Alternative Views on Vaccines

Do you equate the “relief” that marijuana brings to cancer patients to the cure (yes with negative side effects, but unquestionably effective as a treatment) that chemo brings?

You nailed it. I and most of the posters here spend most our time agreeing on just about everything. We are all sheep lined up for slaughter by our mainstream overlords. Even when you show us the real truth behind the curtain, it’s too scary, and we can’t accept it.

1 Like

This example is an excellent illustration of just how ridiculous it is that we’re still talking about vaccines and their “link” to autism.

After the initial Wakefield paper, a metric ton of research got done in this area. We’re not talking about some lightly-tested hypothesis that still needs confirmatory data. There’s more evidence for “vaccines-not-causing-autism” than there is for almost anything else, including “smoking-causes-cancer.” And yet people are still making absurd proclamations like “We need more data” or “I just want to make sure both sides are heard” or “I’m not anti-vaccine, I just want to make sure they’re safe.”

There’s also this spectacular tale of an antivaccine organization funding a study, and then pulling out when they learned that the findings weren’t what they wanted…

…which brings me to a conclusion about Zep and his ilk:

“This brings us back to how I started this post. One of the arguments for studies like this is that negative studies will change minds. They will not. They might give some reassurance to parents who were already open to being reassured about vaccines, but they have zero effect on people like Sallie Bernard and Lyn Redwood. They are true believers, and if a study is negative, even one that they funded, it must be because there was incompetence or scientific fraud. It can’t possibly be because vaccines don’t cause autism.”

At this point, there could be 1,000 studies showing that vaccines do not cause autism, and yet the fringe lunatics of the world would still believe the YouTube video they watched from the Age of Autism site over large bodies of credible published science.

5 Likes

Really chemo cures? If medicinal marijuana didn’t work it wouldn’t be used to the tune of over 1 million people. And legalized in 28 states plus D.C. with more to come. Let the peole with the disease choose if they want to go the traditional route of cancer therapy or if they want to try something else. The standard of care for cancer is not good.

What the shit are you talking about? I asked if, in your mind, you equate the two, because chemo/radiation (at least to my knowledge) does kill cancer cells, lead to longer life, stop cancer growth, while the reefer does…what? Helps suppress the symptoms? Adds appetite? And absolutely, people can choose, but spreading nonsense is simply that…nonsense, if you had a beloved family member that was diagnosed with cancer would you trust them to the pot shop down the street to “cure” their cancer? Or would you take 'em to a real life, went to med school doctor who is going to prescribe chemo and radiation treatment?

2 Likes

Welcome to our world. Glad you could join lol. Bizarro world has nothing on this one…

3 Likes

Right, because there’s only 1 type of cancer…How complicated is the problem we are working on again? Take a look. https://www.cancer.gov/types

Oh and don’t forget this study. Only about 34% of the mutations in one tumor are shared in other regions of the SAME TUMOR.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1113205#t=article

They took duplicate biopsies from the same tumors, ran full genome analysis on the cancers, and that was the results. That’s a full text article, feel free to study it.

Oh but wait, there’s more! Similar results have been found in other cancer types (especially lung cancer, see below).

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/346/6206/251.full

It’s being confirmed that this is a common problem to most cancer types. And oh yeah, did you look at that list of cancer types? How long is it again? Did you count it?

So the answer to your question is–cancer is really fucking complicated, mutates really fucking fast, and there’s a metric fuck-ton of types of cancers.

You’re fucking loony.

2 Likes

Quoted for posterity.

5 Likes

Spoon fed a steady diet of propaganda since you were born.

Never said medicinal marijuana was a cure However it doesn’t kill people like chemo/radiation.

So this is what 40+years and billions has gotten us? What about the view that cancer is not a genetic disease but a metabolic one? Thomas Seyfried: Cancer: A Metabolic Disease With Metabolic Solutions - YouTube But this can’t be as the money to be made is not nearly the same and maybe it can’t be monetized. But curing isn’t the objective, producing revenue is.

This coming from an idiot-savant.

Quite the insult.

sa·vant
saˈvän(t),säˈvän(t)/
noun
a learned person, especially a distinguished scientist.

:cold_sweat:

1 Like

Try explaining what an oxymoron is to him, his head’ll explode.

Someone that tries to clean Everything with Oxyclean?

edit: Alternative version- The guy that fucked up with a cutting torch?

1 Like

:dealwithit:

4 Likes

Oxymoron-

1 Like

It’s weird to read claims like this when you personally know people who have had cancer, been treated by chemo, and are in remission.

@Zeppelin795 - I don’t read any of your stuff, but from an outsider’s perspective, you look like a total idiot in this thread arguing with people much more educated on the subject.

But specifically to this comment…

-If use is your indication of effectiveness, I believe chemo has been used by quite a few people too, so…
-Comparing weed to chemo for cancer treatment is pretty retarded. Weed is a symptomatic treatment, it has nothing to do with treating the actual cause.

Anywho, I’ll go back to being a lurker on PWI because I’m not smart.

2 Likes