> > > > > On Oct 23, 9:47 am, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Oct 23, 9:44 am, "t" <tool...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Please post where I have said that her stuff worked.
> > > > > > Please post where I claimed that you said that.
> > Which Marla cannot do.
> > > > > > What you failed to understand is that her Henchmen, when it came time > > > > > > to prove her stuff worked, could not, even though they had unfettered > > > > > > access to her decades of "research." They could not meet even a simple > > > > > > burden of proof.
> > > > > > In absence of proof that something "works" it is fair to accept that > > > > > > it does not.
<p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 3, 4:59 pm, Martin <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >> >> Are you making >> >> >> up your own meaning of words again, in this case, the word 'cure'?
>> >> >No, idiot, I'm pointing out the stupidity of your argument, which you >> >> >repeat here. A practitioner may believe that a particular treatment >> >> >is the best approach for every patient with a particular disease,
>> >> Hulda did not speak of 'best approach'. She said she could cure all >> >> cancer, period. Not some, not offer the best treatment available, no, >> >> she claimed she could CURE all, that is ALL, cancer. Not just treat >> >> them the best way possible, no, she said she could cure them, any form >> >> of cancer, at any stage.
>> >So prove it. Quote and cite your source.
>> Prove it? What???? Are you really that stupid? (yes, I'm afraid you >> are, and it scares me a bit). >> Here's the titles of her books: >> The Cure and Prevention of All Cancers
>So your argument is purely semantic.
You would know about semantics. You're the one who claims that if someone says she can cure all disease, it does not mean she can cure all patients. It's not stupid, it's certifiable insanity.
> Reference to "all cancers" is >not a reference to every patient, but to all forms of the disease. >You win some, you lose some.
But you can not lose them to cancer, because you can cure all cancer. Hulda could cure all cancer, so it would have been impossible for her to die of cancer. She did. Therefor, she could not cure all cancer, which makes her claims bullshit. Period.
> Any idiot (except one with a brain as small as yours) would get that.
>> The Cure for All Cancers: Including over 100 Case Histories of >> Persons Cured by Hulda R. Clark >> The Cure For All Advanced Cancers >> Cure for All Diseases (which would include cancer of course)
>Same point. If I write a book titled "The Cure for All Heart >Disease," I am conveying that every form of the disease is treatable, >not that every patient will experience a cure. If you don't grasp the >distinction, you need someone to take guardianship over your personal >affairs.
No Petey, I don't grasp that if you claim that you can cure all heart disease some of your patients will die of heartdisease anyway. I can only suspect that you have a definition of the word 'cure' and/ore the word 'all' hitherto unknown to the world.
>> This is from "The Cure For All Advanced Cancers": >> "Cancer can now be cured, not only the early stages, but also advanced >> cancer, stages four and five, including imminent death."
>Read it slowly, dumbass. She said "CAN now be cured," which in no >way asserts certainty of a cure.
WHAT??? Ok, now I'm certain you're yanking my chain. Nobody, not even you, can be this stupid. Can't be. Oh god, I really hope nobody can be that stupid. Please, let some faith in humanity remain for me.
>> See, no qualifiers, not in any of the titles.
>You obviously need help going to the bathroom. No qualifiers were >needed.
>> She claimed she could >> even cure cancer if the patient was facing imminent death.
>How do you know she didn't?
Because she died herself, of cancer. If she could do what she claimed, that would not have happened.
>> >> >that doesn't mean they expect every patient to respond.
>> >> So when you claim you can cure ALL cancer, it does not mean every >> >> patient responds?
>> >You haven't proved the claim was made, have you?
>> >> The stupid, it burns thermonclear....... >> >> Look Petey, if a patient has cancer, and the cancer is cured, the >> >> patient is cured. Get it? If the cancer, which is inside and part of >> >> the patient, responds, then the patient responds. Get it?
>> >First, marty, you have to base your argument on some sort of >> >demonstrable fact. You forgot that part.
>> You mean you can't read booktitles that you can find all over the >> internet? Or do you want me to provide proof that Hulda Clark really >> did write the book "The cure for all cancer" (note the total lack of >> qualifiers - not the cure for most, or many, or some cancer, no, ALL >> cancer). Do you think that actually, Hulda never wrote those books but >> shills from Big Pharma did, to make alt med look stupid or something? >> Do you think at all?
>Your semantic argument is almost, not quite, as stupid as you are.
In the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, please tell me you're kidding.
>> >> >> > Doctors treat patients for illnesses they also die of. While I don't personally subscribe to >> >> >> >Clark's theories, your attacks on her are hypocritical.
>> >> >> No, they're not. I already told you that if you point out any >> >> >> oncologist to me who claims he can cure all cancer, no matter >> >> >> what stage, I will attack him just as much. But you can't do that, >> >> >> because such an oncologist does not exist.
>> >> >Again, FDA "approved" chemo in the treatment of most cancers permits >> >> >oncologists to hide behind the falsity of unproven claims. Since >> >> >patients don't tend to question "approved" treatments, they are >> >> >vulnerable regardless of overt claims by personal physicians. Put >> >> >another way, by the time a cancer patient is prepped for chemo, all >> >> >the marketing has been accomplished.
>> >> So, you still can not point out any oncologist who claims he can cure >> >> all cancer, like Hulda did.
>> >See above. Prove your claim or admit you're the same little pharmnut >> >today you were yesterday.
>> Done. See above. >> Now you prove there is an oncologist who claims the same as Hulda. >> You can't. You're caught with your pants down and you know it.
>Apples and oranges, idiot pharmnut. Learn to read.
Hey, it was you who started the comparison. I guess that makes you an idiot pharmnut who can't read. Not even your own writing apparently.
<p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 3, 5:07 pm, Martin <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:47:01 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
>> <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote: >> >On Nov 3, 3:10 pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote: >> >> PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Nov 3, 3:18 am, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote: >> >> >> PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >First, you don't know how she died.
>> >> >> She died of anemia and hypercalcemia, the effects of multiple myeloma. >> >> >> Put another way, she died of cancer.
>> >> >> > Second, a book titled "The cure >> >> >> >for all cancers" does not logically translate into "the cure for every >> >> >> >patient."
>> >> >> You haven't read the book, have you?
>> >> >Meaning you yourself have not read it or you would provide a direct >> >> >quote from the book to prove your point. Well?
>> >> "For many years we have all believed that cancer is different from >> >> other diseases. We believed that cancer behaves like a fire, in that >> >> you can't stop it once it has started. Therefore, you have to cut it >> >> out or radiate it to death or chemically destroy every cancerous cell >> >> in the body since it can never become normal again. NOTHING COULD BE >> >> MORE WRONG! And we have believed that cancers of different types such >> >> as leukemia or breast cancer have different causes. Wrong again! >> >> In this book you will see that all cancers are alike. They are all >> >> caused by a parasite. A single parasite! It is the human intestinal >> >> fluke. And if you kill this intestinal parasite, the cancer stops >> >> immediately. The tissue becomes normal again. In order to get cancer, >> >> you must have this parasite.
