Discussion in 'BlackHat Lounge' started by unknownn, Sep 4, 2012.
Queue the "cancer can be cured with apricot kernels" and "the big pharma conspiracy wants us to have cancer" posts. 3-2-1 go
apricot kernels are not so effectiv like the modified virus expecially not in an end stadium
Remove sugar / refined carbs and you have the cure for cancer
that wont help people in end stadium
It's that easy huh. Great. The biggest killer of the human kind is now gone. Let off the fireworks and ring the church bells.
Who said it has to be hard? If you read the research on cancer you'll see that cancer was very uncommon among tribes who didn't consume sugar. (and other nations around the world w low cancer rates) Remove the cause and there you go.. You have the cure for cancer. Its That simple.
Removing something isnt a cure.Also number one causing cancer isnt sugar but modified food ,low nutrition in food and additional chemical components in food
^^ your right removing something isnt a cure. But the fact is ot will disapear and thats what wehere looking for at the end of the day.
The evidence to back up sugar as the cause of cancer is huge. (and not modified food /low nutrion / etc)
Dude sugar exist already for a long time.In the 80's people were also drinking a lot of softdrinks and still there wasnt many cases of cancer.It started increasing when nutition of food got lower and when they started adding gen modified food.There are studies proofing that gen modified food causes cancer + infertility .Numbers of infertility is exploding since 1990
1. Statistics clearly indicate that 2 centuries ago quanity of sugar consume per capita was 15 pounds (in the USA - in other Countires it was less) Now people comsume more than 150 pounds per capita per year. I'm not sure where u get this data from that cancer was rare in the 1980's this is certainly not true (although it may have been less common then it is today). Sugar consumption rose dramatically from 1980 and on (in particular HFCS) so has cancer rates (same thing as obesity which is also caused by excess sugar consumption)
2. Data to support gen modified food as main cancer agent = poor. Gen modified food = new cancer isn't
Magnus clearly hasn't heard of indiegogo..
Correlation does not imply causation.
your statistic is totaly wrong.You can also take as example fluoride which started from 1990 and telling that fluoride causes cancer is just bullshit.The year of increase of fluoride matches with the year of of increasing cancer but they have no relation together.Its just statistic without any proof.However modified food has many studies where its proofed that it causes diffrent cancer same as low nutrition and you can trust me in the 80 there wasnt much cases of cancer of people under 50
@Chris he already said that funding isnt the major problem if you would read it carefully
May I know which part of statistics I mentioned is wrong?
The fact that sugar intakes increased by 1000% over the past 2 centuries is clearly documented.
The data to support the role of sugar in cancer mortality ranges far beyond the correlation of higher intake of sugar = higher cancer. It's supported by numerous avenues of research. John Yudkin found that the higher consumption of sugar per capita in country = higher cancer rates. When it comes to fluoride the data is scarce (at best) as there are 1,000 thibgs that increased during 1980 and onward. The thing about sugar is that ALL data supports this.
Research in mice also supprts this theory BTW. (and other research).
Also same arguments you write could be held against the theory of gen modified food. Data to support sugar in cancer mortality is far higher than gen modified food. Again, gen modified food = new phenomenon cancer isn't
no your wrong, its electricty causes cancer
@mark your stats are wrong.You are trying to proof something which is nonsense.Sugar is unhealthy no question about it but it isnt responsible for the mass cancer.Take a look for the alternative which is being used for sugar since 1990 its aspartame.Its a rat posion which people are drinking with the light products and its proofen on many studies that its causing cancer.You wont find studies about sugar which are so clrealy like from modified food and chemical staff.
webwhizz electric smog and not electricity itself.Its responsible that your body can't rebuild/detox as it should during your rest times.
There is a great scientist about it from USA.
From that same article: 'Our results are only in the lab so far, not in humans, and many treatments that work in the lab can turn out to be not so effective in humans.'
Separate names with a comma.