Ireland has the sickest population in Europe

Daithi 1

jh79 wrote: »

If you already know how to cure cancer then what does it matter.

Who told you I know how to cure cancer ?

Ziphius

Whoah! Looks like dichloroacetic acid causes cancer too.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/027205909190118N

Let's ban it!

Daithi 1

Ziphius wrote: »

Whoah! Looks like dichloroacetic acid causes cancer too.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/027205909190118N

Let's ban it!

It's not in public water supply..

Ziphius

Daithi 1 wrote: »

It's not in public water supply..

But who knows when the fiends will add it. Better safe than sorry, don't you think?

Aquarius34

Ziphius wrote: »

But who knows when the fiends will add it. Better safe than sorry, don't you think?

Funny how you take the sideline again. Interesting to see you squirm.

jh79

Daithi 1 wrote: »

Who told you I know how to cure cancer ?

Sorry, you only hinted that there might be a cure, my mistake some other poster claimed it was already cured.

ElWalrus

JJayoo wrote: »

Moving away from Fluoride use in dental health, I find this interesting. The pineal gland is a tiny organ in the middle of the brain.

"In conclusion, the human pineal gland contains the highest concentration of fluoride in the body. Fluoride is
associated with depressed pineal melatonin synthesis by prepubertal gerbils and an accelerated onset of sexual
maturation in the female gerbil. The results strengthen the hypothesis that the pineal has a role in the timing of
the onset of puberty. Whether or not fluoride interferes with pineal function in humans requires further
investigation."

Luke 2001, has an interesting study on the possible impacts of fluoride ingestion on the pineal gland.

Not sure if this has been covered, just reading my way through the thread. Just thought I'd forget other wise. Here's an example of jumping to conclusions from animal studies from a not too dissimilar story relating to Artificial Sweeteners.

Studies in laboratory rats during the early 1970s linked saccharin with the development of bladder cancer. For this reason, Congress mandated that further studies of saccharin be performed and required that all food containing saccharin bear the following warning label: “Use of this product may be hazardous to your health. This product contains saccharin, which has been determined to cause cancer in laboratory animals.”
Subsequent studies in rats showed an increased incidence of urinary bladder cancer at high doses of saccharin, especially in male rats. However, mechanistic studies (studies that examine how a substance works in the body) have shown that these results apply only to rats. Human epidemiology studies (studies of patterns, causes, and control of diseases in groups of people) have shown no consistent evidence that saccharin is associated with bladder cancer incidence.
Because the bladder tumors seen in rats are due to a mechanism not relevant to humans and because there is no clear evidence that saccharin causes cancer in humans, saccharin was delisted in 2000 from the U.S. National Toxicology Program’s Report on Carcinogens, where it had been listed since 1981 as a substance reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen (a substance known to cause cancer).

Source: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/artificial-sweeteners

Incidentally, here's what they say on Fluoridated Water:
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/fluoridated-water

Solair

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Despite the contrary, sunlight does NOT cause skin cancer. It is over exposure of radiation that reacts to the chemicals and toxins in our skin that triggers the cancer melanoma.
.

Chemicals : namely skin cells and those chemicals naturally in your skin ..
Radiation : from the sun...

I'm sorry, but seriously you're just using the word Radiation to sound scary.

studiorat

Solair wrote: »

Chemicals : namely skin cells and those chemicals naturally in your skin ..
Radiation : from the sun...

I'm sorry, but seriously you're just using the word Radiation to sound scary.

Some people just don't understand that light is radiation. It's like thinking electricity from nuclear power is radioactive.

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Slowing killing us is good business to them. It's really good to have a docile, obedient, easily controlled ill herd of people who keep their heads to the ground working all their lives.

Bring it on. Anything would be better than reading posts that look as though they were written by a hyperactive 13 year old.

Daithi 1

Ziphius wrote: »

But who knows when the fiends will add it. Better safe than sorry, don't you think?

So you propose we ban it from nothing, just to be safe ?

I dont follow..

ElWalrus

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Despite the contrary, sunlight does NOT cause skin cancer. It is over exposure of radiation that reacts to the chemicals and toxins in our skin that triggers the cancer melanoma.