>> >> How can the human intestinal fluke cause cancer? This intestinal >> >> parasite typically lives in the intestine where it might do little >> >> harm, causing only colitis … or irritable bowel syndrome, or perhaps >> >> nothing at all. But if it invades a different organ, like the uterus >> >> or kidneys or liver, it does a great deal of harm. If it establishes >> >> itself in the liver, it causes cancer!
>> >> It only establishes itself in the liver in some people. These people >> >> have propyl alcohol in their bodies. All cancer patients (100%) have >> >> both propyl alcohol and the intestinal fluke in their livers. The >> >> solvent propyl alcohol is responsible for letting the fluke establish >> >> itself in the liver. In order to get cancer, you must have both the >> >> parasite and propyl alcohol in your body".
>> >Your reply to me was in response to my comment that a book titled "The >> >cure for all cancers" does not logically translate into "the cure for >> >every patient." The excerpt here describes her theories but does not >> >address my point. The statement "...IF you kill this intestinal >> >parasite, the cancer stops immediately" is conditional. Though I >> >disagree with Clark's ideas, there is no claim here that every patient >> >under her care experienced a cure.
>> The title "The cure for all cancers" is NOT conditional, you >> blathering idiot. Oh, and do read the rest of her book(s). She also >> claims she can kill the parasite in every and all cases with her >> zapper. So there's no if - get the zapper treatment = get rid of the >> parasites = get cured of cancer. Of course, IF you don't get the >> zapper treatment, you will not get cured. That's the only if there is. >> But I'm afraid you won't get it anyway. I mean, you're the one who >> claims that if someone can cure all cancers, it does not mean she >> can not cure all patients.
>Note the double negative at the end of your screed, moron. This is >common among pharmnuts who, lacking an argument, undo their own >vacuous claims.
My bad. Should have read: "I mean, you're the one who claims that if someone can cure all cancers, it does not mean she can cure all patients with cancer"
Martin <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:22:26 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original ><p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>>On Nov 3, 4:59 pm, Martin <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> Are you making >>> >> >> up your own meaning of words again, in this case, the word 'cure'?
>>> >> >No, idiot, I'm pointing out the stupidity of your argument, which you >>> >> >repeat here. A practitioner may believe that a particular treatment >>> >> >is the best approach for every patient with a particular disease,
>>> >> Hulda did not speak of 'best approach'. She said she could cure all >>> >> cancer, period. Not some, not offer the best treatment available, no, >>> >> she claimed she could CURE all, that is ALL, cancer. Not just treat >>> >> them the best way possible, no, she said she could cure them, any form >>> >> of cancer, at any stage.
>>> >So prove it. Quote and cite your source.
>>> Prove it? What???? Are you really that stupid? (yes, I'm afraid you >>> are, and it scares me a bit). >>> Here's the titles of her books: >>> The Cure and Prevention of All Cancers
>>So your argument is purely semantic.
>You would know about semantics. You're the one who claims that if >someone says she can cure all disease, it does not mean she can cure >all patients. It's not stupid, it's certifiable insanity.
Actually he is twisting logic which can be shown with a "set" diagram.
Big circle label all cancers inside the big circle a small label "all patients'.
He claims semantics but is attempting to create a tautology.
Claims of curing all diseases is likewise an all inclusive claim in which the subset of all patients is in the set of all diseases.
>> Reference to "all cancers" is >>not a reference to every patient, but to all forms of the disease. >>You win some, you lose some.
>But you can not lose them to cancer, because you can cure all cancer. >Hulda could cure all cancer, so it would have been impossible for her >to die of cancer. She did. Therefor, she could not cure all cancer, >which makes her claims bullshit. Period.
>> Any idiot (except one with a brain as small as yours) would get that.
>>> The Cure for All Cancers: Including over 100 Case Histories of >>> Persons Cured by Hulda R. Clark >>> The Cure For All Advanced Cancers >>> Cure for All Diseases (which would include cancer of course)
>>Same point. If I write a book titled "The Cure for All Heart >>Disease," I am conveying that every form of the disease is treatable, >>not that every patient will experience a cure. If you don't grasp the >>distinction, you need someone to take guardianship over your personal >>affairs.
>No Petey, I don't grasp that if you claim that you can cure all heart >disease some of your patients will die of heartdisease anyway. I can >only suspect that you have a definition of the word 'cure' and/ore the >word 'all' hitherto unknown to the world.
>>> This is from "The Cure For All Advanced Cancers": >>> "Cancer can now be cured, not only the early stages, but also advanced >>> cancer, stages four and five, including imminent death."
>>Read it slowly, dumbass. She said "CAN now be cured," which in no >>way asserts certainty of a cure.
>WHAT??? Ok, now I'm certain you're yanking my chain. Nobody, not even >you, can be this stupid. Can't be. Oh god, I really hope nobody can be >that stupid. Please, let some faith in humanity remain for me.
>>> See, no qualifiers, not in any of the titles.
>>You obviously need help going to the bathroom. No qualifiers were >>needed.
>>> She claimed she could >>> even cure cancer if the patient was facing imminent death.
>>How do you know she didn't?
>Because she died herself, of cancer. If she could do what she claimed, >that would not have happened.
>>> >> >that doesn't mean they expect every patient to respond.
>>> >> So when you claim you can cure ALL cancer, it does not mean every >>> >> patient responds?
>>> >You haven't proved the claim was made, have you?
>>> >> The stupid, it burns thermonclear....... >>> >> Look Petey, if a patient has cancer, and the cancer is cured, the >>> >> patient is cured. Get it? If the cancer, which is inside and part of >>> >> the patient, responds, then the patient responds. Get it?
>>> >First, marty, you have to base your argument on some sort of >>> >demonstrable fact. You forgot that part.
>>> You mean you can't read booktitles that you can find all over the >>> internet? Or do you want me to provide proof that Hulda Clark really >>> did write the book "The cure for all cancer" (note the total lack of >>> qualifiers - not the cure for most, or many, or some cancer, no, ALL >>> cancer). Do you think that actually, Hulda never wrote those books but >>> shills from Big Pharma did, to make alt med look stupid or something? >>> Do you think at all?
>>Your semantic argument is almost, not quite, as stupid as you are.
>In the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, please tell me you're >kidding.
>>> >> >> > Doctors treat patients for illnesses they also die of. While I don't personally subscribe to >>> >> >> >Clark's theories, your attacks on her are hypocritical.
>>> >> >> No, they're not. I already told you that if you point out any >>> >> >> oncologist to me who claims he can cure all cancer, no matter >>> >> >> what stage, I will attack him just as much. But you can't do that, >>> >> >> because such an oncologist does not exist.
>>> >> >Again, FDA "approved" chemo in the treatment of most cancers permits >>> >> >oncologists to hide behind the falsity of unproven claims. Since >>> >> >patients don't tend to question "approved" treatments, they are >>> >> >vulnerable regardless of overt claims by personal physicians. Put >>> >> >another way, by the time a cancer patient is prepped for chemo, all >>> >> >the marketing has been accomplished.
>>> >> So, you still can not point out any oncologist who claims he can cure >>> >> all cancer, like Hulda did.
