(11-03-2015, 11:40 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Yep.  

Saw that wrong.

Well that's new...While this is happening I'm going to see if you can now attempt to defend your $125 billion profits for medication that counteracts chemo side effects.  I challenge you to read the article you posted as proof again and then come back and see if your assertion is defendable.

I will however give you a hint.  It is not and it is a case of you not reading properly again.  Don't take my word for it though.  Really dig into the the reading and discover your mistake for yourself.  This is how you learn.

IF after you have read it again and you still don't see how you have misrepresented the facts, let me know and I will help you.  I will more likely use an educational strategy called scaffolding by which I will not show you or give you the answer, rather I will give you some hints and redirect you to the areas you need to review to find the answer yourself.

(11-03-2015, 11:40 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Yep.  

Saw that wrong.

Rep.

I'm proud of you for admitting that.
We all make mistakes.

(11-03-2015, 11:51 AM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Well that's new...While this is happening I'm going to see if you can now attempt to defend your $125 billion profits for medication that counteracts chemo side effects.  I challenge you to read the article you posted as proof again and then come back and see if your assertion is defendable.

I will however give you a hint.  It is not and it is a case of you not reading properly again.  Don't take my word for it though.  Really dig into the the reading and discover your mistake for yourself.  This is how you learn.

IF after you have read it again and you still don't see how you have misrepresented the facts, let me know and I will help you.  I will more likely use an educational strategy called scaffolding by which I will not show you or give you the answer, rather I will give you some hints and redirect you to the areas you need to review to find the answer yourself.

I was wrong about that site, but what about this one:

Quote:There will never be a “cure” brought to market because there just isn’t enough profit in eradicating the disease entirely.  There will never be a governing body that protects consumers from being subjected to known carcinogens, because that too, will stop the cash from rolling in. A great deal of research is covered up and many potential cures are ignored and discredited because there is far more money in perpetuating illness than in curing it. In 2012, the reported spending on cancer treatment was 124.6 billion dollars.  Blood money.

I guess they're wrong, too, and they somehow came up with a dollar value very, very, VERY close to the one I posted?

This site says how a doctor in Australia was bribed BY A BIG DRUG COMPANY to give patients a high dose of chemotherapy, when they only needed a low dose.

But what do Australians know?

Here's one more:

Quote:he reason so many celebrities are harmed or killed by the cancer industry is quite simple: The cancer industry is a for-profit business. It makes money by treating cancer, not by curing or preventing cancer.

My first post might have been wrong because it was late and I didn't read it entirely, which was a big mistake by me, but how about those?  What about the Cancer Doctor in Australia?  Doesn't that prove what I've been saying?

(11-03-2015, 12:34 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Rep.

I'm proud of you for admitting that.
We all make mistakes.

I'm very hard-headed, but I can man-up when I've made an obvious mistake that's not just an opinion.

(11-03-2015, 01:33 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I was wrong about that site, but what about this one:


 the reported spending on cancer treatment was 124.6 billion dollars.  Blood money.


I guess they're wrong, too, 

Okay....Now it seems you still don't understand why you are wrong.  I'm know why.  YOu didn't review your claim about the $125 Billion.  I hope that my scaffolding on this will help so here it goes.

Please review your original claim about the $125 Billion.  then read the above.  compare and contrast the two and get back to me.

(11-03-2015, 01:41 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Okay....Now it seems you still don't understand why you are wrong.  I'm know why.  YOu didn't review your claim about the $125 Billion.  I hope that my scaffolding on this will help so here it goes.

Please review your original claim about the $125 Billion.  then read the above.  compare and contrast the two and get back to me.

It send spending on cancer treatment was 124.6 billion, meaning the chemo drugs and everything to counter the treatments, which, if you read the article, you'd realize.

(11-03-2015, 01:45 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: It send spending on cancer treatment was 124.6 billion, meaning the chemo drugs and everything to counter the treatments, which, if you read the article, you'd realize.

Now go back and read you original claim.  It is quite apparent you have not done so.  I will not give you the answer, you won't learn if I do.

(11-03-2015, 02:01 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: the 125 billion is on drugs to counter the chemo.

Quote:BFritz21

Drugs to counter traditional chemotherapy bring in a profit of like 125 billion per year, with income only rising.

Quote:spending on cancer treatment was 124.6 billion dollars.

These two things are not the same.  It is not the miniscule .4 difference that I am talking about either.

(11-03-2015, 01:55 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Now go back and read you original claim.  It is quite apparent you have not done so.  I will not give you the answer, you won't learn if I do.

God damn SCS you have the sweetest heart this side of the Mississippi.

(11-03-2015, 02:31 PM)MrRager Wrote: God damn SCS you have the sweetest heart this side of the Mississippi.

I have two girls ages 8 and 9.  Patience.  

(11-03-2015, 01:55 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Now go back and read you original claim.  It is quite apparent you have not done so.  I will not give you the answer, you won't learn if I do.

If you have me by the balls, as you appear to think and are claiming your superiority, then why would the drug company in Australia bribe the doctor to do heavier chemo, which would call for more drugs to counter it?

And about you saying that I don't understand the difference between treating chemo and treating the side effects, guess what?  That's still someone making a boatload off of it, as is explained by the above, which could qualify as making money off both.

