colomom wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2020 9:54 am
WWu777 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 12, 2020 10:33 pm
Of course the FDA is gonna discourage hydrogen peroxide therapy. It discourages everything that threatens the cartel of the big drug industry. That's their job... That's why you can't trust what the FDA says. It's a propaganda and control agency with a big stick and agenda that is NOT free of corruption or politics.
I would rather believe the testimonies of honest everyday real Americans than the big pharma cartel and medical monopolies in the US anyday. No comparison. If honest everyday Americans claim that H202 reversed or halted their cancer, I'd rather believe them than propagandists paid by big pharma... Doesn't matter what the FDA says, it can deny all it wants, but that doesn't make them right. I don't know about you, but I'd rather believe real people than corrupt government agencies and media...Furthermore, there are many real life testimonials for H202 therapy which you can find onilne, by real people, who have no reason to lie, but as we all know, big pharma and FDA have lots of reasons to lie and are paid to lie too... The scientific establishment is NOT free of corruption, politics, lies and agendas. No way. But you keep assuming that it is. That's part of their brainwashing. Yes the establishment does lie and suppress and cover up things.... They do it to promote their atheistic materialistic agenda that they want you to follow to suit their leftist, marxist, liberal agenda..
I also hear that those left wing, Marxist, propagandist, atheist Scientists are involved in a deep state pedophile ring government officials are running out of pizza shop basements. It sounds crazy to some, but it must be true if random people on the internet say so.
I will continue to listen to the evidence based conclusions of scientists and doctors. Medical decisions should never be based on isolated, antidotal, personal experiences of random people on the internet or unqualified book authors trying to sell "miracle" cures.
Your links are unconvincing. The 2nd link is simply a pubmed search of hydrogen peroxide, I see 0 articles that reference any of your claims. The first link is a compilations of extremally outdated articles from as far back as the late 1800s. One of the articles referenced entirely refutes your claims of curing cancer.
"Questionable Methods of Cancer Management: Hydrogen Peroxide and Other 'Hyperoxygenation' Therapies"
http://www.foodgrade-hydrogenperoxide.c ... ociety.pdf
Pugsy made a good call in locking down the previous thread you had derailed, advocating ingesting hydrogen peroxide is dangerous advice. Please don't send me anymore PM's, this will be my final reply to anything posted by you.
colomom, like I said before, the problem is that you assume that the science and medical establishment is totally objective and free of bias or corruption, like a computer. That's what they want you to think of course, but it's not true. You've been listening too much to Michael Shermer types. Start listening to Rupert Sheldrake types and you will get a different view. In reality, both science and medical institutions are subject to corruption, politics, agendas, biases, confirmation bias, conspiracies, cover ups, etc. Just like all big institutions. Remember the bigger the institution, the more politics and money are involved, hence the more corruption is involved. Wise people and street smart people know this. We are brainwashed to believe science is the new priesthood that can't be questioned, but it just isn't so.
Remember that we live in a corporatocracy, in which America is run by corporations, hence it's a democracy of corporations, not of the people. Corporations are not objective computers that never lie, like Spock or Data. No way. They exist to promote their own self interests, not to be honest Abe. We all know that.
The truth is, the medical industry in America is run by a cartel and monopoly. The FDA and AMA exist to protect that cartel. Not to tell you the truth and be honest Abe. No way. I'm sure you've heard all this before. It's nothing new. It's just that you place too much faith in official institutions, that's the difference between you and me.
As to Pizza Gate, well I don't know. Depends on who you wanna believe. At the end of the day, it's all a matter of faith in which source you believe. We don't know anything unless we are involved in it or have experience in it. But remember this: Where there's smoke, there's fire. There's a long documentary on YouTube called "The Fall of the Cabal" and gives a lot of compelling evidence for PIzza Gate. You should check it out and research both sides, not just one side, or deny anything conspiratorial related with a knee jerk reaction.
However I can tell you some important life lessons and rules of thumb:
1. Nothing is 100 percent true or false. The truth tends to be somewhere in the middle. Not on either extreme. Everything in moderation, as they say. If you stick to a healthy middleground, then you are never far off from the truth. This applies to conspiracies too. Don't assume that all conspiracies must be totally false, or totally true for that matter.