>>> >See above. Prove your claim or admit you're the same little pharmnut >>> >today you were yesterday.
>>> Done. See above. >>> Now you prove there is an oncologist who claims the same as Hulda. >>> You can't. You're caught with your pants down and you know it.
>>Apples and oranges, idiot pharmnut. Learn to read.
>Hey, it was you who started the comparison. I guess that makes you an >idiot pharmnut who can't read. Not even your own writing apparently.
Peaty is rather dense. he twist words to fit his specific needs. even which he breaks rules of logic and math.
> > > > > > On Oct 23, 9:47 am, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Oct 23, 9:44 am, "t" <tool...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Please post where I have said that her stuff worked.
> > > > > > > Please post where I claimed that you said that.
> > > Which Marla cannot do.
> > > > > > > What you failed to understand is that her Henchmen, when it came time > > > > > > > to prove her stuff worked, could not, even though they had unfettered > > > > > > > access to her decades of "research." They could not meet even a simple > > > > > > > burden of proof.
> > > > > > > In absence of proof that something "works" it is fair to accept that > > > > > > > it does not.
> > > > > > Like this big lie from Mark S Probert
> > > Which he deleted, and will not address his big lie.
> > >www.BreastImplantAwareness.org > > >Another longtime cover up: > Jan wrote: > > Hulda Clark has been warning people of mold and abestos for > > years,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,while other were busy calling her a quack.
> People were correctly calling her a quack for many reasons, none > being > asbestos related.
> The simple fact is that there is no cover-up regarding asbestos. In > the > 1980's, under AHERA, schools nationwide removed tons of it. > Construction > companies were forced to perform abatement before renovations or > demolition. > There is no doubt that there are very sick people with asbestosis and > mesothelioma who were exposed to asbestos. I meet several of them > every > month and can usually find some documentation of their possible > exposure so > they can recevie WC benefits.
> Backj in the 1950's and 1960's, there was no idea that asbestos > exposure > could be so dangerous. During WWII boat builders at the Navy Yards > were > routinely exposed to it, brought the dust home, and exposed their > families. > No one knew.
> When I was in elementary school, I received a kit from a group in > Canada, > where asbestos was mined, called "Asbestos-The Magic Mineral." I > brought it > to school for a science project. No one knew.
> Once the dangers became known, precautions were put in place, and, > eventually, abatement was begun. There is far less asbestos in our > environment to day, and HULDA CLARK HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!
> Anyone claiming that there was a cover-up is an liar.
> -------------------------------------------
> The EPA Comes Clean on Asbestos
> EPA warning on asbestos is under attack Lawyers target materials > detailing > dangers in brakes
> The federal government’s 17- > year effort to warn backyard and > professional mechanics of the > dangers of cancer-causing as- > bestos in brakes is under attack.
> The deadly truth about asbestos > A brief chronology of what the owners and managers of asbestos > companies knew, > and when they knew it.
> 1890s > * Asbestos, which previously had few industrial uses, becomes a raw > material > for large manufacturing industries, exposing large numbers of workers > to > asbestos dust for the first time. Asbestos-caused disease often > develops > decades after a person was first exposed. As a result, it was not > until the > early 1900s that large numbers of workers developed symptoms. > David Kotelchuck, "Asbestos: ‘The Funeral Dress of Kings' - and > Others" in > Dying for Work: Workers' Safety and Health in Twentieth-Century > America, ed. by > David Rosner and Gerald Markowitz, Indiana University Press, > Bloomington, IN > 1987, p193
> 1918 > * A Prudential Insurance Company official notes that life insurance > companies > will not cover asbestos workers, because of the "health-injurious > conditions of > the industry." > Barry I. Castleman, Asbestos: Medical and Legal Aspects, 4th edition, > Aspen Law > and Business, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 1996, p.5-6
> 1930 > * Major asbestos company Johns-Manville produces report, for internal > company > use only, about medical reports of asbestos worker fatalities. > Barry I. Castleman, Asbestos: Medical and Legal Aspects, 4th edition, > Aspen Law > and Business, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 1996, p.663
> 1932 > * Letter from U.S. Bureau of Mines to asbestos manufacturer > Eagle-Picher > states: "It is now known that asbestos dust is one of the most > dangerous dusts > to which man is exposed." > Paul Brodeur, Outrageous Misconduct: The Asbestos Industry on Trial, > Pantheon > Books, New York NY, 1985, p.327
> 1933 > * Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. doctors find that 29 percent of > workers in a > Johns-Manville plant have asbestosis. > Barry I. Castleman, Asbestos: Medical and Legal Aspects, 4th edition, > Aspen Law > and Business, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 1996, p.26
> * Johns-Manville officials settle lawsuits by 11 employees with > asbestosis on > the condition that the employees' lawyer agree to never again > "directly or > indirectly participate in the bringing of new actions against the > Corporation."
> Paul Brodeur, Outrageous Misconduct: The Asbestos Industry on Trial, > Pantheon > Books, New York NY, 1985, p.114
> 1934 > * Officials of two large asbestos companies, Johns-Manville and > Raybestos-Manhattan, edit an article about the diseases of asbestos > workers > written by a Metropolitan Life Insurance Company doctor. The changes > minimize > the danger of asbestos dust. > Paul Brodeur, Outrageous Misconduct: The Asbestos Industry on Trial, > Pantheon > Books, New York NY, 1985, p.114-15
> 1935 > * Officials of Johns-Manville and Raybestos-Manhattan instruct the > editor of > Asbestos magazine to publish nothing about asbestosis. > Paul Brodeur, Outrageous Misconduct: The Asbestos Industry on Trial, > Pantheon > Books, New York NY, 1985, p.116
> 1936 > * A group of asbestos companies agrees to sponsor research on the > health > effects of asbestos dust, but require that the companies maintain > complete > control over the disclosure of the results. > Barry I. Castleman, Asbestos: Medical and Legal Aspects, 4th edition, > Aspen Law > and Business, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 1996, p.587
> 1942 > * Internal Owens-Corning corporate memo refer to "medical literature > on > asbestosis . . . . scores of publications in which the lung and skin > hazards of > asbestos are discussed." > Barry I. Castleman, Asbestos: Medical and Legal Aspects, 4th edition, > Aspen Law > and Business, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 1996, p.195
> 1942 or 1943 > * The president of Johns-Manville says that the managers of another > asbestos > company were "a bunch of fools for notifying employees who had > asbestosis." > When one of the managers asks, "do you mean to tell me you would let > them work > until they dropped dead?" The response is reported to have been, > "Yes. > We save > a lot of money that way." > Testimony of Charles H. Roemer, Deposition taken April 25, 1984, > Johns-Manville > Corp., et al v. the United States of America, U.S. Claims Court Civ. > No. > 465-83C, cited in Barry I. Castleman, Asbestos: Medical and Legal > Aspects, 4th > edition, Aspen Law and Business, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 1996, p.581
> 1944 > * Metropolitan Life Insurance Company report finds 42 cases of > asbestosis among > 195 asbestos miners. > Barry I. Castleman, Asbestos: Medical and Legal Aspects, 4th edition, > Aspen Law > and Business, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 1996, p.654
> 1951 > * Asbestos companies remove all references to cancer before allowing > publication of research they sponsor. > Barry I. Castleman, Asbestos: Medical and Legal Aspects, 4th edition, > Aspen Law > and Business, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 1996, p.71
> 1952 > * Dr. Kenneth Smith, Johns-Manville medical director, recommends > (unsuccessfully) that warning labels be attached to products > containing > asbestos. Later Smith testifies: "It was a business decision as far > as > I could > understand . . . the corporation is in business to provide jobs for > people and > make money for stockholders and they had to take into consideration > the effects > of everything they did and if the application of a caution label > identifying a > product as hazardous would cut into sales, there would be serious > financial > implications." > Barry I. Castleman, Asbestos: Medical and Legal Aspects, 4th edition, > Aspen Law > and Business, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 1996, p.666
> 1953 > * National Gypsum's safety director writes to the Indiana Division of > Industrial Hygiene, recommending that acoustic plaster mixers wear > respirators > "because of the asbestos used in the product." Another company > official notes > that the letter is "full of dynamite," urges that it be retrieved > before > reaching its destination. A memo in the files notes that the company > "succeeded > in stopping" the letter, which "will be modified." > Barry I. Castleman, Asbestos: Medical and Legal Aspects, 4th edition, > Aspen Law > and Business, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 1996, p.669-70
> 1964 > * Dr. Irving Selikoff publishes a study of asbestos
On Nov 2, 8:58 pm, Mark Probert <mark.prob...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 26, 12:53 pm, Jan Drew <jdrew63...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Wonder if Sandy knows he is obsessed with boobs?
