If chosen with virulent care I'm certain even a single sentence can kill.
It's all in the affectibility of the recipient. I knew a woman once who was
convinced that by eating only raw vegetables and herbs she could
detoxify her body to such an extent that her own immune system would
kick in and defeat her cancer (much like the Gerson therapy in the
documentary - only this treatment was based on Ann Wigmore's ideas).
She refused to accept any modern medical treatment.
Naturally, she was stiff dead within six years of the initial diagnosis.
At least she died eating something she positively hated for something
she believed in. That's gotta be worth something, I say.
No, I don't think a movie can kill really. I think it's our own desire to
escape the inevitable that not only, ironically enough ends up killing us,
but also destroy what little time we have left to enjoy what little joy there
is to experience.
I have no doubt in my mind that our choices in what we eat and how we
live our lives can enhance our physical well-being; strengthen our
immune system and make us more resistant to many a disease. But I
also have no doubt in my mind that there are conditions that require
more aggressive treatment if they are to be cured.
It's our own choices that kills, if anything.
Also, if I may redirect the question: What is life worth if it's spent
constantly drugged, weakened by toxins to a meager, coughing
cretin-like existence, that would best fit the theme of a low-budget 80's
horror movie, if there's little to no hope of ever regaining full health? I'd
much rather live with a clear head, the pain and the personal choice to
die with some dignity on a rail-road track or some other. But that's just
me escaping the inevitable question: Am I man enough to face the
horror of the slow, painful and humiliating death that cancer is? (Or old
age for that matter.)
If this post totally depressed you, or if you just feel that casual,
sudden urge to kill yourself, don't worry about it. I hear death by suicide
has been quite popular lately, due to a declining economy and all the
self-pity that comes with it. So, you see: y'all right then, matey!
Yes, folks. That's right. I'm a just a big, cuddly, positive ray of
sunshine, these days.
Originally posted by JigtieI sympathize with your opinion. I really do.
If chosen with virulent care I'm certain even a single sentence can kill.
It's all in the affectibility of the recipient. I knew a woman once who was
convinced that by eating only raw vegetables and herbs she could
detoxify her body to such an extent that her own immune system would
kick in and defeat her cancer (much like the Gerson therapy in the
...[text shortened]... t's right. I'm a just a big, cuddly, positive ray of
sunshine, these days.[/i]
But the thing is that in the back of my head there's this voice telling me some cancers actually have a small but non-negligible chance of survival IF treated properly.
If this film leads a few people into thinking that they can be cured without chemo or drugs and ultimately robs them of having that small chance of survival, then undoubtedly somebody will die because of this.
If we have fraud laws that stop people from attempting to use deceit to sell some property, then why is this different? You sell a DVD or a film ticket using deceit and with potentially disastrous consequences.
If I were diagnosed with liver, pancreatic, or bile duct cancer--and surgery would NOT cure me---I would not have chemo or radiation treatment. Not because some movie implied that I have other options, but because I've no desire to put myself and my family through those twin hells. Movie don't kill, any more than words or ideas. Cancer kills. Bullets kill. Not motion pictures.
Originally posted by PinkFloydI'm sure your death would be much more easy to endure for them. 😕
If I were diagnosed with liver, pancreatic, or bile duct cancer--and surgery would NOT cure me---I would not have chemo or radiation treatment. Not because some movie implied that I have other options, but because I've no desire to put myself and my family through those twin hells. Movie don't kill, any more than words or ideas. Cancer kills. Bullets kill. Not motion pictures.
Anyway, what YOU personally would do is irrelevant. The question is: Are there people who will reject chemo and radiation because they believe in this nonsense (produced to sell DVDs, film tickets and extra-patients for the Gerson Institute)?
Why is this not considered a fraud? It's a hoax, being sold for profit.
Originally posted by PalynkaQuite a strong opinion. What's your experience in the field, and upon what data are you basing your opinion?
Why is this not considered a fraud? It's a hoax, being sold for profit.
Personally, I met 1 cancer sufferer who, after being diagnosed with cancer (and while waiting for chemo, I should add) went on a strict diet ala the Gerson Institutes, including the application of wheatgrass to the affected area (lip cancer). When she returned for her second scan, the tumour had halved in size, which she attributed to her strict diet and cleansing detox. She had been given hope going into her chemo, that she could beat the cancer.
Chemo patients are advised on what they shouldn't and shouldn't eat, so even oncologists accept that diet has an effect on cancer.
I know you are anti-natural remedies and have difficulty believing that what goes through your mouth has an effect on your body. Although I can't understand your position given the accepted fact that eating too much junk food makes you fat and drinking alcohol makes you drunk.
