By- Election imminent LUCAS arrested at Balcombe.

[BadFish]

I want you to explain why you promoted a cancer cure that is known to both kill and be a con. Are you just stupid, wilfully ignorant or someone with an interested in conning people and not giving a toss ?

Wilfully ignorant would be my guess.

When you can conduct a discussion without childish insults and name calling I will be happy to continue talking to you.

 

[mattpenfold]

For example, it took me less than five minutes to find this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdalin

You will have done the same, so please do explain why you posted what you did. You know taking apricot kernels is potentially lethal and ineffective, and yet you still posted a link to a non peer-reviewed newspaper article promoting it. You really do have some explaining to do as why you are so dangerously irresponsible.

 

[mattpenfold]

When you can conduct a discussion without childish insults and name calling I will be happy to continue talking to you.

You are promoting something that kills, and what is more you know that.

I think calling you wilfully ignorant is warranted, and rather mild.

I note you are still unable to explain your actions. I may have to revise my opinion you are merely wilfully ignorant and ascribed more malevolent motivations to your actions.

 

[BadFish]

For example, it took me less than five minutes to find this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdalin

You will have done the same, so please do explain why you posted what you did. You know taking apricot kernels is potentially lethal and ineffective, and yet you still posted a link to a non peer-reviewed newspaper article promoting it. You really do have some explaining to do as why you are so dangerously irresponsible.

You are funny I will give you that, good work you got me there.

And there was me thinking that link was going to be to a peer reviewed scientific journal listing hundreds of people who have died from cyanide poisoning from eating apricot kernels.

 

[mattpenfold]

Badfish,

You are promoting a "cure" for which there is zero evidence it works, but plenty of evidence it kills. Further, you will have Google before posting, and you will know this.

You still cannot explain yourself. You complained because I called you wilfully ignorant, yet you clearly are willfully ignorant so that is not a valid reason to refuse to explain yourself.

So come on. Tell us why you promoted a cancer treatment that cannot cure but only kill. Or stand accused of not only being wilfully ignorant but callously indifferent to the people the "cure" you promoted has killed.

 

[BadFish]

Badfish,

You are promoting a "cure" for which there is zero evidence it works, but plenty of evidence it kills. Further, you will have Google before posting, and you will know this.

You still cannot explain yourself. You complained because I called you wilfully ignorant, yet you clearly are willfully ignorant so that is not a valid reason to refuse to explain yourself.

So come on. Tell us why you promoted a cancer treatment that cannot cure but only kill. Or stand accused of not only being wilfully ignorant but callously indifferent to the people the "cure" you promoted has killed.

You prove to me that people have been killed, stop sending me abusive PMs, read my previous posts and grow up and you will find your answers.

 

[mattpenfold]

You prove to me that people have been killed, stop sending me abusive PMs, read my previous posts and grow up and you will find your answers.

Me being abusive ? You are the one who does not care about people dying from cyanide poisoning from taking a cancer cure you promoted.

Evidence of toxicity:

Shragg TA, Albertson TE, Fisher CJ (January 1982). "Cyanide poisoning after bitter almond ingestion". West. J. Med. 136 (1): 65–9. PMC 1273391. PMID 7072244

Newton GW, Schmidt ES, Lewis JP, Conn E, Lawrence R (February 1981). "Amygdalin Toxicity Studies in Rats Predict Chronic Cyanide Poisoning in Humans".

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/can...plementary-alternative/therapies/laetrile#sfx

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/32/5/1121.full.pdf

But then it metabolizes to hydrogen cyanide. I am sure you don't need a literature search to be done to show that hydrogen cyanide can kill.


Now we are still waiting for you to explain why you are promoting a cancer "cure" that does not cure but kills. Why have I had to ask so often for you to answer what would seem to be simple question ?