> I am not obsessed with you.
> That is for sure.
> Leave my family out of Usenet.
You forgot you posted your kids pictures on Usenet. As well as faked a private email to me pretenting it was from your wife Sandra.
Don't even think about telling me what to do Mark S Probert Merrick NY disbarred lawyer Who remained silent when disbarred and then repeatedly lied about it.
I have two new articles on the www.bolenreport.com website you will find interesting…
The first - “Will Suzanne Somers New Book on Alternative Cancer Therapies Start the Cancer Revolt?...” says “Watch Larry King tonight. He's interviewing Suzanne Somers about her new book "Knockout," which talks about REAL treatments, ones that actually work, for cancer. 9:00PM EST
The longest running war conducted by the United States is not the war in Iraq, nor the war in .Afghanistan. It is the "War on Cancer" started, with great fanfare, in 1972, thirty-seven years ago, by President Richard Nixon. It is a complete failure. The enemy, cancer, continues to gain ground.
In truth, the only people who benefit from this war are those in the huge, for profit, cancer industry - certainly not cancer victims or their families. The accepted therapies, those claimed to be "proven," are, in actuality, worthless. The statistics generated, even though the industry massages them, clearly show that 97.9% people who go the chemotherapy therapy route are dead five years later. That's correct - chemotherapy only has a 2.1% success rate over five years. Put in a 2.5% "margin of error" and you've got a big fat zero.
More, the government apparatus we've created to help with this war is no more than a huge "welfare for scientists" program with absolutely nothing to show for their thirty-seven years of existence except higher percentages of cancer deaths.
The second – “Quackbusters Sue Each Other - All is Not Well in Scumville ... says “On November 3rd, of the year 2000, quackbusters Stephen Barrett, Terry Polevoy, and Christopher Grell sued me, Tim Bolen, along with a whole host of people, claiming that world famous author and health humanitarian Hulda Regehr Clark PhD had hired me, Tim Bolen, to defame them - and that several others had conspired with Clark and myself to accomplish that. After 8 and 1/2 years of no action to prove the case the judge threw it out, Dismissing it out of hand. You can read the entire article, the one that went around the world like wildfire, detailing Barrett, Polevoy, and Grell's huge humiliation, by clicking here..
The case wracked up huge legal bills for the Plaintiffs who also had to pay for the attorney fees for one of the Defendants, Ilena Rosenthal. And, those bills came to over $500,000 US. And, they are not yet paid.
More, Ilena's attorneys are getting very aggressive about the collection. As well they should. Last month, in Ontario, Canada Ilena's attorneys won a judgment against Plaintiff Terry Polevoy for $311,000 US plus three years back interest - totaling over $350,000 US. They want payment, from Polevoy, right this minute.
And Polevoy is screeching like a cornered rat...
He is blaming Grell and Barrett for his problems. He could be right - or not. I'll let you read his lawsuit in a minute.
Jan Drew <jdrew63...@aol.com> wrote: >I have two new articles on the www.bolenreport.com website you will >find interesting…
>The first - “Will Suzanne Somers New Book on Alternative Cancer >Therapies Start the Cancer Revolt?...” says “Watch Larry King >tonight. He's interviewing Suzanne Somers about her new book >"Knockout," which talks about REAL treatments, ones that actually >work, for cancer. 9:00PM EST
Unlike the UNREAL treatments, ones that DO NOT actually work. You know, those ones advanced by Tim's late client, Hulda Clark.
It didn't take Tim long to find another trough, did it?
Tim Bolen <jurim...@yahoo.com> wrote: >The first - “Will Suzanne Somers New Book on Alternative Cancer >Therapies Start the Cancer Revolt?...” says “Watch Larry King >tonight. He's interviewing Suzanne Somers about her new book >"Knockout," which talks about REAL treatments, ones that actually >work, for cancer. 9:00PM EST
Hello Tim,
I see from your newsletter and web site that you now believe that Suzanne Somers has revealed "REAL treatments, ones that actually work, for cancer". Does this mean that you have finally woken up to the fact that your best friend Hulda Clark didn't really have "The Cure For All Cancers" or does it mean that you are just opportunistically jumping on the next bandwagon to come along? Still, seven weeks was long enough to grieve over Hulda's death before moving on, and with her gone you need another trough to feed at.
I have a couple more questions for you while I have the emailer out.
Was it difficult getting approval from the authorities for the release of toxic waste so that the charred remains of the dead Hulda could be dumped into the ocean?
How is your lawsuit against Google, Webring and Wikipedia going? It's coming up to two years now (708 days, actually) since you told me that I was to be engulfed in the legal tsunami involving these organisations and the quackbuster conspiracy. The head of the RatbagsDotCom legal support team at Farr, Gough and Dye has been nagging me about this because she needs to work on budgeting and staffing for next year.
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:31:08 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
> <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote: > >On Nov 3, 5:07 pm, Martin <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:47:01 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
> >> <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote: > >> >On Nov 3, 3:10 pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote: > >> >> PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On Nov 3, 3:18 am, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote: > >> >> >> PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >First, you don't know how she died.
> >> >> >> She died of anemia and hypercalcemia, the effects of multiple myeloma. > >> >> >> Put another way, she died of cancer.
> >> >> >> > Second, a book titled "The cure > >> >> >> >for all cancers" does not logically translate into "the cure for every > >> >> >> >patient."
> >> >> >> You haven't read the book, have you?
