I have a friend with glioblastoma who followed Dr S. (working with his organization directly). She did his diet, avoided all radio/chemo and did a myriad of "alternative treatments". The cancer returned after the original surgery. She had a second surgery, decided to do radio/chemo and is working with a nutritionist to rebuild after muscle wasting with high protein. Her latest scan shows complete remission, but glioblastoma is tricky...My point is that pretty much all these YouTube pundits need to taken with a grain of salt.
WOW! Cancer is Never just one thing. Nailed it Heidi. Why is it that scientists who develop a good theory become so attached to the idea that their discovery is the ONLY FACTOR. It's crazy. You have done a fantastic job of throwing a bunch of case study reality extinguisher all over his flame. Without trying to put out the flame. Brilliant. Living things are so complex. There is never just one factor.
He did this other thing... I wonder if you or anyone else noticed...
He said we are 97% approx similar to monkeys, aka what happens to them, happens to us and visa versa.
He said toxins, microplastics, chemicals, etc. can cause cancer in humans
Then he said monkeys don't get cancer.
By this logic, we shouldn't get cancer from toxins, chemicals, microplastics, etc. because we are like monkeys... toxins and such do not cause cancer.
Once a person knows that monkeys DO get cancer in the wild, it makes more sense.
It's as if he makes things up in an attempt to prove his beliefs and leaves out vital information. You don't know if you're coming or going and if you express any belief that contradicts the person, it usually doesn't end well.
Yeah well I hadn't actually listened to his thing yet, DOAC it's not my go to channel for medical advice anyway! but I have seen him show up in a lot of other places. I wonder if he shows up on places that allow comments and don't delete them...
Thank you ❤️ It was probably a rhetorical question but I feel compelled to answer, I think the reason they do this is they live in a vacuum. If they haven't seen the data or don't understand it then it's fake. They may have delusions of grandeur, where they prove everyone is a fool except those who agree with them.
He didn't use all facts. Monkeys in the wild do get cancer and they also get genetic defects.
Well done on the anti-singularisation front. A sound argument against all the eggs are always in one basket.
And in recent reading doctors in the early 20th century early saw cancer. The rates of cancer began to rise with vaccines and the rates have roughly increased with the increased rates a d numbers of injections. Does correlation equate to causation? Not exactly! It does seem to relate to correlation, though. And isn't that sufficient to create curiosity and even the thought of pausing them, especially ones that are for nearly non-existent bad outcomes?
All the best with what is changing. Everything changes!
Very true. They like to infer, if everyone doesn't get cancer from the vaccines and other things cause cancer, that means vaccines didn't cause it. Lack of proof isn't proof. Diseases are multifactorial.
I'm still trying to think about the importance of the principle that negative correlation disproves causation (thank you Dr Brownstein via Heidi). This doesn't seem to apply here but just dumping the idea here for safekeeping while i get on with my day!!
He made interesting points but to me, he worded some things in a way that warped reality. He describes putting cancerous cell into the cytoplasm of another cell. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this. They have done studied injecting people with tumors under the skin and they get cancer but most of them their body fights it off. They've compromised the immune system of animals removing their thymus organ then inject cancerous cells and they get cancer. You cannot induce a genetic defect by putting one defective cell into a healthy person's body. We deal with defective cancerous cells in our body all day long. The entire argument he made felt a bit like misdirection and beliefs based on lack of all the data. Hopefully I'm making sense lol.
I have a friend with glioblastoma who followed Dr S. (working with his organization directly). She did his diet, avoided all radio/chemo and did a myriad of "alternative treatments". The cancer returned after the original surgery. She had a second surgery, decided to do radio/chemo and is working with a nutritionist to rebuild after muscle wasting with high protein. Her latest scan shows complete remission, but glioblastoma is tricky...My point is that pretty much all these YouTube pundits need to taken with a grain of salt.
Teresa do you mind if I copy paste your comment, without attribution, to this YouTube? see if it sticks?
Yes, please do.
my comment was not removed! however I'm sure it was buried in the 7000 comments on this video 🤪
So important to have on the ground reports! thank you!
I'm so happy your friend kept searching and healed herself! 🥰
Excellent advice!
WOW! Cancer is Never just one thing. Nailed it Heidi. Why is it that scientists who develop a good theory become so attached to the idea that their discovery is the ONLY FACTOR. It's crazy. You have done a fantastic job of throwing a bunch of case study reality extinguisher all over his flame. Without trying to put out the flame. Brilliant. Living things are so complex. There is never just one factor.
He did this other thing... I wonder if you or anyone else noticed...
He said we are 97% approx similar to monkeys, aka what happens to them, happens to us and visa versa.
He said toxins, microplastics, chemicals, etc. can cause cancer in humans
Then he said monkeys don't get cancer.
By this logic, we shouldn't get cancer from toxins, chemicals, microplastics, etc. because we are like monkeys... toxins and such do not cause cancer.
Once a person knows that monkeys DO get cancer in the wild, it makes more sense.
It's as if he makes things up in an attempt to prove his beliefs and leaves out vital information. You don't know if you're coming or going and if you express any belief that contradicts the person, it usually doesn't end well.
is it okay if I take your comment and put it on his YouTube comments? see if it sticks?
Yes please do! 🙏🙏🙏
my comments were not removed! 🤓
😍🙏💞💐
Yeah well I hadn't actually listened to his thing yet, DOAC it's not my go to channel for medical advice anyway! but I have seen him show up in a lot of other places. I wonder if he shows up on places that allow comments and don't delete them...
Thank you ❤️ It was probably a rhetorical question but I feel compelled to answer, I think the reason they do this is they live in a vacuum. If they haven't seen the data or don't understand it then it's fake. They may have delusions of grandeur, where they prove everyone is a fool except those who agree with them.
He didn't use all facts. Monkeys in the wild do get cancer and they also get genetic defects.
okay I put two comments on there, I will check later if I can figure out how if they are still there 🫣😁
😍🙏💐
Hola, heidi.
Well done on the anti-singularisation front. A sound argument against all the eggs are always in one basket.
And in recent reading doctors in the early 20th century early saw cancer. The rates of cancer began to rise with vaccines and the rates have roughly increased with the increased rates a d numbers of injections. Does correlation equate to causation? Not exactly! It does seem to relate to correlation, though. And isn't that sufficient to create curiosity and even the thought of pausing them, especially ones that are for nearly non-existent bad outcomes?
All the best with what is changing. Everything changes!
🙏🏻❤️🧘♀️☯️🧘♀️❤️🙏🏻
Very true. They like to infer, if everyone doesn't get cancer from the vaccines and other things cause cancer, that means vaccines didn't cause it. Lack of proof isn't proof. Diseases are multifactorial.
I'm still trying to think about the importance of the principle that negative correlation disproves causation (thank you Dr Brownstein via Heidi). This doesn't seem to apply here but just dumping the idea here for safekeeping while i get on with my day!!
He made interesting points but to me, he worded some things in a way that warped reality. He describes putting cancerous cell into the cytoplasm of another cell. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this. They have done studied injecting people with tumors under the skin and they get cancer but most of them their body fights it off. They've compromised the immune system of animals removing their thymus organ then inject cancerous cells and they get cancer. You cannot induce a genetic defect by putting one defective cell into a healthy person's body. We deal with defective cancerous cells in our body all day long. The entire argument he made felt a bit like misdirection and beliefs based on lack of all the data. Hopefully I'm making sense lol.