Sorry, but the evidence would seem to suggest that sunlight does cause skin cancer.

Conclusions

This review shows that there is a clear positive association between solar UVR and all types of skin cancer. Cases of NMSC, particularly SCC, can be attributed to occupational exposure as well as recreational exposure. Intermittent exposure, which can occur occupationally, has been found to induce melanoma.

Source: http://occmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/59/2/82.full

AnonoBoy

ElWalrus wrote: »

Sorry, but the evidence would seem to suggest that sunlight does cause skin cancer.



Source: http://occmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/59/2/82.full

Evidence from the elite is NOT to be trusted. It's obviously a part of the plot for them to put fluoride in our sun screen lotion and keep us docile and obedient!

JJayoo

Not sure if this has been covered, just reading my way through the thread. Just thought I'd forget other wise. Here's an example of jumping to conclusions from animal studies from a not too dissimilar story relating to Artificial Sweeteners.

I'm also against jumping to conclusions, to be honest it only weakens ones stance. The key part to my statement/quote is below

Whether or not fluoride interferes with Pineal function in humans requires further investigation."

The lack of "further investigation" does not sit well with me. Studying the the Fluoride concentration in the Pineal gland is a tricky process. The amount of calcium can be ascertained from certain xrays and Luke 2001 did find a direct correlation between Fluoride and Calcium deposits. It must also be noted that Melatonin production also correlates with the amount of calcium ie more calcium = less Melatonin.

Fluoride was first documented to accumulate in the Pineal gland in 2001, so perhaps we will just have to wait for science to catch up.

BUT

You would assume that there would be a huge volume of clinical studies on Fluoride in general seeing that it has been added to water for decades.

This from the EPA.

"To answer your first question on whether we have in our possession empirical scientific
data on the effects of fluosilicic acid or sodium silicofluoride on health and behavior, our answer
is no. Health effects research is primarily conducted by our National Health and Environmental
Effects Research Laboratory (NHEERL). We have contacted our colleagues at NHEERL and
they report that with the exception of some acute toxicity data, they were unable to find any
information on the effects of silicofluorides on health and behavior

http://www.fluoridealert.org/uploads/thurnau-2000.pdf

Aquarius34

Solair wrote: »

Chemicals : namely skin cells and those chemicals naturally in your skin ..
Radiation : from the sun...

I'm sorry, but seriously you're just using the word Radiation to sound scary.

No, the chemicals we ingest and the toxins we have in our bodies reacts to the radiation and light from the sun. This triggers the cancer in our skin. The sun is actually trying to flush the toxins out of our bodies. Light skin people are more sensitive the sun but the sun does not in itself cause skin cancer. To much sun is not good for you obviously, but the sun also gives off vitamin D, which is a cancer killer and immune booster. Vitamin D has huge benefits and we are deprived of this vitamin. If you drink plenty of water, stay away from processed food. sunscreams and get an 30 to hour of sunlight day your skin will not only be fine but you will be glowing.

It's well documented that a lot of sun creams actually do more harm than good aswell with all the chemicals that is in them.

Sunlight is not out to kill us. This is all media brainwashing at it's finest. Stop believing everything you read or see on T.V.

the_syco

Daithi 1 wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichloroacetic_acid

From wiki;

Although preliminary studies have shown DCA can slow the growth of certain tumors in animal studies and in vitro studies, "Available evidence does not support the use of DCA for cancer treatment at this time

n 2010, it was found that for human colorectal tumours grown in mice, under hypoxic conditions, DCA decreased rather than increased apoptosis, resulting in enhanced growth of the tumours. These findings suggest that at least in some cancer types DCA treatment could be detrimental to patient health, highlighting the need for further testing before it can be considered a safe and effective cancer treatment.

=-=

It still isn't clear what cancer it cures.

Aquarius34

ElWalrus wrote: »

Sorry, but the evidence would seem to suggest that sunlight does cause skin cancer.



Source: http://occmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/59/2/82.full

No it doesn't. It just doesn't make ANY sense at all. It's one of the biggest fraud of our generation!.

AnonoBoy

Aquarius34 wrote: »

No it doesn't. It just doesn't make ANY sense at all. It's one of the biggest fraud of our generation!.