(11-03-2015, 02:31 PM)MrRager Wrote: God damn SCS you have the sweetest heart this side of the Mississippi.

The question in the last sentence.

Stop being a coward and answer it to prove that you don't just have a natural bias against me and will post against anything I post just for the sake of being against me.

(11-03-2015, 04:51 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: If you have me by the balls, as you appear to think and are claiming your superiority, then why would the drug company in Australia bribe the doctor to do heavier chemo, which would call for more drugs to counter it?

And about you saying that I don't understand the difference between treating chemo and treating the side effects, guess what?  That's still someone making a boatload off of it, as is explained by the above, which could qualify as making money off both.

This post is full of nothing.

You have not addressed your claim that drugs used for treatment of the side effects of chemo are a 125 billion dollar industry, when in fact it is the entire spectrum of cancer treatment of which drugs that treat the side effects of chemo are a small percentage.

I have only been discussing this very point with you.  YOur first sentence literally has nothing to do with the conversation you and I have been involved in.

(11-03-2015, 05:02 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: This post is full of nothing.

You have not addressed your claim that drugs used for treatment of the side effects of chemo are a 125 billion dollar industry, when in fact it is the entire spectrum of cancer treatment of which drugs that treat the side effects of chemo are a small percentage.

I have only been discussing this very point with you.  YOur first sentence literally has nothing to do with the conversation you and I have been involved in.

We've been talking about drugs to counter chemo as a moneymaker and a doctor using heavier chemo to need more drugs, so how the hell can you say it has nothing to do with it?!  

(11-03-2015, 05:32 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: We've been talking about drugs to counter chemo as a moneymaker and a doctor using heavier chemo to need more drugs, so how the hell can you say it has nothing to do with it?!  

It really has nothing to do with it.  I am asking you to review your claim against the actual fact.  You still haven't done so and by all accounts it appears that you refuse to do so.

I have been kind enough to actually post the claim and the fact next to each other for you to review and it appears you have still won't do it.  No one disagrees that companies make money on drugs that counteract chemo effects.  Duuuuuuh....of course they do.  I haven't even weighed in on the controversy of whether or not a cure would or would not be hidden....I really don't care.  All I have been discussing with you is your claim vs the facts you posted.  Try to keep up.

I'll try it in a different format for you.  Read the below and contrast the statements.


1.  Spending on cancer treatments equal 125 billion dollars


2.  Drugs to counter traditional chemotherapy bring in a profit of like 125 billion per year


Do you actually understand the fundamental reason why these two statement can not both be factual?

(10-27-2015, 11:22 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: Apparently, Cuba has had a lung cancer vaccine for years, and now it's going to come to the US.

Cuba has been researching the drug for 25 years and they've had the vaccine since 2011, which it's offered for free in Cuba because it's only a dollar.  

They say it's only become known recently, but how would a cancer vaccine, even from a country like Cuba, be that unknown?

It says that it is a vaccine for lung cancer, but also may be effective in treating and preventing breast, colorectal, head-and-neck, prostate and ovarian cancers.

A country like Cuba, with an economy that is 8 times smaller than ours, can find a vaccine, but the US, the country with the greatest minds on the planet, can't?

Makes you wonder.

It's a HUGE discovery, though!

Could we be looking at the end of cancer deaths?!

It's worth the read!

The US probably found the cure for cancer 40 years ago. They've just never come out with it because it would cost the entirety of the medical field TRILLIONS of dollars (with a "T") over a period of a decade or two. You think they want to give up such a massive profit? No.

Cuba, on the other hand, doesn't seem to profit off the medical field, so they have no reason to hold it back.

(11-03-2015, 04:55 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: The question in the last sentence.

Stop being a coward and answer it to prove that you don't just have a natural bias against me and will post against anything I post just for the sake of being against me.

http://bengalsboard.net/Thread-Jeremy-Hill-far-ahead-of-his-production-last-year?pid=99517#pid99517

Here yo go, buddy.

(11-03-2015, 05:48 PM)Adamantium Wrote: The US probably found the cure for cancer 40 years ago. They've just never come out with it because it would cost the entirety of the medical field TRILLIONS of dollars (with a "T") over a period of a decade or two. You think they want to give up such a massive profit? No.

Cuba, on the other hand, doesn't seem to profit off the medical field, so they have no reason to hold it back.

Let me refer you to this science-based medical journal that is worth a read. It provides some ideas against why it is silly to think a cure exists and is being suppressed.

Brad has two train wrecks happening simultaneously. Impressive.

(11-03-2015, 01:33 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I was wrong about that site, but what about this one:
I guess they're wrong, too, and they somehow came up with a dollar value very, very, VERY close to the one I posted?

This site says how a doctor in Australia was bribed BY A BIG DRUG COMPANY to give patients a high dose of chemotherapy, when they only needed a low dose.

But what do Australians know?

Here's one more:



My first post might have been wrong because it was late and I didn't read it entirely, which was a big mistake by me, but how about those?  What about the Cancer Doctor in Australia?  Doesn't that prove what I've been saying?



I'm very hard-headed, but I can man-up when I've made an obvious mistake that's not just an opinion.

Do you subscribe to the Cancer Defeated newsletter?  People like that are scum.