You seem to think you have right for me to treat you civilly. Given you are still refusing to explain why you are promoting a cancer "cure" that does not cure but does kill it seems odd you think you have any expectoration to be treated civilly. Given you lack of honesty, and your callous indifference I think I have been rather restrained in how I have treated you. The treatment you promoted has been cited as being "the slickest, most sophisticated, and certainly the most remunerative cancer quack promotion in medical history" (1). You are helping support a criminal scam.

(1) Lerner IJ (1981). "Laetrile: a lesson in cancer quackery". CA Cancer J Clin 31 (2): 91–5. doi:10.3322/canjclin.31.2.91. PMID 6781723

 

[mattpenfold]

There is also this, from a centre that SUPPORTS alternative treatments for cancer.

http://www.cam-cancer.org/CAM-Summaries/Dietary-approaches/Laetrile/Is-it-safe

Two key papers cited there are:

Braico, KT, Humbert, JR, Terplan, KL, & Lehotay, JM. Laetrile intoxication: report of a fatal case, New England Journal of Medicine. 1979; 1; 300 (5): 238-40.

Sadoff, L, Fuchs, K, & Hollander, J, Rapid death associated with Laetrile ingestion, Journal of the American Medical Association. 1978; 14; 239 (15): 1532.

I realise that is a lot to read, and you might have to visit a university library to access some of those papers, but you can that tomorrow.

 

[BadFish]

Me being abusive ? You are the one who does not care about people dying from cyanide poisoning from taking a cancer cure you promoted.

Evidence of toxicity:

Shragg TA, Albertson TE, Fisher CJ (January 1982). "Cyanide poisoning after bitter almond ingestion". West. J. Med. 136 (1): 65–9. PMC 1273391. PMID 7072244

Newton GW, Schmidt ES, Lewis JP, Conn E, Lawrence R (February 1981). "Amygdalin Toxicity Studies in Rats Predict Chronic Cyanide Poisoning in Humans".

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/can...plementary-alternative/therapies/laetrile#sfx

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/32/5/1121.full.pdf

But then it metabolizes to hydrogen cyanide. I am sure you don't need a literature search to be done to show that hydrogen cyanide can kill.


Now we are still waiting for you to explain why you are promoting a cancer "cure" that does not cure but kills. Why have I had to ask so often for you to answer what would seem to be simple question ?

You seem to think you have right for me to treat you civilly. Given you are still refusing to explain why you are promoting a cancer "cure" that does not cure but does kill it seems odd you think you have any expectoration to be treated civilly. Given you lack of honesty, and your callous indifference I think I have been rather restrained in how I have treated you. The treatment you promoted has been cited as being "the slickest, most sophisticated, and certainly the most remunerative cancer quack promotion in medical history" (1). You are helping support a criminal scam.

(1) Lerner IJ (1981). "Laetrile: a lesson in cancer quackery". CA Cancer J Clin 31 (2): 91–5. doi:10.3322/canjclin.31.2.91. PMID 6781723

...

 

[mattpenfold]

Go read the literature.

You asked for evidence, and it has been provided. You cannot have reviewed them in so short a time, so please do not pretend you have. Read them, and explain why they are wrong please.

If you cannot get hold of some of those journals, ask and I cannot do so, I might be able to get the article sent as PDF by someone else.

 

[BadFish]

Go read the literature.

You asked for evidence, and it has been provided. You cannot have reviewed them in so short a time, so please do not pretend you have. Read them, and explain why they are wrong please.

If you cannot get hold of some of those journals, ask and I cannot do so, I might be able to get the article sent as PDF by someone else.

