GM crops

Originally posted by humy

A flavonoid compound called Xanthohumol is found in the hops commonly used in brewing beer. It has been seen to play a major role in the chemoprevention of cancer, including prostate cancer.

WRONG!
Here is what the science says;

http://www.readersdigest.ca/food/healthy-food/antioxidant-myth/

The Antioxidant Myth

Free radicals bad ...[text shortened]... atically (which I am also currently intensively researching), A.I. basic physics/chemistry etc.

There is no contradiction to anyone with even a semblance of intelligence and scant powers of discernment, I have no doubt that hops contain these elements, what i do doubt is that they are able to fight cancer. This statement is clear and concise unlike your rather verbose and flowery text, how it could possible cause you to make such ludicrous claims I really cannot say.

I would also appreciate it if you shortened your text and made it more readable, its like a kind of wall of text that one needs climbing gear and ropes to ascend rather than a pleasant stroll through some grassy knoll.

Beer has been proven effective in fighting cancer, just like red wine - this is not my statement as you have erroneously assumed, its a direct quotation from the article that i cited. How you could have thought it was my statement I really have no idea. Are you sure you are an expert for your grasp of simple logic is poor and your reading comprehension almost semi literate. You also seem to be harbouring the delusion that because you claim to be an expert in one field that makes you an expert in every other field too.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie

Beer has been proven effective in fighting cancer, just like red wine - this is not my statement as you have erroneously assumed, its a direct quotation from the article that i cited. .

My links says its all a myth and, unlike you, I assert this as a qualified expert that my link is based on real science and yours isn't; so why do you assume my links are all wrong and yours must be right?
My ones are based on the actual scientific method, which is something that applies to all the sciences and which I have real expertise in and currently doing cutting edge researching in; yours are not. You clearly chosen to believe whatever you want to believe and dismiss any evidence to the contrary including our expert knowledge. Why did you come here and ask us for our expert opinion if you already made up your mind with your non-expert opinion?


Sorry! Beer and wine has NEVER been proven effective in fighting cancer! Your link lies and my ones tell the truth and I assert this as an expert.

You also seem to be harbouring the delusion that because you claim to be an expert in one field that makes you an expert in every other field too.

Nope, but you harbor the delusion that your none expert opinion is right and us expert knowledge is wrong. Why is that? Don't want the truth? Well then, don't ask us experts anything and go on believing whatever you want.

If you don't want the truth, don't ask us experts and, if you ask us experts anyway, don't complain when we contradict your non-expert opinion for its your fault for asking for truth when you didn't want it.
If you cannot handle the truth, don't ask for the truth.

Originally posted by humy
If you don't want the truth, don't ask us experts and, if you ask us experts anyway, don't complain when we contradict your non-expert opinion for its your fault for asking for truth when you didn't want it.
If you cannot handle the truth, don't ask for the truth.

The idea that simply because you claim to be an expert makes your opinion incontrovertible is logically fallacious, an appeal to authority, I am an expert therefore it is so. An absurd argument and thus why I question your grasp of simple logic. I also note that anyone who dares to proffer a contrary opinion to your 'expert', one must have an ulterior motive, again an absurd proposition which betrays nothing less than an irrational bias, a dogmatic and self assuming approach which is deadly for establishing 'truth'. Lastly the actual science and the opinions of those who make interpretations of the data is often conflicting and the normal person armed with a keen aptitude for learning is left wondering if many scientists are not either corrupt, biased, delusional or mad.

Originally posted by humy
My links says its all a myth and, unlike you, I assert this as a qualified expert that my link is based on real science and yours isn't; so why do you assume my links are all wrong and yours must be right?
My ones are based on the actual scientific method, which is something that applies to all the sciences and which I have real expertise in and currently doi ...[text shortened]... want the truth? Well then, don't ask us experts anything and go on believing whatever you want.

My dear 'expert', the idea that beer has been proven to fight cancer is the very premise that I am challenging and find difficult if not impossible to believe. Please try to understand this, I am not advocating this idea, I do not believe, profess, harbour or find the premise supported by any scientific data that I can find. Do you UNDERSTAND my position or shall I repeat it?

I do NOT believe that beer has anti carcinogenic properties or at least none that has been established by empirical evidence. this was the entire point of my post and you somehow, possibly blinded by your own expertise, failed to notice.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Do you UNDERSTAND my position or shall I repeat it?

I do NOT believe that beer has anti carcinogenic properties or at least none that has been established by empirical evidence.

Beer has been proven effective in fighting cancer, just like red wine.

(your previous quote)

so, no, I really don't understand your position at all. So please DO REPEAT both your above previous quote and "I do NOT believe that beer has anti carcinogenic properties" and explain to me how you can so directly clearly and explicitly specifically assert "beer" has been "proven effective in fighting cancer" if you do NOT believe that specifically "beer" has "anti carcinogenic properties"...?

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/carcinogenic
" a substance that causes cancer "

So under what circumstances do you believe it could be possible to have BOTH beer "proven effective in fighting cancer" and NO "anti carcinogenic properties" in beer?
I am sure I am not the only one here wondering this, so please explain this to not just me but to us...

Originally posted by humy

Beer has been proven effective in fighting cancer, just like red wine.

(your previous quote)

so, no, I really don't understand your position at all. So please DO REPEAT both your above previous quote and "I do NOT believe that beer has anti carcinogenic properties" and explain to me how you can so directly clearly and explicitly specifically ...[text shortened]... re I am not the only one here wondering this, so please explain this to not just me but to us...

