc. But once diseases like cancer are a thing of the past, oncologists become an extinct species. The number of doctors will shrink once diseases are wiped out, they can no longer sustain their businesses. And the pharmaceutical industry will also take a huge correction. The bubble will burst.

Once the war is won and all evil people are eradicated or perish there will be no more cancer and no more disease.

monkeyboy wrote: Populations are swelling. We're evolving wonderful new illnesses, diseases, viruses all the time. There's plenty for medicine to work at to keep any decent doctor and pharmaceutical researcher in business way beyond their individual careers.

So I'm left suspecting there's another reason your cancer cure isn't in the forefront of cancer treatment and it's related to testicles and the produce of bowels.

There are about 800 million to 1 billion toxic people in the world. These people will all perish. The population will shrink by 15% maybe even 20%, and there will no longer be a threat to survival, which is the cause of population explosion. Thus the population will over several generations shrink further to find a mean that is in harmony with the environment.

My cancer cure will not be needed and merely go down in history once diseases such as cancer are a thing of the past, forgotten. The relationship you see to testicles and the produce of bowels is only in your mind. My advice would be careful what you think.

Or not.

kyrani99 wrote:

My cancer cure will not be needed and merely go down in history once diseases such as cancer are a thing of the past, forgotten. The relationship you see to testicles and the produce of bowels is only in your mind. My advice would be careful what you think.

Your "cure for cancer" if it had a moment of merit about it would not have taken over 20 yrs to gain an ounce of credibility outside of your head. It hasn't, simply because it has no credibility and cannot be demonstrated to work. If it could, it would be well known about and in use.

The relationship between testicles and the produce of bowels has only your outpourings in common, being that your claims amount to bollocks and complete shite.

You either can't or won't explain any of your claims. Feel free to blog or make videos all you like but unless the content is going to be a huge improvement on what we're seeing here, all you're going be putting out is recycled shit. A polished turd may shine and glisten but it's still shit from end to end.

Bernoulli wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:

Bernoulli wrote:It's a bit like the small pox vaccine. No company would ever develop such a product that would eventually make the product obsolete. Oh wait...

Shit, it gets worse. Vaccines... mercury... autism... Illuminati...

Vaccines are NOT CURES, vaccines are PREVENTATIVE TREATMENT.

So what? The vaccine has lead to the eradication of smallpox, thereby making the vaccine now worthless. Your conspiracy theory is busted.

No the vaccines are not worthless. Most people who are less than 40 years old have not been vaccinated and have had no exposure to the virus. If there was an act of bioterrorism, where large amounts of the virus was released, maybe in a bomb or some other device then about 30 % of these people may perish because approximately that number don't recover if exposed to the virus.

The successes of the medical industry have largely been vaccines and antibiotics. And every time one points to the failure of medicine to treat the chronic, non-infectious diseases and as it appears at least the desire to have these diseases treated in ways that make huge profits, everyone wants to point to the vaccines and antibiotics and crow about them as the great successes.

I am not alone in talking about conspiracy. There are plenty of doctors also screaming about it.
Here: http://vitalitymagazine.com/article/toxic-psychiatry/

"“The battle against polypharmacy, or the use of a large number of drugs..."
"About 20% of the North American population is now on psychiatric drugs for either depression, ADHD, anxiety, schizophrenia, phobias, impulse-control disorder, or bi-polar disorder. North Americans consume multiple uppers and downers and mysterious “mood stabilizers,” to the tune of $25 billion annually. These are prescribed by doctors who are either deceived by the manufacturers of those drugs or who are complicit in Big Pharma’s business model. Most prescribers know very little about pharmacology and almost none have any training in toxicology. Big Pharma tosses 87% of their annual $58 billion marketing budget at doctors, starting in medical school where 94% of psychiatrists-in-training have accepted gifts from Big Pharma by their third year."

and this..

"The proof is now in, provided by critical-thinking researchers supported by brain-imaging technology, that drugs, especially those used to treat schizophrenia and stimulants used for ADHD, actually shrink the brain. Who would have thought that MRIs would give concrete reality to the term “shrink”!"

In fact the whole lot is worth reading.

Google definition of 'Blockbuster Drugs'
An extremely popular drug that generates annual sales of at least $1 billion for the company that creates it. Examples of blockbuster drugs include Vioxx, Lipitor and Zoloft.

Have a look at these three blockbuster drugs.
Vioxx. https://www.drugwatch.com/vioxx/
Drugwatch is sponsored by The Peterson Firm, a national law firm whose office is located in Washington, D.C. The firm specializes in mass torts and complex litigations where consumers were injured by the wrongdoings of large corporations.

"Released in 1999, Vioxx is a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug, or NSAID, much like ibuprofen and naproxen. It was used mainly for acute pain such as arthritis and menstrual-related symptoms."

"Medical professionals claim that the drug’s manufacturer not only worked to conceal the risks associated with Vioxx but also schemed with federal drug regulators to keep them under wraps for as long as possible. Even though the drug was recalled in 2004, issues regarding the drug’s dangers continue today."

