Started By
Message
re: Interesting hoax message going around about cancer
Posted on 5/28/14 at 2:50 pm to Roger Klarvin
Posted on 5/28/14 at 2:50 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Thats not what you said. You said:
Really? Are these two quotes not saying the same thing? It seems it is factual that pharmaceutical companies lobby the government, meaning that is something that isn't untrue in my post, as you said everything was untrue.
quote:
So it's not factual that pharmaceutical companies spend exorbitant amounts of money lobbying the government? That's not factual?
quote:
They spend billions every year lobbying to keep Cannabis illegal because they make TRILLIONS off Cancer drugs and research.
quote:
Given that you misrepresented the study,
How did I misrepresent the study?
The study found that cannabis has positive effects on killing cancer, the study was classified.
Is that odd to you?
0
Posted on 5/28/14 at 2:50 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
I could keep going, point being the fact that your friend smoked weed to ease chemo symptoms has really nothing at all to do with the argument that cannabis can kill cancer cells.
It doesn't have nothing to do with it. It just doesn't give the result you'd desire.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 2:54 pm to the808bass
quote:
It doesn't have nothing to do with it. It just doesn't give the result you'd desire.
That's not true. If this person was mostly smoking to alleviate symptoms from chemo and that didn't kill their cancer cells you can not possibly attribute the failure to kill the cells with a failure of cannabis, especially considering the oil is what kills the cells.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 2:57 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
I could keep going, point being the fact that your friend smoked weed to ease chemo symptoms has really nothing at all to do with the argument that cannabis can kill cancer cells.
They weren't smoking it. It was a concentrated amount in a oil I believe. Consumed with a dropper? I couldn't tell you right off hand exactly what it was/brand/etc.
As I said though, I can't imagine pro-marijuana folks sitting on this huge secret that concentrated THC can cure cancer. That would almost assuredly get marijuana legalized in most states if they were able to prove that.
This post was edited on 5/28/14 at 2:59 pm
Posted on 5/28/14 at 2:59 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
t. It was a concentrated amount in a oil I believe. Consumed with a dropper? I couldn't tell you right off hand exactly what it was/brand/etc.
Sounds like you don't really know what they were taking.
It's illegal and difficult to get the real deal when it comes to cannabis oil, I really have my doubts that they were doing this the right way with the right stuff.
But it's the internets, so whatever you say, I guess.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 3:02 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
As I said though, I can't imagine pro-marijuana folks sitting on this huge secret that concentrated THC can cure cancer. That would almost assuredly get marijuana legalized in most states if they were able to prove that.
It is a big part of the pro marijuana movement.
Unfortunately anything that you see or hear on tv, radio, and newsprint is controlled by 4-6 conglomerates that have trillions of reasons to suppress and divert the pro marijuana thing.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 3:07 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
Sounds like you don't really know what they were taking.
It was explained to me that way. They're fairly intelligent people so I don't mind taking their word for it.
quote:
It's illegal and difficult to get the real deal when it comes to cannabis oil, I really have my doubts that they were doing this the right way with the right stuff.
And expensive. Fortunately they live in a state that's pretty high on the scale of marijuana production. Even if illegally.
quote:
But it's the internets, so whatever you say, I guess.
Why are you so asshurt about someone questioning what you post?
quote:
Unfortunately anything that you see or hear on tv, radio, and newsprint is controlled by 4-6 conglomerates that have trillions of reasons to suppress and divert the pro marijuana thing.
I've never seen it mentioned, at least not seriously, that it cures cancer. Eases symptoms during chemo? Sure. And there's a pretty strong following for it here, especially now that the state has pushed through hemp (a jumping off point ).
Posted on 5/28/14 at 3:08 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
What is discovered has to be profitable for the engine that feeds the search.
..................................................
It is rather interesting that Pfizer manufactures Lipitor for controlling cholesterol and that one of the side effects of Lipitor is ED, well we got ya covered have some Viagara, nice bang for your buck on that one Pfizer
, one other thing this cholesterol thing is out of hand, most of the cholesterol in the body is produced by the body probably close to 80-85% from what I've read, so reducing dietary cholesterol is helpful but still not the culprit. Cholesterol is produced by the body to repair damage in the body and if you have high levels of LDL you have inflammation occurring. The antistatin drugs are telling your liver to stop producing so much LDL, again not discovering the cause of the high levels of LDL but treating the symptom at the risk of damaging your liver and the unwanted side effects.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 3:13 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
It was explained to me that way. They're fairly intelligent people so I don't mind taking their word for it.
Whaaat, Belle, please.
You said "I believe" and "I'm not really sure", which is why I said it sounds like you don't really know what they were taking and how they were taking it. It has nothing at all to do with their intelligence, holy smokes.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 3:19 pm to Sleeping Tiger
quote:
You said "I believe" and "I'm not really sure", which is why I said it sounds like you don't really know what they were taking and how they were taking it. It has nothing at all to do with their intelligence, holy smokes.
They were taking it by dropper, at least from what I saw. I was told it was because they could get a high concentration of THC from the liquid form versus smoking it (and one wasn't a smoker to begin with).
Is that better or are we going to keep going on this by arguing grammatical semantics?
Posted on 5/28/14 at 3:21 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
arguing grammatical semantics
that is pretty much all the rant does at 3:00 in the afternoon these days.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 3:34 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
Is that better or are we going to keep going on this by arguing grammatical semantics?
Is that what you think is happening here? Good gracious.
They were doing ____ I believe, using ___ or ___ I'm not sure, and I'm not sure what brand ect.
Belle, it sounds like you don't really know what they were taking, that is all, has nothing to do with grammar.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 3:35 pm to Sleeping Tiger
I typed out a long response. And then realized I don't care.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 3:35 pm to Sleeping Tiger
Sigh. Enjoy the afternoon. Let me know when you're ready to have a conversation without demeaning anyone who counters the information you post. 
This post was edited on 5/28/14 at 3:36 pm
Posted on 5/28/14 at 3:47 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:He does have a problem with that.
Let me know when you're ready to have a conversation without demeaning anyone who counters the information you post.
Posted on 5/28/14 at 3:50 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
Let me know when you're ready to have a conversation without demeaning anyone who counters the information you post.
From what you said it sounds like you're not quite sure what they were taking or how they took it, as well as not calculating the vast amount of mediating factors that go into all of this.
Comprehending phrases like "I'm not sure" and "I believe" as indications that you aren't positive about what they took is not being disrespectful or demeaning, as you put it.
This post was edited on 5/28/14 at 3:52 pm
Posted on 5/28/14 at 4:53 pm to Roger Klarvin
This sounds exactly like that one quack woman who touted a starvation diet to cure all ills and then took control of her dying patients finances.
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News