Seriously? Next you'll be saying cigarettes don't cause cancer and gravity is a fabrication of the elite.

Who is perpetrating this fraud about uv rays causing cancer and to what end?

"We're through the looking glass here people!"

Dubl07

Cancer increases with age. Best to put people peacefully to sleep at an arbitrary age of [retirement age]whatever[/retirement age] and eradicate cancer in the post-retirement community.

Aquarius34

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Seriously? Next you'll be saying cigarettes don't cause cancer and gravity is a fabrication of the elite.

Who is perpetrating this fraud about uv rays causing cancer and to what end?

"We're through the looking glass here people!"

Why would I state that ciggerettes don't cause cancer.

Sunlight does not cause cancer. Sunlight is a giver of life. Sungazers in Indian live off water and sunlight. I can look at the sun and not damage my eyes.

I do know what I am talking about. But you of course depend on others for knowledge and of course joe the scientist

AnonoBoy

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Why would I state that ciggerettes don't cause cancer.

Because all the evidence shows that they do so naturally you will have some contrary mental idea that it's all a fraud.

I can look at the sun and not damage my eyes.

So can everyone. But not for an extended period of time. And if you claim that you can stare at the sun for hours without damaging your eyes you're just lying.

I do know what I am talking about.

Clearly you don't. This is obvious to everybody else except you.

But you of course depend on others for knowledge and of course joe the scientist

Oh. Sweet. Divine. Jesus. T*tty. F*cking. Christ. On. A. Pogo. Stick.

That's how people get knowledge - from others. Except you. Obviously.

You're unbelievable.

So you've researched skin cancer yourself then? No you haven't. You just 'know' these things. Of course you do.

Your mental illness lizard DNA presumably gifts you all these valuable insights without the need to research, read or even talk to anyone else.

ElWalrus

Aquarius34 wrote: »

No it doesn't. It just doesn't make ANY sense at all. It's one of the biggest fraud of our generation!.

Makes perfect sense to me!

Whereas UVA can indirectly damage DNA through the formation of reactive oxygen radicals, UVB can directly damage DNA causing the apoptosis (programmed cell death) of keratinocytes (skin cells) by forming the sunburn cells. Besides action through mutations in critical regulatory genes, UV radiation may promote cancer through indirect mechanisms, e.g. immunosuppression and dysregulation of growth factors.

Aquarius34

ElWalrus wrote: »

Makes perfect sense to me!

Then why don't other animals not get skin cancer? Why don't plants get skin cancer?

Get real would you. Sunlight does not cause cancer. Cancer cells are in your own body are triggered due to the toxins in our body and sunlight reacts to it. The sun is a giver of life. We can also get energy from the sun as well as vitamin D. We are been brainwashed to think the sun is out to get us which is utterly ridiculous just like we are brainwashed to think terrorists are out to get us just as we are led to believe fluoride protects us from tooth decay. We are fed a whole lot of horse****. Just as you will find horse meat in beef! That's the world we live in toady and the sooner you wake up and realise that the better chance we have that things will change around here.

We are been lied too, and people find it easier to accept lies than deal with the truth.

Aquarius34

ElWalrus wrote: »

Makes perfect sense to me!

Muscles get damaged when they work out too, but strangely enough they repair an respond well to wear and tear.

The toxins in our body is what's causing the damage and preventing the bodies from repairing itself against radiation. Too much sun is bad for you just as to much exercise or too much of anything is bad for you!

AnonoBoy

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Then why don't other animals not get skin cancer?

Fur maybe? Their skin isn't directly exposed to it the way ours is.

Ever notice how if you have a thick head of hair you don't get sunburned on your head even if you do on your face?

We are been lied too, and people find it easier to accept lies than deal with the truth.

Why would anyone lie about this? What's the point of it?

Do you actually think it's a conspiracy by f*cking Nivea to make us buy their product?

Ziphius

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Why don't plants get skin cancer?

Plants don't have skin

Or is this just something the reptoids have lied to us about?

Knasher

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Then why don't other animals not get skin cancer?

