Wendy Honnor admits her cancer PC's die

[Royal Prince Xenu]

OMFG.

This is a prime, living and breathing example of scientologists' arrogance, inability to think straight, incompetence, inability to see the difference between "cause" and "effect," and their penchant for assigning the wrong cause for troubling conditions (because Hubbard said it was so), and for giving the credit for anything good, for all improvements and positive outcomes, to scientology. Thus further convincing themselves and other "believers" that the answer to EVERYTHING is more and more and more scientology (even when scientology WAS the cause of the problem)!

Read over her rant about how 2D upsets "cause" cancer and you just have to laugh. Or cry. Or both.

Scratch ANY human being, anywhere, anytime, and if you scratch deep enough you will find SOME kind of (minor or major) "sexual upset" or "family upset."

"Sexual" and "family" upset takes dozens of specific forms depending on who you are talking to when, and taken as a "category" is probably THE MOST COMMON TYPE OF UPSET in the whole human race!

But not all people who are "upset" about their sex life or their parent/child relationships have cancer, so there goes the "cause" theory, right there, and along with it goes the "remedy" theory.

This is a prime example of how scientologists think they are competent when they are not, that their "training" in scientology somehow qualifies them to "know best" what is wrong with and good for the rest of the population, when the exact opposite is true.

Such uneducated, unaware, incompetent and appallingly arrogant people should not be allowed to run around loose, much less mess with the mental and spiritual well-being of other people.

This is WHY I continue to write and speak out against the "practice" of scientology, within or outside the COS -- not that much difference. The tech is the tech and it is fucked.

I'm in total agreement. Cancer is over-cure. The medical fraternity is finally waking up to the fact that many illnesses are not caused by an invader, but the body's immune-response. The 'flu doesn't cause itchy eyes, runny nose and sore muscles that leave you feeling like you've been kicked in the back by a mule--the Interferon-B that your body generates to kill the virus is what causes all these symptoms. That's why you keep someone with a fever warm; the body is using heat as a defence. I also agree that when a fever gets dangerously high it should be controlled, but not eliminated completely.

With so much toxic crap in our modern food and water supplies, the body is totally confused and doesn't know when it's completed healing and turn the immune response off again. That is why I have Chronic Fatigue: for over 40 years my body has been fighting a virus that is no longer there.

As I understand it, there are two fundamental causes of Cancer:
1. A single cell that is intoxicated has to "evolve" to survive. This evolved cell then keeps reproducing in those same toxic conditions (e.g., lung cancer) and thus you have a new "life form" that is discordant with the rest of the body.
2. The humble electron spins when it is moving, which is how electric current flow creates a magnetic field. With all the radiation that has been scattered around the planet particularly from 1945 forward, there is now a significant percentage of electrons that have become confused, spinning wildly out of control (and having been detected as an alleged "positron"). When these reverse-spin electrons become trapped inside a cell, it can cause significant chromosomal alteration which is evident by visiting a local freak museum which includes the preserved carcass of a two-headed calf that was born alive, but failed to stay that way. (This is attributed to localized high levels of radiation naturally occurring in granite country--Yes folks, those lovely granite bench tops in your kitchens are radiating at you!). It would seem that if a cancerous growth is caused by radiation, it can be cured by high Gauss levels of magnetism--I don't mean those cute little magnets that are sewn into bed covers, I mean magnets that pull the cutlery half-way across the kitchen. By continued exposure to this stable magnetic field the "confused" electrons eventually re-orient themselves and behave normally, removing the cause of radiation-based cancers. I really don't believe that all those cancers around Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl, TMI, and soon to show up around Fukashima can be written off as "caused by sexual upsets and upsets in the family".

The human body is a sexual organ in its own right. It has been shown that sexually active men are less likely to develop Prostate cancer, and females less likely to have Breast cancer. So getting a regular bit of nookie (or a jerk and fap) is really quite a healthful thing to do. Certainly I would agree that with our social inhibitions and religious indoctrination, the feelings of guilt that have been deliberately associated with sex would help put the body more at risk but I would not consider it a direct cause.

On the other side of the same coin, if Wendy's approach is actually helping people to feel better about themselves this would put the body in a better "frame of mind" to recover.

Yeah, I know:

TLR

 

[shadow]

Cancer cells are a result of genetic mutation(s) in cancer critical genes (oncogenes or tumor suppressor genes) which alter the way the cell interacts with its neighbors. When this occurs, AND the body's immune system fails to destroy the cell, the cell divides without the usual constraints (cell cycle and programed death) and becomes cancer.