> >> >> >Meaning you yourself have not read it or you would provide a direct > >> >> >quote from the book to prove your point. Well?
> >> >> "For many years we have all believed that cancer is different from > >> >> other diseases. We believed that cancer behaves like a fire, in that > >> >> you can't stop it once it has started. Therefore, you have to cut it > >> >> out or radiate it to death or chemically destroy every cancerous cell > >> >> in the body since it can never become normal again. NOTHING COULD BE > >> >> MORE WRONG! And we have believed that cancers of different types such > >> >> as leukemia or breast cancer have different causes. Wrong again! > >> >> In this book you will see that all cancers are alike. They are all > >> >> caused by a parasite. A single parasite! It is the human intestinal > >> >> fluke. And if you kill this intestinal parasite, the cancer stops > >> >> immediately. The tissue becomes normal again. In order to get cancer, > >> >> you must have this parasite.
> >> >> How can the human intestinal fluke cause cancer? This intestinal > >> >> parasite typically lives in the intestine where it might do little > >> >> harm, causing only colitis … or irritable bowel syndrome, or perhaps > >> >> nothing at all. But if it invades a different organ, like the uterus > >> >> or kidneys or liver, it does a great deal of harm. If it establishes > >> >> itself in the liver, it causes cancer!
> >> >> It only establishes itself in the liver in some people. These people > >> >> have propyl alcohol in their bodies. All cancer patients (100%) have > >> >> both propyl alcohol and the intestinal fluke in their livers. The > >> >> solvent propyl alcohol is responsible for letting the fluke establish > >> >> itself in the liver. In order to get cancer, you must have both the > >> >> parasite and propyl alcohol in your body".
> >> >Your reply to me was in response to my comment that a book titled "The > >> >cure for all cancers" does not logically translate into "the cure for > >> >every patient." The excerpt here describes her theories but does not > >> >address my point. The statement "...IF you kill this intestinal > >> >parasite, the cancer stops immediately" is conditional. Though I > >> >disagree with Clark's ideas, there is no claim here that every patient > >> >under her care experienced a cure.
> >> The title "The cure for all cancers" is NOT conditional, you > >> blathering idiot. Oh, and do read the rest of her book(s). She also > >> claims she can kill the parasite in every and all cases with her > >> zapper. So there's no if - get the zapper treatment = get rid of the > >> parasites = get cured of cancer. Of course, IF you don't get the > >> zapper treatment, you will not get cured. That's the only if there is. > >> But I'm afraid you won't get it anyway. I mean, you're the one who > >> claims that if someone can cure all cancers, it does not mean she > >> can not cure all patients.
> >Note the double negative at the end of your screed, moron. This is > >common among pharmnuts who, lacking an argument, undo their own > >vacuous claims.
> My bad. Should have read: > "I mean, you're the one who claims that if someone can cure all > cancers, it does not mean she can cure all patients with cancer"
According to WHO scientists, the cure for almost all human disease is adequate nutrition. That does not mean every illness resulting from poor nutrition is reversible in every patient. Clark did not refer to All PATIENTS but to All Cancers, i.e., all FORMS of the disease. This would be apparent to anyone with a functioning brain (which of course excludes you.)
<p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 4, 4:09 am, Martin <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:31:08 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
>> <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote: >> >On Nov 3, 5:07 pm, Martin <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 12:47:01 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
>> >> <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote: >> >> >On Nov 3, 3:10 pm, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote: >> >> >> PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >On Nov 3, 3:18 am, Peter Bowditch <myfirstn...@ratbags.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> PeterB - Original <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >First, you don't know how she died.
>> >> >> >> She died of anemia and hypercalcemia, the effects of multiple myeloma. >> >> >> >> Put another way, she died of cancer.
>> >> >> >> > Second, a book titled "The cure >> >> >> >> >for all cancers" does not logically translate into "the cure for every >> >> >> >> >patient."
>> >> >> >> You haven't read the book, have you?
>> >> >> >Meaning you yourself have not read it or you would provide a direct >> >> >> >quote from the book to prove your point. Well?
>> >> >> "For many years we have all believed that cancer is different from >> >> >> other diseases. We believed that cancer behaves like a fire, in that >> >> >> you can't stop it once it has started. Therefore, you have to cut it >> >> >> out or radiate it to death or chemically destroy every cancerous cell >> >> >> in the body since it can never become normal again. NOTHING COULD BE >> >> >> MORE WRONG! And we have believed that cancers of different types such >> >> >> as leukemia or breast cancer have different causes. Wrong again! >> >> >> In this book you will see that all cancers are alike. They are all >> >> >> caused by a parasite. A single parasite! It is the human intestinal >> >> >> fluke. And if you kill this intestinal parasite, the cancer stops >> >> >> immediately. The tissue becomes normal again. In order to get cancer, >> >> >> you must have this parasite.
>> >> >> How can the human intestinal fluke cause cancer? This intestinal >> >> >> parasite typically lives in the intestine where it might do little >> >> >> harm, causing only colitis … or irritable bowel syndrome, or perhaps >> >> >> nothing at all. But if it invades a different organ, like the uterus >> >> >> or kidneys or liver, it does a great deal of harm. If it establishes >> >> >> itself in the liver, it causes cancer!
>> >> >> It only establishes itself in the liver in some people. These people >> >> >> have propyl alcohol in their bodies. All cancer patients (100%) have >> >> >> both propyl alcohol and the intestinal fluke in their livers. The >> >> >> solvent propyl alcohol is responsible for letting the fluke establish >> >> >> itself in the liver. In order to get cancer, you must have both the >> >> >> parasite and propyl alcohol in your body".
>> >> >Your reply to me was in response to my comment that a book titled "The >> >> >cure for all cancers" does not logically translate into "the cure for >> >> >every patient." The excerpt here describes her theories but does not >> >> >address my point. The statement "...IF you kill this intestinal >> >> >parasite, the cancer stops immediately" is conditional. Though I >> >> >disagree with Clark's ideas, there is no claim here that every patient >> >> >under her care experienced a cure.
>> >> The title "The cure for all cancers" is NOT conditional, you >> >> blathering idiot. Oh, and do read the rest of her book(s). She also >> >> claims she can kill the parasite in every and all cases with her >> >> zapper. So there's no if - get the zapper treatment = get rid of the >> >> parasites = get cured of cancer. Of course, IF you don't get the >> >> zapper treatment, you will not get cured. That's the only if there is. >> >> But I'm afraid you won't get it anyway. I mean, you're the one who >> >> claims that if someone can cure all cancers, it does not mean she >> >> can not cure all patients.
>> >Note the double negative at the end of your screed, moron. This is >> >common among pharmnuts who, lacking an argument, undo their own >> >vacuous claims.
>> My bad. Should have read: >> "I mean, you're the one who claims that if someone can cure all >> cancers, it does not mean she can cure all patients with cancer"
>According to WHO scientists, the cure for almost all human disease is >adequate nutrition.
Hulda Clark does not agree with you. So either the WHO or Hulda is wrong. Which one is it Petey? (for the sake of argument, let's not get into the discussion wether you read what the WHO said correctly or not, or that they even said that at all)
> That does not mean every illness resulting from poor nutrition is reversible in every patient.