2. Where there's smoke, there's fire. Even myths are based on some truth.
3. The more you know, the more you realize that we really don't know anything, as they say. Being arrogant or know-it-all doesn't mean you do know it all. Wise people are silent and try to learn from others. Only arrogant people act like they know it all and know things that they could not possibly know.
4. No source is infallible. Every source contains both good and evil, truth and falsehoods.
Regarding h202, I told you, no one has ever been hurt or injured from drinking h202 if properly diluted in a glass of water. No one has ever died from it either. So your warnings are baseless. I've tried it and zero harm came to me. Zero people have died from ingesting h202. In contrast, 100,000 Americans die every year from prescription drugs, which were taken EXACTLY as the doctor prescribed, not overdosed or abused. There's no comparison as to which is more dangerous. Zero vs 100,000. No comparison. Even if you drank h202 undiluted by accident (which no one is recommending) you would only burn your throat, it wouldn't kill you.
Please consider all that and take it into account rather than dismiss it with a knee jerk reaction.
Btw, here are some credible sources that say that scientists have often faked data, that will surprise you. See below. So much for the integrity and objectivity of "science".
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 425036.ece
Faking scientific data and failing to report commercial conflicts of
interest are far more prevalent than previously thought, a study
suggests.
One in seven scientists says that they are aware of colleagues having
seriously breached acceptable conduct by inventing results. And around
46 per cent say that they have observed fellow scientists engage in
"questionable practices", such as presenting data selectively or
changing the conclusions of a study in response to pressure from a
funding source.
However, when scientists were asked about their own behaviour only 2
per cent admitted to having faked results.
Daniele Fanelli, of the University of Edinburgh, who carried out the
investigation, believes that high-profile cases such as that of Hwang
Woo-Suk, the South Korean scientist disgraced for fabricating human
stem cell data, are less unusual than is generally assumed.
"Increasing evidence suggests that known frauds are just the tip of
the iceberg and that many cases are never discovered," he said.
The findings, published in the peer-reviewed journal PLoS One, are
based on a review of 21 scientific misconduct surveys carried out
between 1986 and 2005. The results paint a picture of a profession in
which dishonesty and misrepresentation are widespread.
In all the surveys people were asked about both their own research
practices and those of colleagues. Misconduct was divided into two
categories: fabrication, the actual invention of data; and lesser
breaches that went under the heading "questionable practices". These
included dropping data points based on a "gut feeling" and failing to
publish data that contradict one's previous research.
The discrepancy between the number of scientists owning up to
misconduct and those having been observed by colleagues is likely to
be in part due to fears over anonymity, Dr Fanelli suggests. "Anyone
who has ever falsified research is probably unwilling to reveal it
despite all guarantees of anonymity."
The study predicts that the 2 per cent figure, although higher than
most previous estimates, is still likely to be conservative.
Another explanation for the differences between the self-report
results and colleague-report results could be that people consider
themselves to be more moral than others. In a marginal case, people
might characterise their colleagues' behaviour as misconduct more
readily than they would their own.
The study included scientists from a range of disciplines. Misconduct
was far more frequently admitted by medical or pharmacological
researchers than others, supporting fears that the field of medical
research is being biased by commercial interests.
More interesting info has come out about why published findings by the science establishment can't be totally trusted.
This one from the National Institute of Health library.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
Summary
There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ce/308269/
Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science
Much of what medical researchers conclude in their studies is misleading, exaggerated, or flat-out wrong. So why are doctors—to a striking extent—still drawing upon misinformation in their everyday practice? Dr. John Ioannidis has spent his career challenging his peers by exposing their bad science.
https://www.statnews.com/2017/08/02/ran ... -research/
Randomized controlled trials have long been held up as the “gold standard” of clinical research. There’s no doubt that well-designed trials are effective tools for testing a new drug, device, or other intervention. Yet much of modern medical care — perhaps most of it — is not based on randomized controlled trials and likely never will be. In this “dark matter” of clinical medicine, past practices and anecdotes all too often rule. We need to look beyond trials to improve medical care in these areas.
Also see this quote:
Why not choose a virtuous noble icon or name such as Plato, King Arthur or Marcus Aurelius? lol
You are joking, right? May be true for you, not for me!