Mutagens include environmental chemicals, products of endogenous metabolism (yes, we make these as a product of living), viruses (yes, an invader), ionizing radiation, etc.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

I believe that what goes on emotionally and spiritually can affect the body. Vice versa, too, right?

But that having been said, discounting biology and physiology is fool hardy.

I also think - and this may seem mean or catty on my part- but I think that one of the reasons CofS discourages people from obtaining actual medical care is that they don't want to be bothered with the supposed Dev'T that this would place in the mix, they just don't want another factor. They'd rather people run around in rags and take vitamins than ever spend any money or time on the people, no matter what they truly need. As long as the cult machinery keeps on going, that's all that matters to them.

 

[Gadfly]

I believe that what goes on emotionally and spiritually can affect the body. Vice versa, too, right?

But that having been said, discounting biology and physiology is fool hardy.

I also think - and this may seem mean or catty on my part- but I think that one of the reasons CofS discourages people from obtaining actual medical care is that they don't want to be bothered with the supposed Dev'T that this would place in the mix, they just don't want another factor. They'd rather people run around in rags and take vitamins than ever spend any money or time on the people, no matter what they truly need. As long as the cult machinery keeps on going, that's all that matters to them.

There seems to be, minimally, body, mind and spirit. Each probably has effects on the others. When it comes to how "mind" and/or "spirit" can effect the "body", there are MANY varying opinions and beliefs.

Taking drugs surely "affects" the mind (LSD, marijuana, etc.). And various exercies of the mind have been PROVEN to affect the body (i.e. meditation changing brainwave patterns, yogis who can slow their heartbeat by thought, etc.). It is a two-way street, but this area of study and "knowledge" is at its infancy. Thus much exists in terms of arguing and differing claims. It MAY be true, that theoretically the "spirit can cure any illness", but THAT exists NOW only as some future ideal. That does NOT exist as an actuality, though in some strange way, BELEIVING THAT in some cases seems to enable it to "be true" for some few people.

If there is some sort of grand evolution occuring throughout this universe, possibly Man is at a stage where his own self-determined USE OF THE MIND, in previously unknown and untried ways, may set the path for future "advancements" along this evolution.

Even if Man is not currently a "spiritual being", and even if consciousness IS solely a by-product of chemical and electrical actions and reactions in a brain, it might be possible that by USING various aspects of a "mind", such as imagination and concentration, in a focused and intentional manner, that Man will "evolve" abilities that never would have "occurred naturally" or otherwise.

And, if we each are fundamentally a "spirit", then possibly taking dedicated personal action along the lines of "mind" or "spirit" might quicken the pace, so to speak. :confused2:

 

[shadow]

I believe that what goes on emotionally and spiritually can affect the body. Vice versa, too, right?

But that having been said, discounting biology and physiology is fool hardy.

I also think - and this may seem mean or catty on my part- but I think that one of the reasons CofS discourages people from obtaining actual medical care is that they don't want to be bothered with the supposed Dev'T that this would place in the mix, they just don't want another factor. They'd rather people run around in rags and take vitamins than ever spend any money or time on the people, no matter what they truly need. As long as the cult machinery keeps on going, that's all that matters to them.

I agree that CoS needs to discourage people from getting medical care to keep parishioners "in check" and trusting scn. I think is is because if people start trusting the medical community, the trust will detract from what scn promises and even spill over to psychiatric medicine.

If you have a trusted doctor and you ask about what scn is offering for your migraines, depression, cancer, etc., the doc may help you get real help and start you on a road to distrusting the promises of scn. Worse yet, you may get referred to a mental health provider that uses antidepressants and cognitive therapy to get you off cigarettes.....

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Yeah, I agree with you guys. And I'm sure you already got the point I was driving at, but I'll say it anyway--

I think that an outsider or someone without a dog in the fight or someone who swallowed the Scn PR line or whatnot might think, oh, ok, it's a religious preference. What I'm driving at is that it's worse than that. The cult seems to experience real pain- somewhat akin to freaking out over Oliver Twist wanting more gruel-if they have to expend one iota of resources or even THOUGHT to one of their followers.

That's pretty horrible.

Think about it. I get that true believers can have damaging beliefs. But at least they're sincere. But to not even have a religious basis for denying or dissuading from medical treatment but to pretend to have one, well, that's unbelievably cynical.

 

[Gadfly]

\
Think about it. I get that true believers can have damaging beliefs. But at least they're sincere.