Other animals get skin cancer. Also double negative. On dogs, the most likely place to get cancer is on their noses or the pads of their feet because they lack fur. Dogs with light colored fur have a greater rate of cancer over their whole bodies.

Aquarius34

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Fur. Their skin isn't directly opposed to it the way ours is.

Ever notice how if you have a thick head of hair you don't get sunburned on your head even if you do on your face?

Pigs must have lesions!!!! You can get sunburned on your head just as you can get sunburned through your T shirt.

I don't get sunburned because I don't eat processed food and I look after my skin and health. I don't wear skin creams or tan creams. If I go to a really hot country with tropical temperatures then I will buy a natural homeopath sun screen that is made from organic and natural ingredients. Even when I did wear it I didn't use it half the time. I was with friends and the ones that had darker skin than me burned easier because they ate junk food and didn't hydrate their skin all the time.

Why would anyone lie about this? What's the point of it?

Do you actually think it's a conspiracy by f*cking Nivea to make us buy their product?

That's a good question, perhaps you can answer that.

Aquarius34

Ziphius wrote: »

Plants don't have skin

Or is this just something the reptoids have lied to us about?

I was exaggerating and been ironic. You have too when people believe in so much hysteria about the sun been out to get us.

AnonoBoy

Aquarius34 wrote: »

That's a good question, perhaps you can answer that.

I can't answer it because I don't think it's true.

You're the paranoid 'everything is a lie' guy - you answer it.

But of course you won't because you have no answers. You contradict yourself so often you should be a politician. And when you're on the spot all you do is post a winky emoticon and think you've someone got one over on other people.

Here's a summary of what I've learned about you from your posting on this site:

• You think you're descended from Lizard spacemen.
• You think fluoride is put in the water to control our minds.
• You think you're somehow naturally immune to uv rays.
• You think that knowledge someone flows out of the air into your brain and you don't need anyone else to learn things.
• You have no evidence to back anything you claim up.

Did I miss anything?

Ziphius

Aquarius34 wrote: »

I was exaggerating and been ironic. You have too when people believe in so much hysteria about the sun been out to get us.

How disappointing. I expected some grand conspiracy theory.

Kind of wizard behind the curtain moment if I'm honest

Aquarius34

AnonoBoy wrote: »

I can't answer it because I don't think it's true.

You're the paranoid 'everything is a lie' guy - you answer it.

But of course you won't because you have no answers. You contradict yourself so often you should be a politician. And when you're on the spot all you do is post a winky emoticon and think you've someone got one over on other people.

Here's a summary of what I've learned about you from your posting on this site:

• You think you're descended from Lizard spacemen.
• You think fluoride is put in the water to control our minds.
• You think you're somehow naturally immune to uv rays.
• You think that knowledge someone flows out of the air into your brain and you don't need anyone else to learn things.
• You have no evidence to back anything you claim up.

Did I miss anything?

:pac::pac:

AnonoBoy

Aquarius34 wrote: »

:pac::pac:

Yup. There it is.

Typical non-response from you as I predicted.

You're boring now.

Aquarius34

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Yup. There it is.

Typical non-response from you as I predicted.

You're boring now.

Then move along smarty pants.:rolleyes:
My response was to laugh at your own paranoia towards me. I just thought it was amusing. The bullet proof text was funny

Nodin

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Why would I state that ciggerettes don't cause cancer.

Sunlight does not cause cancer. Sunlight is a giver of life. Sungazers in Indian live off water and sunlight. I can look at the sun and not damage my eyes.

I do know what I am talking about. But you of course depend on others for knowledge and of course joe the scientist

A crock of total shite, unsupported by any evidence. The human body hasn't the biochemistry or physical adaptations required to live in such a manner.

AnonoBoy

Aquarius34 wrote: »

My response was to laugh at your own paranoia towards me.

I'm not paranoid about you. All I did was list all the things I've learned about you. And they're all true too.

You operate under the delusion that you know things but yet somehow you claim to not have to really on others for knowledge. How do you learn all these fascinating things if nobody else tells you them?

The bullet proof text was funny

:rolleyes: That's bullet points. Not bullet proof.

Aquarius34

Nodin wrote: »

A crock of total shite, unsupported by any evidence. The human body hasn't the biochemistry or physical adaptations required to live in such a manner.