Indeed it does not, if the claim is that 'almost' all disease can be cured by adequate nutrition. Hulda OTOH, claimed to have the cure for ALL disease, no exceptions.
> Clark did not refer to All PATIENTS but to All Cancers, i.e., all FORMS of the disease.
So you still claim that curing the disease is not the same as curing the patient? Petey, Hulda not only claimed to be able to cure all cancers, even with the patient at death's door, she claimed to be able to cure all disease. Not just treat, but cure it. Period. That means she could cure all patients, since curing the disease means curing the patient. Or do you think that, say, shooting an AIDS patient cures the disease because it will stop the virus from doing what it does? (just curious how insane you are)
>This would be apparent to anyone with a functioning brain (which of >course excludes you.)
Petey, whatever turned your brain into the non-functional mush that it is, I hope it's not contagious.
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:22:26 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
> <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote: > >On Nov 3, 4:59 pm, Martin <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> Are you making > >> >> >> up your own meaning of words again, in this case, the word 'cure'?
> >> >> >No, idiot, I'm pointing out the stupidity of your argument, which you > >> >> >repeat here. A practitioner may believe that a particular treatment > >> >> >is the best approach for every patient with a particular disease,
> >> >> Hulda did not speak of 'best approach'. She said she could cure all > >> >> cancer, period. Not some, not offer the best treatment available, no, > >> >> she claimed she could CURE all, that is ALL, cancer. Not just treat > >> >> them the best way possible, no, she said she could cure them, any form > >> >> of cancer, at any stage.
> >> >So prove it. Quote and cite your source.
> >> Prove it? What???? Are you really that stupid? (yes, I'm afraid you > >> are, and it scares me a bit). > >> Here's the titles of her books: > >> The Cure and Prevention of All Cancers
> >So your argument is purely semantic.
> You would know about semantics. You're the one who claims that > if someone says she can cure all disease, it does not mean she > can cure all patients. It's not stupid, it's certifiable insanity.
I note you could not cite a single quote in which Clark claimed to have cured everyone she ever treated. For good reason: She never said it.
> > Reference to "all cancers" is > >not a reference to every patient, but to all forms of the disease. > >You win some, you lose some.
> But you can not lose them to cancer, because you can cure all > cancer.
If Clark's book had been titled "The Cure for Everyone with Cancer," you would have a point. Since it wasn't, you don't.
> Hulda could cure all cancer, so it would have been impossible for > her to die of cancer. She did. Therefor, she could not cure all > cancer, which makes her claims bullshit. Period.
If she had actually made that claim, which you have not demonstrated using a book title.
> > Any idiot (except one with a brain as small as yours) would get that.
> >> The Cure for All Cancers: Including over 100 Case Histories of > >> Persons Cured by Hulda R. Clark > >> The Cure For All Advanced Cancers > >> Cure for All Diseases (which would include cancer of course)
> >Same point. If I write a book titled "The Cure for All Heart > >Disease," I am conveying that every form of the disease is > >treatable, not that every patient will experience a cure. If you > >don't grasp the distinction, you need someone to take > >guardianship over your personal affairs.
> No Petey, I don't grasp that if you claim that you can cure all heart > disease some of your patients will die of heart disease anyway.
There are no guarantees with any medical intervention. And based on what you've produced so far, Clark never offered one.
> I can only suspect that you have a definition of the word 'cure' > and/ore the word 'all' hitherto unknown to the world.
What is the cure for all scurvy? it's vitamin C. But no medical library in the world says every individual properly treated for scurvy will be cured. There are no guarantees in life even when the cure is known.
> >> This is from "The Cure For All Advanced Cancers": > >> "Cancer can now be cured, not only the early stages, but also > >> advanced cancer, stages four and five, including imminent > >> death."
> >Read it slowly, dumbass. She said "CAN now be cured," which > >in no way asserts certainty of a cure.
> WHAT??? Ok, now I'm certain you're yanking my chain. Nobody, > not even you, can be this stupid. Can't be. Oh god, I really hope > nobody can be that stupid. Please, let some faith in humanity > remain for me.
IOW, you cannot produce a quote in which Clark claims she cured every patient treated by her. Which makes you an idiot, a liar, or both.
On Nov 9, 2:32 pm, Martin <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> My bad. Should have read: > >> "I mean, you're the one who claims that if someone can cure all > >> cancers, it does not mean she can cure all patients with > >> cancer"
> >According to WHO scientists, the cure for almost all human > >disease is adequate nutrition.
> Hulda Clark does not agree with you. So either the WHO or Hulda > is wrong. Which one is it Petey? (for the sake of argument, let's not > get into the discussion wether you read what the WHO said > correctly or not, or that they even said that at all)
Unlike you, marty, all my discussions here on mha have been previously cited. As for what Clark believed, that isn't what you've been whining about. I note you still have not produced a single quote in which she claims to have cured every patient she treated. For good reason: she never said it.
> > That does not mean every illness resulting from poor nutrition is reversible in every patient.
> Indeed it does not, if the claim is that 'almost' all disease can be > cured by adequate nutrition. Hulda OTOH, claimed to have the > cure for ALL disease, no exceptions.
So produce the quote in which she claimed to have cured every patient she treated, or admit you can't.
<p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 9, 2:32 pm, Martin <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >> My bad. Should have read: >> >> "I mean, you're the one who claims that if someone can cure all >> >> cancers, it does not mean she can cure all patients with >> >> cancer"
>> >According to WHO scientists, the cure for almost all human >> >disease is adequate nutrition.
>> Hulda Clark does not agree with you. So either the WHO or Hulda >> is wrong. Which one is it Petey? (for the sake of argument, let's not >> get into the discussion wether you read what the WHO said >> correctly or not, or that they even said that at all)
>Unlike you, marty, all my discussions here on mha have been previously >cited. As for what Clark believed, that isn't what you've been >whining about. I note you still have not produced a single quote in >which she claims to have cured every patient she treated. For good >reason: she never said it.
Jesus f*cking Christ!!! She called her book THE CURE FOR ALL DISEASE for crying out loud. Curing all disease equals curing all patients!!!!!!
>> > That does not mean every illness resulting from poor nutrition is reversible in every patient.
>> Indeed it does not, if the claim is that 'almost' all disease can be >> cured by adequate nutrition. Hulda OTOH, claimed to have the >> cure for ALL disease, no exceptions.
>So produce the quote in which she claimed to have cured every patient >she treated, or admit you can't.
IT'S IN THE BOOK TITLE, YOU UNBELIEVABLE DENSE IDIOT!!!! THE CURE FOR ALL DISEASE
Please tell me you are doing this on purpose to annoy me. Nobody can really be this stupid. Please tell me nobody, not even you, is this stupid. Please.
<p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 4, 4:07 am, Martin <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> On Tue, 3 Nov 2009 16:22:26 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
>> <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote: >> >On Nov 3, 4:59 pm, Martin <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >> Are you making >> >> >> >> up your own meaning of words again, in this case, the word 'cure'?