So?

How is "sincerity" a valid measure of ANYTHING?????? :confused2: :confused2:

Fuck me, Muslim terrorists who blow up buses of innocent children ARE "sincere"!

Sincerity means absolutely NOTHING. It is a "false value". What is a "higher" and more all-encompassing worthwhile value?

Compassion.

Unqualified compassion, where NO sort of sincerity about ANY arbitary set of beliefs can or will ever justify ANY horrendous acts against any other person.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Oh, as I said, true believers can do a whole lot of damage.

It just seems to me to be EVEN WORSE when the person doesn't even have THAT excuse and when they are lying about it.

I read a novel written, actually, before 9/11 wherein terrorists took over a plane and held it a long time, a bit like the thing that happened in Paris sometime in the 90s. Anyway, the terrorists were fanatical shits, but the worst people in the book, for my money, were the sycophants among the passengers who sucked up to them, turned against other passengers and later, when the media were there after everyone got rescued, those same people were talking about how evil the terrorists were. To my way of thinking, they were worse.

Someone who burns witches who BELIEVES this is right- evil and deluded.

Someone who burns witches who claims to believe in that but really wants their land- MORE evil.

 

[Gadfly]

Oh, as I said, true believers can do a whole lot of damage.

It just seems to me to be EVEN WORSE when the person doesn't even have THAT excuse and when they are lying about it.

I read a novel written, actually, before 9/11 wherein terrorists took over a plane and held it a long time, a bit like the thing that happened in Paris sometime in the 90s. Anyway, the terrorists were fanatical shits, but the worst people in the book, for my money, were the sycophants among the passengers who sucked up to them, turned against other passengers and later, when the media were there after everyone got rescued, those same people were talking about how evil the terrorists were. To my way of thinking, they were worse.

Someone who burns witches who BELIEVES this is right- evil and deluded.

Someone who burns witches who claims to believe in that but really wants their land- MORE evil.

I think you are arguing over meaningless differences.

A piece of shit human being is still a piece of shit not matter HOW he or she justifies the nasty actions with explanations of "beliefs", "convictions" or "sincerity". I learned quite awhile ago to ONLY judge people on their "behavior". How these people excuse their actions with significance is of minor concern to me. It is relevant, but not in any major way.

Committing a crime out of religious beliefs (burning a witch at the stake) is, to me, no different than committing the same crime out of greed for the land (burning a witch at the stake). See? Same CRIME, with different "excuses" for why it is "okay" to commit the crime.

Granted one can nitpick over degrees of "evil". To me it is a matter of either one or the other. Like logic circuits and computer processors where the state of any device is either "on" or "off". It is either "evil" or it is not. The better choice is to simply NOT BURN THE WITCHES FOR ANY REASON!

In other words, never accept any significance that makes it okay to harm one's fellow Man.

Like with Paulette Cooper. It is simply despicable for any person or group to try to frame an innocent person in a crime that this person never committed. It makes no difference, to me, that the "true believers" in Scientology felt entirely "justified" and "correct" and "decent" and even "highly ethical" in doing so to Paulette. Being an asshole is being an asshole no matter how one "justifies it".

Religious beliefs or greed? Who cares? Both motivations are VERY slimy when it comes to excusing nasty behavior.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Of course it's despicable. And I'm not meaning to argue. It's a personal opinion of mine, is all. Evil is horrible but it always seemed worse to me when the person was not even believing the things in which he was committing the deed but said that he was.

But that's just me. I want to stress that.

We all have phenomena that stick in our craws more than other things that maybe other people would say "ehhh, I don't quite see it the way you do". This, evidently, is one of mine.

 

[Royal Prince Xenu]

I learned something very interesting last night--who says all TV is a waste of time? (usually me!)

For the last 10 years or so, Tasmanian Devils have been scourged by a cancer that is species-specific. If you or I develop a cancer, the cancer cells still carry the host DNA. In the case of the TD-cancer, the DNA is the same in every cancer, and does not match the DNA of the infected Devil (host). It is the first cancer that has been found to be "contagious", but so far there is no evidence that it has jumped species. The disease was first detected on the eastern side of the island, and fortunately it has not yet reached the western side, so efforts are underway to establish quarantined colonies of Devils in the hope that they can be repopulated once this cancer has burned itself out.

Many tests have been done as to what carcinogen could have triggered this, but within the tests as outlined, only local toxins were taken into account, not global contaminants.