According to you? You must be deprived of Vitamin D. Are you afraid of the light Nodin? Do you smear chemicals all over your skin everyday to protect you from sunlight?

Aquarius34

AnonoBoy wrote: »

I'm not paranoid about you. All I did was list all the things I've learned about you. And they're all true too.



:rolleyes: That's bullet points. Not bullet proof.

You are though, you are one of the few posters that follow my posts and constantly talk science babble and the usual dis info shiite as a means to keep knowledge suppressed. You can't ridicule me but yet you try and try to hard. I find your desperation quite startling and amusing.

Nodin

Aquarius34 wrote: »

According to you? You must be deprived of Vitamin D. Are you afraid of the light Nodin? Do you smear chemicals all over your skin everyday to protect you from sunlight?

Lets be very specific. This -

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Sungazers in Indian live off water and sunlight

...is shite. It's not possible. There is no argument, no debate, nada.

Unless of course you've a few peer reviewed papers that back up your claim?

Aquarius34

Nodin wrote: »

Lets be very specific. This -



...is shite. It's not possible. There is no argument, no debate, nada.

Unless of course you've a few peer reviewed papers that back up your claim?

Again according to you?

Aquarius34

I'm able to sungaze.

AnonoBoy

Aquarius34 wrote: »

You are though, you are one of the few posters that follow my posts and constantly talk science babble and the usual dis info shiite as a means to keep knowledge suppressed.

Oh you mean facts and evidence and things that can be proved as opposed to mental ravings that you change tack on every second week?

Yes. I talk that 'science babble' then.

You can't ridicule me

I can and do. Read my posts.

I find your desperation quite startling and amusing.

I find watching what one can only presume is your slide into a mental breakdown quite startling and amusing to be honest. Cruel I know but at least I'm honest.

AnonoBoy

Aquarius34 wrote: »

I'm able to sungaze.

I'm able to fly.

Prove me wrong!

Nodin

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Again according to you?

You made the claim. Where's the proof?

My name is URL

AnonoBoy wrote: »

I find watching what one can only presume is your slide into a mental breakdown quite startling and amusing to be honest. Cruel I know but at least I'm honest.

Why do you keep engaging with them if that's how you see the situation? It's like pulling the wings off a fly and watching it suffer.

Aquarius34

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Oh you mean facts and evidence and things that can be proved as opposed to mental ravings that you change tack on every second week?

Yes. I talk that 'science babble' then.

Joe the scientist, what would you do without Joe.

I can and do. Read my posts.

Your ridicule of others is a reflection of you, not others. You are a fool to think it stands for you or build's up on your arguments.

I find watching what one can only presume is your slide into a mental breakdown quite startling and amusing to be honest. Cruel I know but at least I'm honest.

Your not honest, you don't have that capability and you are not a nice or genuine person at all, but that is from the presentation you show here. I have no quaims about reflecting that right back to you.

AnonoBoy

My name is URL wrote: »

Why do you keep engaging with them if that's how you see the situation? It's like pulling the wings off a fly and watching it suffer.

Good question.

I've only recently started to think that to be honest and I'm not sure even know if he's just trolling or actually unwell.

I think I find him fascinating more than anything else. Is it just me that thinks so?

Nodin

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Joe the scientist, what would you do without Joe.(..........)to you.

Wheres the proof of your claim?

Aquarius34

Nodin wrote: »

You made the claim. Where's the proof?

No you said it's not possible to sungaze. I said it is, just because you can't do it, doesn't mean it's not possible. I see your like a lost child in the woods.:D

AnonoBoy

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Your ridicule of others is a reflection of you, not others.

It's fun too.

Your not honest, you don't have that capability and you are not a nice or genuine person at all, but that is from the presentation you show here.

Oh meow - the claws are coming out now aren't they?

I'm a delightful chap I'll have you know.

Nodin

Aquarius34 wrote: »

No you said it's not possible to sungaze. I said it is, just because you can't do it, doesn't mean it's not possible. I see your like a lost child in the woods.:D

You stated

Sungazers in Indian live off water and sunlight

Wheres the proof?