Cancer and the drug companies

**Edbear** · 1st April 2015, 17:02

Originally Posted by bogan

That was a press release about a scam which was using their name to promote bullshit. It is not scientific in itself, like the one I posted which you seem extremely reluctant to address. Is it because they found that IV vit-c warranted further research and mass trials? ie, certainly was not just bollox. Why have you not read that one yet? surely your 'unbiased research' ethics require it of you?

Oh yeh, my mistake, certainly trumps my actual masterate, shirley?

So you didn't read the whole article then. Typically you.

**BuzzardNZ** · 1st April 2015, 17:05

Originally Posted by bogan

Oh yeh, my mistake, certainly trumps my actual masterate, shirley?

From the tone of his posts, it seems it does!

**bogan** · 1st April 2015, 17:09

Originally Posted by Edbear

So you didn't read the whole article then. Typically you.

Please point out what I missed so we can debate this as adults, also please read the published article I linked to and discuss their findings with regard to can alternative medicines work. Here is the link again if you have missed it http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1405876/

**Edbear** · 1st April 2015, 17:56

Originally Posted by bogan

Please point out what I missed so we can debate this as adults, also please read the published article I linked to and discuss their findings with regard to can alternative medicines work. Here is the link again if you have missed it http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1405876/

Do, please, point out what replies from the institute are unscientific and or erroneous. Or is this just another typical bash Ed post ignoring scientific evidence? You do that consistently and wonder why you are not taken seriously by the intelligent members.

Oh, wait, you are deluded and believe your posts are believed and taken seriously.

**Edbear** · 1st April 2015, 17:59

Originally Posted by bogan

Please point out what I missed so we can debate this as adults, also please read the published article I linked to and discuss their findings with regard to can alternative medicines work. Here is the link again if you have missed it http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1405876/

Surprise, surprise! That you would do what you criticise me for and refer to a ten year old article.

Did you not read Kikaha's post either?

**Katman** · 1st April 2015, 18:04

Originally Posted by Edbear

Oh, wait, you are deluded and believe your posts are believed and taken seriously.

Irony.Fucking.Overload!!!

**Edbear** · 1st April 2015, 18:06

PS. I had read it. I just figured it was out of date and had been usurped by more recent studies. Besides, the only reason I am responding to your posts is to point out your failings. Easy to do. Some here are fooled and others like to use your posts as means to diss me personally so by showing you up it shows them up.

Notable is their complete lack of anything to do with the topic or desire to know anything about it. It's a separate side issue from the subject.

**Edbear** · 1st April 2015, 18:07

Originally Posted by Katman

Irony.Fucking.Overload!!!

Look! There goes one now!

**bogan** · 1st April 2015, 18:11

Originally Posted by Edbear

Ed ignoring scientific evidence

There was no proper scientific referencing; the made claims without suppling background information.

Originally Posted by Edbear

Surprise, surprise! That you would do what you criticise me for and refer to a ten year old article.

Did you not read Kikaha's post either?

I do not critisise you for refering to ten year old articles, I would point out any differences if new research had been done in the intervening years.

I did read Kick's post about the Mayo tests, if you had read my link or the background science you would know why they are not applicable to IV vit-c treatments.

If you have a scpecifc point about the Hopkins press release, or about the research myself or kick posted I would however, be happy to discuss it.

Originally Posted by Edbear

PS. I had read it. I just figured it was out of date and had been usurped by more recent studies. Besides, the only reason I am responding to your posts is to point out your failings. Easy to do. Some here are fooled and others like to use your posts as means to diss me personally so by showing you up it shows them up.

Notable is their complete lack of anything to do with the topic or desire to know anything about it. It's a separate side issue from the subject.

Which recent studies have 'usurped' it then? Nobody following the scientific method would make such an assumption without finding one.

The lack at the moment is only yours, I am attempting to discuss points of substance about the subject at hand. Notably the efficacy of IV Vit C infusions; would you like to reply on this point as a mature adult, or show yourself to be something less by throwing insults or evading it?

**Edbear** · 1st April 2015, 18:17

Bogan you are truly pathetic. Like I said, point out which of their statements is unscientific or erroneous. You won't because you can't. You simply carry on in your ignorance in your quest against me to the point you will diss respected scientists. Something you are noted for.

It is no surprise that I will not "discuss" anything with you.

**Katman** · 1st April 2015, 18:19

Ed, do you believe in miracles or are they the work of Satan?

**bogan** · 1st April 2015, 18:23

Originally Posted by Edbear

Bogan you are truly pathetic. Like I said, point out which of their statements is unscientific or erroneous. You won't because you can't. You simply carry on in your ignorance in your quest against me to the point you will diss respected scientists. Something you are noted for.

It is no surprise that I will not "discuss" anything with you.

I just did, they are unscientific because they do not show their working, the same as your original post.

No, it isn't a surprise, but that is because you are incapable, not me. You've said nothing at all about the article I posted except it is old; who is dissing respected scientists again?