I asked for evidence of people who have died of cyanide poisoning from eating apricot kernels. I have read many scientific journals that disagree with the idea that they cure cancer and indeed showed a few to my mother in law. All I have said is that apricot kernels were part of the treatment she administered to her self, nowhere have i claimed that they alone will cure cancer. I have not even stated that the muddy milkshakes she drank cured her cancer (as i said she puts it down to a combination of her treatment and her faith) but her experiences did open my mind to the possibility of some people being helped by the remedies she administered. This lead me on to investigating other people who have used diet (including apricot kernels) and other natural medicines to good effect in their fight with some cancers. As far as I am aware there are no reported cyanide poisoning deaths from eating apricot kernels (although I do concede there is a danger of poisoning and my Mother in Law had to sign a waver when she purchased the kernels). The amount she needed to eat for her treatment was pretty huge as i remember so as far as I understand to eat enough to kill you is not really feasible.

I know the scientific community's views on apricot kernels, you don't need to keep proving it to me.

Oh and thanks for refraining from the childish abuse.

 

[mattpenfold]

I have provided what you asked for.

That you refuse to accept that is intellectual dishonest on your part. Were it just that it would not much matter. You would just look like a lying idiot. But the psuedo-science you pushed kills people, and you know it does. That does matter, and makes makes you something far far worse than simply intellectually dishonest. It makes you a person who is happy to promote pseudo-science knowing is kills people. That makes you contemptible scum.

It is clear you lack neither the intellectual honest, nor the intellectual capability to understand the evidence I provided. I provided evidence in the form of peer-reviewed articles published in reputable scientific journals. Your only "evidence" has been an article from the Australian equivalent of the Daily Mail. I almost feel embarrassed for you.

 

[BadFish]

I have provided what you asked for.

That you refuse to accept that is intellectual dishonest on your part. Were it just that it would not much matter. You would just look like a lying idiot. But the psuedo-science you pushed kills people, and you know it does. That does matter, and makes makes you something far far worse than simply intellectually dishonest. It makes you a person who is happy to promote pseudo-science knowing is kills people. That makes you contemptible scum.

It is clear you lack neither the intellectual honest, nor the intellectual capability to understand the evidence I provided. I provided evidence in the form of peer-reviewed articles published in reputable scientific journals. Your only "evidence" has been an article from the Australian equivalent of the Daily Mail. I almost feel embarrassed for you.

Either prove this or **** off.

Your belief that The Age is the Australian equivalent of The Daily Mail really is showing that you are happy to spout nonsense about something you know nothing about.

I have never claimed to have 'evidence' for anything. I have told you that the life experience of someone close to me made me investigate similar experiences and I found many (I posted one from a very reputable newspaper).

 

[mattpenfold]

Either prove this or **** off.

It has been proved. However we have already established you are intellectually dishonest, as well as intellectually incapable of understanding the evidence I provided.

I would suggest that is now is the time for you to go away, and think about your lack of honesty. And if you still can understand the articles I have suggest, then you consult an adult who is more knowledge about these things than you are, and have then explain them to you. Until then, there really is nothing you can say unless you offer an apology for your both you ignorance and your rudeness. But given I think you are also an ill-mannered man, on top of being rather stupid, I do not hold out much hope of that.

Had you admitted you made a mistake in posting the link to that garbage The Age article no one would have thought any the worse of you. But given how you decided to defend your beloved psuedo-science, even when you knew it killed people, I would imagine and hope you will be treated as scum from now on. Because scum is what you are. People who kill others are scum.

 

[hitony]

You prove to me that people have been killed, stop sending me abusive PMs, read my previous posts and grow up and you will find your answers.

Me being abusive ? You are the one who does not care about people dying from cyanide poisoning from taking a cancer cure you promoted.

Evidence of toxicity:

Shragg TA, Albertson TE, Fisher CJ (January 1982). "Cyanide poisoning after bitter almond ingestion". West. J. Med. 136 (1): 65–9. PMC 1273391. PMID 7072244

Newton GW, Schmidt ES, Lewis JP, Conn E, Lawrence R (February 1981). "Amygdalin Toxicity Studies in Rats Predict Chronic Cyanide Poisoning in Humans".