>> >> >> >No, idiot, I'm pointing out the stupidity of your argument, which you >> >> >> >repeat here. A practitioner may believe that a particular treatment >> >> >> >is the best approach for every patient with a particular disease,
>> >> >> Hulda did not speak of 'best approach'. She said she could cure all >> >> >> cancer, period. Not some, not offer the best treatment available, no, >> >> >> she claimed she could CURE all, that is ALL, cancer. Not just treat >> >> >> them the best way possible, no, she said she could cure them, any form >> >> >> of cancer, at any stage.
>> >> >So prove it. Quote and cite your source.
>> >> Prove it? What???? Are you really that stupid? (yes, I'm afraid you >> >> are, and it scares me a bit). >> >> Here's the titles of her books: >> >> The Cure and Prevention of All Cancers
>> >So your argument is purely semantic.
>> You would know about semantics. You're the one who claims that >> if someone says she can cure all disease, it does not mean she >> can cure all patients. It's not stupid, it's certifiable insanity.
>I note you could not cite a single quote in which Clark claimed to >have cured everyone she ever treated. For good reason: She never >said it.
IT'S IN THE BLOODY TITLE OF THE BOOK!!
>> > Reference to "all cancers" is >> >not a reference to every patient, but to all forms of the disease. >> >You win some, you lose some.
>> But you can not lose them to cancer, because you can cure all >> cancer.
>If Clark's book had been titled "The Cure for Everyone with Cancer," >you would have a point. Since it wasn't, you don't.
OH MFG, you really think that if you cure the cancer, heck, if you cure all disease, you do not automatically cure the patient. You really are this stupid.... I have to take a stiff drink to get over this shock. This is like having looked into the actual pit of doom.
>> Hulda could cure all cancer, so it would have been impossible for >> her to die of cancer. She did. Therefor, she could not cure all >> cancer, which makes her claims bullshit. Period.
>If she had actually made that claim, which you have not demonstrated >using a book title.
>> > Any idiot (except one with a brain as small as yours) would get that.
>> >> The Cure for All Cancers: Including over 100 Case Histories of >> >> Persons Cured by Hulda R. Clark >> >> The Cure For All Advanced Cancers >> >> Cure for All Diseases (which would include cancer of course)
>> >Same point. If I write a book titled "The Cure for All Heart >> >Disease," I am conveying that every form of the disease is >> >treatable, not that every patient will experience a cure. If you >> >don't grasp the distinction, you need someone to take >> >guardianship over your personal affairs.
>> No Petey, I don't grasp that if you claim that you can cure all heart >> disease some of your patients will die of heart disease anyway.
>There are no guarantees with any medical intervention. And based on >what you've produced so far, Clark never offered one.
>> I can only suspect that you have a definition of the word 'cure' >> and/ore the word 'all' hitherto unknown to the world.
>What is the cure for all scurvy? it's vitamin C. But no medical >library in the world says every individual properly treated for scurvy >will be cured. There are no guarantees in life even when the cure is >known.
>> >> This is from "The Cure For All Advanced Cancers": >> >> "Cancer can now be cured, not only the early stages, but also >> >> advanced cancer, stages four and five, including imminent >> >> death."
>> >Read it slowly, dumbass. She said "CAN now be cured," which >> >in no way asserts certainty of a cure.
>> WHAT??? Ok, now I'm certain you're yanking my chain. Nobody, >> not even you, can be this stupid. Can't be. Oh god, I really hope >> nobody can be that stupid. Please, let some faith in humanity >> remain for me.
>IOW, you cannot produce a quote in which Clark claims she cured every >patient treated by her. Which makes you an idiot, a liar, or both.
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 15:48:07 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
> <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote: > >On Nov 9, 2:32 pm, Martin <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> >> My bad. Should have read: > >> >> "I mean, you're the one who claims that if someone can cure all > >> >> cancers, it does not mean she can cure all patients with > >> >> cancer"
> >> >According to WHO scientists, the cure for almost all human > >> >disease is adequate nutrition.
> >> Hulda Clark does not agree with you. So either the WHO or Hulda > >> is wrong. Which one is it Petey? (for the sake of argument, let's not > >> get into the discussion wether you read what the WHO said > >> correctly or not, or that they even said that at all)
> >Unlike you, marty, all my discussions here on mha have been > >previously > >cited. As for what Clark believed, that isn't what you've been > >whining about. I note you still have not produced a single quote in > >which she claims to have cured every patient she treated. For > >good reason: she never said it.
> Jesus f*cking Christ!!! She called her book THE CURE FOR ALL > DISEASE > for crying out loud. Curing all disease equals curing all > patients!!!!!!
Meaning you cannot produce a single quote in which Clark claimed to have cured every patient she treated. Thanks for proving my point.
> >> > That does not mean every illness resulting from poor nutrition is reversible in every patient.
> >> Indeed it does not, if the claim is that 'almost' all disease can be > >> cured by adequate nutrition. Hulda OTOH, claimed to have the > >> cure for ALL disease, no exceptions.
> >So produce the quote in which she claimed to have cured every > >patient she treated, or admit you can't.
> IT'S IN THE BOOK TITLE, YOU UNBELIEVABLE DENSE > IDIOT!!!! THE CURE FOR ALL DISEASE
marty, we know your tiny brain cannot grasp the importance of context when reading the English language. If Clark had titled her book, "The Cure of Every Cancer Patient," you would have a point. She didn't, so you don't.
> Please tell me you are doing this on purpose to annoy me. Nobody > can really be this stupid. Please tell me nobody, not even you, is > this stupid. Please.
Proving again the idiot cannot produce a single quote to back up his claims.
<p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote: >On Nov 10, 3:08 pm, Martin <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 15:48:07 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
>> <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote: >> >On Nov 9, 2:32 pm, Martin <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >> >> My bad. Should have read: >> >> >> "I mean, you're the one who claims that if someone can cure all >> >> >> cancers, it does not mean she can cure all patients with >> >> >> cancer"
>> >> >According to WHO scientists, the cure for almost all human >> >> >disease is adequate nutrition.
>> >> Hulda Clark does not agree with you. So either the WHO or Hulda >> >> is wrong. Which one is it Petey? (for the sake of argument, let's not >> >> get into the discussion wether you read what the WHO said >> >> correctly or not, or that they even said that at all)
>> >Unlike you, marty, all my discussions here on mha have been >> >previously >> >cited. As for what Clark believed, that isn't what you've been >> >whining about. I note you still have not produced a single quote in >> >which she claims to have cured every patient she treated. For >> >good reason: she never said it.
>> Jesus f*cking Christ!!! She called her book THE CURE FOR ALL >> DISEASE >> for crying out loud. Curing all disease equals curing all >> patients!!!!!!
>Meaning you cannot produce a single quote in which Clark claimed to >have cured every patient she treated. Thanks for proving my point.