I did not assert it, its a direct quotation from the article that I cited and was challenging. I repeat, I did not assert that beer has anti cancer properties. I was challenging the premise that beer has anti cancer properties. I don't know why this should be confusing.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I did not assert it, its a direct quotation from the article ....

which you asserted. You contradict yourself yet again. I guess we will never get any sense from you.

I was challenging the premise that beer has anti cancer properties.

what? by quoting without questioning "Beer has been proven effective in fighting cancer, just like red wine. "?
No, you were not "challenging" it there, you were clearly agreeing with it there.
Come on, who are you trying to fool here?
You only backtracked by implying it might be false in later posts and just perhaps because you realized my links I showed explaining it was all a myth are valid. The more honest thing to do would be to admit you were wrong just like I on a rare occasion do when I know I was wrong. But I (and other experts here) am clearly not wrong about this; its just a simple matter of looking at what the real science evidence says rather than just looking at the hearsay of the inks.

Originally posted by humy
which you asserted. You contradict yourself yet again. I guess we will never get any sense from you.

I was challenging the premise that beer has anti cancer properties.

what? by quoting without questioning "Beer has been proven effective in fighting cancer, just like red wine. "?
No, you were not "challenging" it there, you were clearly ...[text shortened]... king at what the real science evidence says rather than just looking at the hearsay of the inks.

I never contradicted myself in the first place and i have not contradicted myself again. I suggest that your reading comprehension is poor and your grasp of simple logic non existent. To repeat, I was challenging the statement taken directly from an article that I cited. Here is the text again, lets see if you can grasp it this time.

Beer has been proven effective in fighting cancer, just like red wine. (quotation from the article which you have erroneously attribute to me)

https://www.organicfacts.net/health-benefits/beverage/health-benefits-of-beer.html (the article that the above citation was taken from)

Now while I do not doubt that hops have these compounds (chemical compounds) I do find it incredulous (difficult to believe) to believe that these are 'proven' in fighting cancer. (My statement challenging the idea that the chemical compounds used in making beer extracted from hops is proven in fighting cancer)

There is NO contradiction. There is NO ambiguity. There is NO mistaking the intent of the text and what we are left with is wondering just how a self professed expert has such poor reading comprehension and a negligible grasp of simple logic?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie


Beer has been proven effective in fighting cancer, just like red wine. (quotation from the article which you have erroneously attribute to me)

It was quoted BOTH from the link and by you; the two things obviously not being mutually exclusive. Why did you quote it to us just as if it was fact and giving no indication that it couldn't be anything other than fact if you doubted all the long its truthfulness?
Sorry! Don't believe you! And I am sure nobody else here following the conversation does either. Clearly you did believe it was true else you would have originally qualified that quote with a prefix something vaguely like "According to this link, ..." or "The health claim they make is that..." etc and not state it just as it is i.e. as if it were fact. Now I have shown links that shows the health claim to be myth, rather than admit you were wrong (with your opinion), you backtrack by denying your obvious original intended meaning.

Originally posted by humy
It was quoted BOTH from the link and by you; the two things obviously not being mutually exclusive. Why did you quote it to us just as if it was fact and giving no indication that it couldn't be anything other than fact if you doubted all the long its truthfulness?
Sorry! Don't believe you! And I am sure nobody else here following the conversation does either ...[text shortened]... were wrong (with your opinion), you backtrack by denying your obvious original intended meaning.

I have explained the position to you more than once. Regardless of what you thought I was saying the intent is clear and I am happy for anyone to examine it and come to the simple conclusion that I was challenging the view that components extracted from hops and found in beer help to fight cancer. They may act as a preservative, but I have seen no evidence that they help to fight cancer.

I am not backtracking, you are simply too proud to admit that you were wrong and to see you thrashing about like this is undignified, pull yourself together man, we are human and prone to aberration, we make mistakes, there is no shame in it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have explained the position to you more than once. Regardless of what you thought I was saying the intent is clear and I am happy for anyone to examine it and come to the simple conclusion that I was challenging the view that components extracted from hops and found in beer help to fight cancer. They may act as a preservative, but I have seen no ...[text shortened]... f together man, we are human and prone to aberration, we make mistakes, there is no shame in it.

You've made your position clear. One of your posts in particular, if taken by itself, may have been (was) misinterpreted.

Sometimes I think it's amazing that people can communicate at all.

Originally posted by apathist
You've made your position clear. One of your posts in particular, if taken by itself, may have been (was) misinterpreted.

Sometimes I think it's amazing that people can communicate at all.

What I take from all this is that beer and GMOs can cure cancer. Good to know 🙂

Next on CNN's Heath Watch: A poorly-controlled and overly-interpreted correlation study in a bad scientific journal to the rescue, justifying and/or debunking everyone's preconceived irrational beliefs about health benefits and/or toxicity of.______(fill in blank).

Originally posted by wildgrass
What I take from all this is that beer and GMOs can cure cancer. Good to know 🙂
...

I don't know how you took all that. I didn't advocate either side of the issue. But your response demonstrates the point I did make.

Btw, it seems marijuana may fight cancer.

Originally posted by apathist
I don't know how you took all that. I didn't advocate either side of the issue. But your response demonstrates the point I did make.

Btw, it seems marijuana may fight cancer.

Yeah. And fast cars too.