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/can...plementary-alternative/therapies/laetrile#sfx

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/32/5/1121.full.pdf

But then it metabolizes to hydrogen cyanide. I am sure you don't need a literature search to be done to show that hydrogen cyanide can kill.


Now we are still waiting for you to explain why you are promoting a cancer "cure" that does not cure but kills. Why have I had to ask so often for you to answer what would seem to be simple question ?

You seem to think you have right for me to treat you civilly. Given you are still refusing to explain why you are promoting a cancer "cure" that does not cure but does kill it seems odd you think you have any expectoration to be treated civilly. Given you lack of honesty, and your callous indifference I think I have been rather restrained in how I have treated you. The treatment you promoted has been cited as being "the slickest, most sophisticated, and certainly the most remunerative cancer quack promotion in medical history" (1). You are helping support a criminal scam.

(1) Lerner IJ (1981). "Laetrile: a lesson in cancer quackery". CA Cancer J Clin 31 (2): 91–5. doi:10.3322/canjclin.31.2.91. PMID 6781723

Sending abusive PMs is strictly not allowed on NSC, also whilst we encourage healthy debate, we do not want abuse or name calling it goes nowhere, now continue to debate, but stop the PMs and abuse.

Thanks
Tony

 

[Barrel of Fun]

If you look at UK cities where bus companies ARE competing, you'll generally find that it's not just on price. Competition is also a race to keep operating costs down - and this is usually achieved by cutting service frequencies on routes where the competitor is providing no service whatsoever. Evening and Sunday services disappear (or require council subsidies to survive). And night buses are non existent. You'll also find that the buses themselves are much more likely to be clapped-out old bangers. As for the "benefits" of fares competition ... these will be at the expense of losing network-wide Saver tickets.

Brighton, with its monopoly bus provider, is one of the few cities in the UK where more people have been switching to bus travel every year this century.

I'd be quite happy to travel on a clapped out old banger if it provided the service I wanted.

I guess it boils down to me believing that a public service such as travel shouldn't be making exorbitant profits.

How would be firm making £40m profit on their bus arm qualify or need a council subsidy?

 

[BadFish]

It has been proved. However we have already established you are intellectually dishonest, as well as intellectually incapable of understanding the evidence I provided.

I would suggest that is now is the time for you to go away, and think about your lack of honesty. And if you still can understand the articles I have suggest, then you consult an adult who is more knowledge about these things than you are, and have then explain them to you. Until then, there really is nothing you can say unless you offer an apology for your both you ignorance and your rudeness. But given I think you are also an ill-mannered man, on top of being rather stupid, I do not hold out much hope of that.

Had you admitted you made a mistake in posting the link to that garbage The Age article no one would have thought any the worse of you. But given how you decided to defend your beloved psuedo-science, even when you knew it killed people, I would imagine and hope you will be treated as scum from now on. Because scum is what you are. People who kill others are scum.

You are a fool.

 

[mattpenfold]

You are a fool.

I may well be, but I am not one with blood on my hands like you.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

I'd be quite happy to travel on a clapped out old banger if it provided the service I wanted.

I guess it boils down to me believing that a public service such as travel shouldn't be making exorbitant profits.

How would be firm making £40m profit on their bus arm qualify or need a council subsidy?

Besides which, a better transport system has made us fat. A bigger cost to us.

Ban cars. Make buses more expensive. Crank up the price of petrol. Make people walk or cycle. Job done.

 

[hitony]

I may well be, but I am not one with blood on my hands like you.

Listen to me please, I am not replying to your PMs to me, I am most certainly not holding a by conversation about something I care nothing about either and most defiantly not in PMs on ANY subject!

Now I have explained the few simple rules that NSC has, either conduct your conversation and debate within those few rules, or don't, its up to you.

And for what it matters, I have not a clue what you are on about! nor do I care!

Now, healthy debate is fine, agree to disagree is fine, tell someone you don't value his / her opinion is fine, but starting name calling and abuse is not.

Thank you.

Tony