IT'S THE TITLE OF HER BLOODY BOOK. There she claims she can CURE all disease, not treat, but cure!!! You came up with scurvy as an example. Petey, vitamin C is the TREATMENT for scurvy. And if it works correcty, it's also the cure. (incredible that I have to explain to a grown man the difference between treatment and cure). Clark did not claim to have only treatments, because then she would have called her book "The treatment for all disease". In stead, she called the book "The CURE for all disease". And Petey, if you claim you can CURE all disease, not just treat, but CURE, you are making the claim that you can cure every patient you treat.
>> >> > That does not mean every illness resulting from poor nutrition is reversible in every patient.
>> >> Indeed it does not, if the claim is that 'almost' all disease can be >> >> cured by adequate nutrition. Hulda OTOH, claimed to have the >> >> cure for ALL disease, no exceptions.
>> >So produce the quote in which she claimed to have cured every >> >patient she treated, or admit you can't.
>> IT'S IN THE BOOK TITLE, YOU UNBELIEVABLE DENSE >> IDIOT!!!! THE CURE FOR ALL DISEASE
>marty, we know your tiny brain cannot grasp the importance of context >when reading the English language. If Clark had titled her book, "The >Cure of Every Cancer Patient," you would have a point. She didn't, so >you don't.
Petey, CURING the f*cking disease is the same as curing every f*cking patient.
>> Please tell me you are doing this on purpose to annoy me. Nobody >> can really be this stupid. Please tell me nobody, not even you, is >> this stupid. Please.
>Proving again the idiot cannot produce a single quote to back up his >claims.
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 15:48:07 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
> <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote: > >On Nov 9, 2:32 pm, Martin <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> >> My bad. Should have read: > >> >> "I mean, you're the one who claims that if someone can cure all > >> >> cancers, it does not mean she can cure all patients with > >> >> cancer"
> >> >According to WHO scientists, the cure for almost all human > >> >disease is adequate nutrition.
> >> Hulda Clark does not agree with you. So either the WHO or Hulda > >> is wrong. Which one is it Petey? (for the sake of argument, let's not > >> get into the discussion wether you read what the WHO said > >> correctly or not, or that they even said that at all)
> >Unlike you, marty, all my discussions here on mha have been previously > >cited. As for what Clark believed, that isn't what you've been > >whining about. I note you still have not produced a single quote in > >which she claims to have cured every patient she treated. For good > >reason: she never said it.
> Jesus f*cking Christ!!! She called her book THE CURE FOR ALL DISEASE > for crying out loud. Curing all disease equals curing all > patients!!!!!!
> >> > That does not mean every illness resulting from poor nutrition is reversible in every patient.
> >> Indeed it does not, if the claim is that 'almost' all disease can be > >> cured by adequate nutrition. Hulda OTOH, claimed to have the > >> cure for ALL disease, no exceptions.
> >So produce the quote in which she claimed to have cured every patient > >she treated, or admit you can't.
> IT'S IN THE BOOK TITLE, YOU UNBELIEVABLE DENSE IDIOT!!!! > THE CURE FOR ALL DISEASE
> Please tell me you are doing this on purpose to annoy me. Nobody can > really be this stupid. Please tell me nobody, not even you, is this > stupid. Please
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:34:49 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
> <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote: > >On Nov 10, 3:08 pm, Martin <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 15:48:07 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original
> >> <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote: > >> >On Nov 9, 2:32 pm, Martin <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> My bad. Should have read: > >> >> >> "I mean, you're the one who claims that if someone can cure all > >> >> >> cancers, it does not mean she can cure all patients with > >> >> >> cancer"
> >> >> >According to WHO scientists, the cure for almost all human > >> >> >disease is adequate nutrition.
> >> >> Hulda Clark does not agree with you. So either the WHO or Hulda > >> >> is wrong. Which one is it Petey? (for the sake of argument, let's not > >> >> get into the discussion wether you read what the WHO said > >> >> correctly or not, or that they even said that at all)
> >> >Unlike you, marty, all my discussions here on mha have been > >> >previously > >> >cited. As for what Clark believed, that isn't what you've been > >> >whining about. I note you still have not produced a single quote in > >> >which she claims to have cured every patient she treated. For > >> >good reason: she never said it.
> >> Jesus f*cking Christ!!! She called her book THE CURE FOR ALL > >> DISEASE > >> for crying out loud. Curing all disease equals curing all > >> patients!!!!!!
> >Meaning you cannot produce a single quote in which Clark claimed to > >have cured every patient she treated. Thanks for proving my point.
> IT'S THE TITLE OF HER BLOODY BOOK.
No, you've taken the title out of context and failed to produce an actual quote in which your claim is proven. Where in the book does Clark claim that every patient she treated was, in fact, cured?
> There she claims she can CURE all disease, not treat, but cure!!!
A book title is not sufficient to support that claim even if you find it misleading. If you can't use the contents of the book to prove your case, too bad.
> You came up with scurvy as an example. Petey, vitamin C is the > TREATMENT for scurvy. > And if it works correcty, it's also the cure.
Treatment always precedes cure, so what? If you are complaining the Clark didn't use the word "treatment," I suggest you contact the publisher and protest her word choices. Be prepared for a chuckle.
> (incredible that I have to explain to a grown man the difference > between treatment and cure).
marty, you couldn't explain the difference between two letter of the alphabet.
> Clark did not claim to have only > treatments, because then she would have called her book "The treatment > for all disease".
You've already admitted that a treatment can be a cure, and vice versa. Oops.
> In stead, she called the book "The CURE for all > disease". And Petey, if you claim you can CURE all disease, not > just > treat...
Martin wrote: > On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 15:48:07 -0800 (PST), PeterB - Original > <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 9, 2:32 pm, Martin <n...@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>>> My bad. Should have read: >>>>> "I mean, you're the one who claims that if someone can cure all >>>>> cancers, it does not mean she can cure all patients with >>>>> cancer" >>>> According to WHO scientists, the cure for almost all human >>>> disease is adequate nutrition. >>> Hulda Clark does not agree with you. So either the WHO or Hulda >>> is wrong. Which one is it Petey? (for the sake of argument, let's not >>> get into the discussion wether you read what the WHO said >>> correctly or not, or that they even said that at all) >> Unlike you, marty, all my discussions here on mha have been previously >> cited. As for what Clark believed, that isn't what you've been >> whining about. I note you still have not produced a single quote in >> which she claims to have cured every patient she treated. For good >> reason: she never said it.
> Jesus f*cking Christ!!! She called her book THE CURE FOR ALL DISEASE > for crying out loud. Curing all disease equals curing all > patients!!!!!!
>>>> That does not mean every illness resulting from poor nutrition is reversible in every patient. >>> Indeed it does not, if the claim is that 'almost' all disease can be >>> cured by adequate nutrition. Hulda OTOH, claimed to have the >>> cure for ALL disease, no exceptions. >> So produce the quote in which she claimed to have cured every patient >> she treated, or admit you can't.
> IT'S IN THE BOOK TITLE, YOU UNBELIEVABLE DENSE IDIOT!!!! > THE CURE FOR ALL DISEASE
> Please tell me you are doing this on purpose to annoy me. Nobody can > really be this stupid. Please tell me nobody, not even you, is this > stupid. Please.
Martin, you have to be one of the most anally focused people on earth.