Conspiracy??? Surely not the doctors here must have got it wrong you reckon? Or maybe drugwatch is a scam.

"By 2003, the $195 million Vioxx marketing machine was in full force, and sales for the drug reached $2.5 billion worldwide. It wasn’t until after Merck launched a second study, this time to review the drug’s effect on colon polyps, that the company was forced to reveal the truth. The company’s APPROVe study found that Vioxx raised the risk of a heart attack for those taking it for less than two years."

"Dr. David Graham, an FDA scientist, testified that FDA officials repeatedly tried to block his Vioxx findings that pointed to the drug’s propensity to cause heart attacks. Additional testimony from several other physicians pointed to Merck knowing about the risks early on but hiding them. Merck officials repeatedly denied the findings."

Some would call the whistleblowers scum. And maybe blame the class action against Merck unfair.
The poor company had to pay $4.85 billion settlement fund and paid out nearly 35,000 claims.

"In 2011, Merck agreed to pay $950 million and pleaded guilty to a federal misdemeanor charge related to its shady marketing and sales tactics. The company incurred a $321 million criminal fine and was ordered to pay the remainder to the federal government and state Medicaid agencies."

Next Lipitor
https://www.drugwatch.com/search/?q=Lip ... true&info=
You can read all about it, causes diabetes, maybe heart problems and so on.

And finally Zoltof
https://www.drugwatch.com/zoloft/
By 2005, Zoloft was the most popularly prescribed antidepressant on the U.S. market, with nearly 30 million prescriptions being written. In that same year, it was the sixth most prescribed brand-name prescription medication, grossing nearly $ 2.6 billion.'

"Minor side effects of Zoloft that typically decrease after the first or second week of use include:
Nausea, Diarrhea, Weight loss or gain, Increased sweating, Dizziness, Sleepiness or insomnia, Tremor, Dry mouth
Headache, Restlessness, Suicidal Thoughts, Sexual Dysfunction."

"Research shows, however, that babies born to mothers who have taken Zoloft or another SSRI after the 20th week of pregnancy are more likely to suffer from persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN), which is fatal in 10 percent of cases. In addition, one study showed that women taking sertraline had twice the risk of having a baby born with a heart defect.

Using SSRIs while pregnant — or even up to a month before conception — can lead to a fatal birth defect called anencephaly, in which a large portion of the brain and skull never develops. In addition, babies are more likely to suffer from facial malformations such as cleft lip and cleft palate if a mother took an SSRI during pregnancy. Taking an antidepressant while pregnant can also put babies at risk for withdrawal symptoms. The side effects can be serious, but the risk of a birth effect occurring is relatively low."

And it lists more side effects as well.

Your nonsense is busted.

Shrunk wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:This is more intellectual dishonest. You simply don't want to acknowledge that the nocebo effect is about ideas, belief or expectations giving rise to negative bodily reactivity.

No, that is exactly what I understand it to be about. Which is why it cannot be caused by "noxious people" of whose existence one is not aware. That is what you claim, remember?

The ideas can be presented by many different people, some may be doctors but some may be noxious people. You know the kind. Narcissistic, psychopathic, sociopathic. The sort that psychiatrists say have a mental disorder but it doesn't do them any harm, it only harms others around them, so there is no good grounds to drug them. The sort that are prepared to play all manner of foul games to gain power and influence over others, those to whom they are related.

The person targeted is most often not aware because the lumps of rubbish are two-faced and deceitful; they appear friendly and charming when really they are demonic and ugly.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:This is more intellectual dishonest. You simply don't want to acknowledge that the nocebo effect is about ideas, belief or expectations giving rise to negative bodily reactivity.

No, that is exactly what I understand it to be about. Which is why it cannot be caused by "noxious people" of whose existence one is not aware. That is what you claim, remember?

To elaborate, kyrani99, the nocebo effect is about what YOU do to you, not what OTHERS do to you. Thus your evil others hypothesis has nothing to do with nocebo. If your cancer came about due to nocebo, you effectively gave YOURSELF cancer. Not something most people would brag about.

No one generates ideas to deceive and hurt themselves. So no one gives themselves cancer.
Cancer is a reaction to manufactured beliefs and the person themselves CANNOT manufacture beliefs to harm themselves. That is garbage.
The ideas are manufactured into beliefs by being presented concurrently with a concealed threat.
You are trying to let the rubbish off the hook.

TRUE, the person's reaction to those ideas is their own. This may seem like a bad thing but actually it is a boon. When it is your own reaction that causes you the problem then it is in your power to undo the problem. BUT the person has to realize that the ideas are bogus and the concealed threat is external and unrelated.

To do that they have to be informed about the foul game play. Once they see the game, they can easily discharge the ideas realizing that they are false.. bogus, and relax.

kyrani99 wrote:
No one generates ideas to deceive and hurt themselves. So no one gives themselves cancer.
Cancer is a reaction to manufactured beliefs and the person themselves CANNOT manufacture beliefs to harm themselves. That is garbage.
The ideas are manufactured into beliefs by being presented concurrently with a concealed threat.

Any chance you could re-write this in a way that it makes sense?