Perhaps we could ask Wendy Honnor if she could visit Tasmania urgently, so that she can audit the surviving Tasmanian Devils on their Second Dynamic behavior.

 

[Royal Prince Xenu]

Cancer cells are a result of genetic mutation(s) in cancer critical genes (oncogenes or tumor suppressor genes) which alter the way the cell interacts with its neighbors. When this occurs, AND the body's immune system fails to destroy the cell, the cell divides without the usual constraints (cell cycle and programed death) and becomes cancer.

Mutagens include environmental chemicals, products of endogenous metabolism (yes, we make these as a product of living), viruses (yes, an invader), ionizing radiation, etc.

Having an "immune-suppressant" disease such as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, I have a vested interest in the accuracy of this information. Cancer is a product of the immune system continuing to fight something that it can't actually fix. As I said in my "theory" above, mainstream medicine is finally starting to realize that many illnesses are in fact over-blown immune responses rather than a lack of response.

An extremely good example is a Mosquito bite. When a female mosquito seeks blood in order to lay eggs, she injects into the victim(s) her saliva which contains an anaesthetic so that the victim won't notice the bite. 99% of humans are allergic to mosquito saliva which is why the bite results in a big red itchy spot. If our immune systems ignored it, we would never notice a mozzie bite until we came down with Ross River Fever, Glandular Fever, or something similar. Those who have lived normal active lives and then been stricken by one of this family of viruses know the pain-staking months that it can take to get back to normal. Now imagine living in that state for forty years without even knowing that you're ill and still trying to keep up with "normal".

Just to rub it in: There is no record of Thursday 1 December 2011 in my memory. I went to sleep approx 21.00 on Wednesday 30 November and woke up about 12.00 on Friday 2 December. There is no record of choosing to sleep through an alarm, no visit to the toilet (and no embarrassment in the bed either), a very vague record with no timestamp of the cat jumping on me demanding food which was probably on the Friday morning, because his bowl was "licked clean". I've lost days to exhaustion before, but never the memory wipe.

 

[shadow]

Cancer is a product of the immune system continuing to fight something that it can't actually fix. As I said in my "theory" above, mainstream medicine is finally starting to realize that many illnesses are in fact over-blown immune responses rather than a lack of response.
An extremely good example is a Mosquito bite.

A similar example of an inappropriate immune response would be hay-fever, which is an inappropriate allergic response to pollen, which is harmless.

Another example would be auto-immune disease, where aspects of the immune system do not recognize the body's cells as "self". These are diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, MS, GBH, CIDP, and so many more it is not funny. Some of these occur primarily after a viral trigger (MS, GBH), and some are temperature mediated (cold agglutinin disease - anti-i).

There is even a type of inappropriate immune response that falls between these two types. Some people who receive penicillin will go into an immune mediated hemolysis, where the red cells are destroyed. This is not a response directed exclusively to the red cells (autoimmune) or exclusively to the penicillin (over blown response to something harmless), but to the combination of penicillin PLUS a receptor on the red cells. When the penicillin is cleared from the blood, the hemolysis stops.

References for my previous post for the genetic mutation causes of cancer and failure of immune surveillance:
http://www.cancerquest.org/mutation-and-cancer.html
http://www.sanger.ac.uk/genetics/CGP/Census/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17386080 (or just search immune surveillance in pubmed at the national library of medicine.

Autoimmune diseases have been recognized for decades by science and medicine, but progress in this area has only progressed with the understanding of the immune system. Because of the fast growing pool of information about exogenously caused diseases and relative lack of information about the immune system, autoimmunity took a back seat from the early 1900s to about 1945. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19883799

Because of all of the funding funneled into cancer research, a vast pool of knowledge was also gained in the area of the immune system and autoimmunity. This translated into a faster elucidation of the cause and nature of AIDS. If the knowledge and tools had not already been available from cancer research (western blot, viral culture, immunity, etc), it would have taken much longer to develop methods for identifying and studying AIDS and HIV. I attended a meeting at the NIH in 1985 about HIV and the blood supply and within a short couple of years, we went from barely IDing a responsible virus, to routine and widespread HIV testing.

I have not heard the term immune suppressant disorder before. An immune suppressant (or immunosuppressant) would be a potential treatment to dampen an inappropriate immune response in an autoimmune disorder such as chronic fatigue, but not a disease class.

 

[greebly]

Phagocytes play an important role in the immunotherapy sector of cancer treatment.

Some great research was done from 1993-2000 from memory.

1 drug used in combinatory therapy was only 2% short of the FDA regs.