Why can't only eating cleansing foods help your body to isolate the cancer, prevent it's spread through the blood and control the uncontrolled growth of the affected cells.
A lady called in to me the other day and we were talking about babies. She told me how her baby was very colicky, and cried constantly for her first 3 months, so they decided to bring her to a nutritionist. Her husband referred to this as "Hocus pocus". I thought of you and smiled. The baby stopped crying, btw.
D
Originally posted by PalynkaThis is an interesting subject for debate. For example, if people were to act on the incorrect premise and faulty science of this movie:
http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/thebeautifultruth/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497116/
then how many lives would be lost due to economic hardship caused by the reversion back to Civil War-era technology?
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterDurrrr schwarze Ritter, in Germany's quest to be the worlds leader in renewable energy, millions have lost their lives.
then how many lives would be lost due to economic hardship caused by the reversion back to Civil War-era technology?
http://www.renewables-made-in-germany.com/en/photovoltaik/
Some are saying that it is worse than the holocaust.
Some, however, are complete idiots.
Returning to facts: the photovoltaic industry in Germany is booming, with huge growth, innovation and employment and an annual turnover of €3.7b and by 2020, Germany plan on exporting €60b worth of photovoltaic technology and electricity produced from the sun.
Even your beloved oil companies are getting in on the act...
http://www.solarserver.de/solarmagazin/artikeloktober2002-e.html
D
Sorry for partially highjacking your thread, but Der Schwarze Ritter might learn something (if it is possible for him) from this extract from the German government...
"In three European countries - Germany, Denmark and Spain - national legislation has been adopted to introduce minimum prices for feeding into grids electricity generated from renewable energy sources. It is owing exclusively to the national legislation of these three countries that the European Union witnessed the emergence of a wind turbine manufacturing industry which offers cutting-edge technology in the world market today. This also proved that it was wrong to assume that the introduction of minimum price systems would hamper productivity, because in all the three countries mentioned above the introduction of wind energy converters was based on minimum prices guaranteed by law. This has stimulated a market development - initially in the wind energy sector - which led to an efficient industry with considerable export opportunities, which has created jobs for over 20,000 people in Germany alone. As a result of the associated economies of scale and the global competition initiated among manufacturers of wind energy converters, production costs as well as the compensation paid in real terms have been successfully reduced by 50 per cent since 1991. Owing to technological progress, there is growing demand in the world market; in the next ten years, demand for wind energy converters alone may amount to over 100,000 megawatts. Against this background, the market introduction of renewable energy sources should not be underestimated in terms of its importance for industrial policy, not least because it can be safely assumed in view of global climate problems that there will be rapidly growing demand world-wide. It can be expected that the impact which the Renewable Energy Sources Act will have on other sectors in which renewable energy sources are used will be similar to the effects which it will have on the wind energy sector."
D
Originally posted by RagnorakMost oncologists believe that diet alone can't eradicate cancer, and I
Chemo patients are advised on what they shouldn't and shouldn't eat, so even oncologists accept that diet has an effect on cancer.
believe there's a good reason for that (as much as I like to indulge
myself in conspiracy theories).
Say I attract cancer through smoking. My doc tells me to quit smoking,
and to eat this or that. What if I can't resist a good smoke now and
then? Do you honestly believe that the diet alone will cure me?
It is a fantasy that a lot of people choose to believe in because it would
remove the need to drastically alter their lifestyle, go through a
potentially lethal treatment and possibly have to change the very
essence of who they are.
Cancer is most often caused by environmental factors like smoking;
carcinogens* (radiation and various substances that has been proven to
promote cancer). Remove these influences and you remove the very
cause of cancer. But if you're exposed to carcinogens attracting cancer, it
can't be defeated through a diet alone. What the diet can do is
strengthen your immune system and help you avoid a given subset of
carcinogens.
Chemo therapy, surgery and other radical forms of treatment are only
temporary solutions to avoid the immediate danger. When your doctor
suggest you quit smoking, eat a certain diet and do this or that, (s)he's
merely given you a list of preventive measures that you can take to
avoid attracting cancer. (S)he's not saying that these things will cure you
once your cells go haywire on you, and the reason for that is simple:
It won't.
* And here I would like to thank all the developers who wrote the
spelling correction into Firefox, and all the people that helped in building
the dictionaries. If you ever read this: Thank you, thank you, thank you. 😀
Originally posted by PalynkaIt's a good point, but you are assuming facts not in evidence. If EVERY person suffering from cancer went down the same debillitating road, eventually succombing just as doctors predict they would, I'd agree with you. But there are many instances of complete remission that doctors cannot explain. As long as that is the case, I see no hoax/fraud being committed--just alternatives submitted.
Why is this not considered a fraud? It's a hoax, being sold for profit.[/b]