| Mark Probert 2006-10-15, 4:28 pm |
| awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote:
> Mark Probert wrote:
>
> [sarcasm alert] Oh my mistake...cancer 'treatments' don't kill people.
> How do I know this? Because Probert, in his inimitable passive
> aggressive fashion, has asked me to prove it does...and I'm unwilling
> to cut and paste 500,000 pieces of evidence.
Didn't you mean to say that you are unable to find a single iota of
evidence. Sure you did. Just to let you know, I never expected a
straight answer from you.
> I also don't have handy the black box warning labels from the various
> chemo concoctions that say be careful because this product could be
> fatal.
The operative words are could be. After that, you need to prove causal
relationship. You can't, and you will continue to weasel.
> So he must be right...cancer 'treatments' don't kill people. Well done,
> Probert! You've looked the truth in the eye and didn't blink.
You would not know the truth if it were inserted proctoscopically, which
is the most direct route to your "thinking center".
> So let it be known from this day forward that until I provide some real
> documentation that cancer 'treatments' kill people, they don't...and
> until I provide some real documentation the sun didn't come up this
> morning either.
Your ability to weasel out of a direct answer is truly pathetic. I have
seen far better weaselers.
>
> We'll chalk this up to Probert's unfamiliarity with how cancer stats
> are done, and how they have changed on more than one occasion.
I see. So, do feel free to document how they have changed.
Maybe
> he's forgotten how the five-year cure rate for cancer went from one in
> three to one in two when skin cancers were included in the
> computations.
I usually look at the survival rates for individual cancers, not cancer
as a whole. Again, you weasel.
> And Probert doesn't quite grasp how earlier detection starts the clock
> earlier on the five-year cure rate.
Incorrect. With the clock started earlier, survival is made more likely
in many cancers, like breast cancer.
> Nor does he grasp how the explosion in supplement usage since the DSHEA
> ACT was passed has anyhting to do with the first downturn in overall
> death rates since records were kept. Far be it from me to explain that
> to him...I'm still trying top document the sunrise.
Do try to actually prove that supplements affect the cure rate. Your
sunrise rant is merely a red herring.
>
> You're like the moron who was taking a multiple choice test but would
> only answer either (a) or (b). In this case the answer is (c)...get
> cured AND keep your parts.
In your "reality" there are only two answers.
>
|