O, and pardon my foul Language, you got me a bit worked up, its a Personal issue with me. And I am a VERY sensitive guy.

I might be 18 **(just turned 19 April 4th)**, but watch out, everyone has to start somewhere. I'm just starting a bit faster and bigger. 🙂

quote:

---

Originally posted by rsteenoven

moviedale, not at one point did he call you a scammer. get yer facts right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomjscott

Maybe you should change your name to Master of the Scam.

---

---
Anyway, I've always been interested in medical economics, but never really knew where to start. MovieDale, if your documentary really lays it on the line with crystal clear explanations and referenced facts for the viewer then certainly you could be onto something very big.

Please also address the other side of the argument, as so many conspiracy documentaries fail to do. Address the fact the vast majority of hardworking doctors and hospital staff have absolutely no idea of the (alleged) heinous (and they would be truly dispicable) crimes being committed. Doctors are taught through medical schools and update their knowledge through mainstream medical journals and further tutorials etc- thus it is completely possible that a controlling force could influence the information they receive, and the information, and treatment they are then able to administer.

Keep it professional and impersonal. Many conspiracy theorists are simply ignored because they rave and rant and become emotional. Your replies on this thread are mostly objective and balanced, but I dislike the personal attacks you have also included. I know these were simply in response to the immature jibes and goads posted by other members, and I'm pretty surprised at the reception you received from some of the members of the board- here I was thinking this was a friendly, open and liberal community.

I know you came here for a CG artist and not advice but here it is anyway. Hope it's useful.

=========================
There's daggers in mens' smiles

quote:

---

Originally posted by rizzo
I'm pretty surprised at the reception you received from some of the members of the board- here I was thinking this was a friendly, open and liberal community.

---

It is, rizzo.

One person expressed his personal opinion and Moviedale chose to respond with insults and personal attacks. That always escalates the situation. The professional approach would be to treat everyone with professional courtesy and simply ignore the people who are rude. But it's much easier to resort to insults than to address the challenge. That doesn't mean this isn't a a friendly, open and liberal community.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

quote:

---

Originally posted by certified instigator
?brThat doesn't mean this isn't a a friendly, open and liberal community.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

---

Sorry I phrased that badly; I meant to imply that usually this forum is friendly and open (which it very much is)- but a lot of the previous messages on this thread definately weren't, that's all. Apologies for the confusion.

=========================
There's daggers in mens' smiles

OK, Moviedale. You've challenged me to do a little research? How about these apples?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/21/144057/028
http://www.rainbowinvestigations.com/story.cfm?rainbowID=260

Just a couple of examples. Yes, I did find lots of links where people ranted just like you, but that's all they were: rants. Again, just cause they say it, doesn't make it so.

hey docter are just trying to do thier job. when they do screw up, they get malpractice lawsuits, thats punishment enough. im not saying the medical sysetem isnt messed up, just dont go attacking doctors..

-(Own3d Studios)-

and please dont compare them to terrorists..
thats not right

-(Own3d Studios)-

Was there something you wanted to say, Moviedale?

As a matter of fact, there is....

Thank you Rizzo, for bringing more intelligence to this, and for exposing rsteenoven's bone-headed attack on me (sorry, but falsely accusing me of what you?ve just done IS bone-headed, and that's being polite). You?re a breath of fresh air! I was beginning to feel a bit like Galileo and Copernicus felt when they tried to educate the Church: ?You?re wrong! Any fool can clearly see the sun revolves around the earth! The earth is the center of the universe, everyone knows that! God says so! Burn the heretic!?

I see you're from the UK, which probably explains it. America?s blind acceptance and insane love of vaccinations, fluoride, pharmaceutical drugs, etc. have really done a lot of damage to the brains of Americans who've fallen for those hoaxes and lies. IQs have fallen so much they?ve had to adjust the college SATs at least once to compensate. For you doubters (Hi Tom!), read Harris Coulter?s ?Vaccination, Social Violence & Criminality: The Medical Assault on the American Brain? for starters. It?s heavily documented, so a little tough to slog through, but very informative. It even made my knowledgeable blood boil. Of course, the most extreme cases are the many dozens of murders, suicides and other bizarre or violent behaviors the past 15-20 years, virtually all of which, including Virginia Tech and Columbine, were caused by anti-depressant drugs. Gee, I wonder why the mainstream media never reports that? And some of you ask why I don?t go to the TV news? Are you serious? More on that later. Besides, they?re too busy covering real news, like Paris Hilton.

Thanks for realizing that I am onto something very big ? it?s going to blow the lid off the lies we?ve been told, and most still continue to believe (?no? that?s too easy?). So it really will change the world and save millions of lives. Some people have asked if it?s safe to be in the same room with me, only slightly joking. Yes, it?s that explosive.

But you missed the part about it not being a documentary. I figured out a way to get the info into a very entertaining and compelling dramatic story, in order to reach the widest possible audience (since most people won?t watch docs). So I make learning fun! Readers? responses to the script include ?I?m blown away! I had no idea what was going on?, and the usual assortment of ?Wow?s, ?Great?s, etc. But my favorite -- and this was for a much earlier and clunky draft, no less -- is, ?It makes ?Outbreak? look like a first-year film students? project.? And yes, the lead character does mention many of the brave, good doctors who were the pioneers in alt medicine, most of who were attacked by the AMA , FDA and other corrupt groups. She also names names and dates, like the old herbalist, who, nearing death in the 1930s, wrote to the newly-formed National Cancer Institute in the 1930s, optimistically and naively thinking they were actually interested in curing the disease. Even though he?d been curing cancer for decades, they brushed him off ?- they weren?t interested! -- because it was cheap and unpatentable, of course.

certified instigator: Tom calling me a scammer isn't an opinion, it's a snide remark and an attack on me. Saying he doesn't believe me and thinks I?m wrong is an opinion.
And the first two responders chose the tone for all of this, I just went with the flow. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.

And to bryce1yar and the others: I?m not trying to make anyone look stupid (well, OK, maybe Tom, since he started the fight and deserved it)? but -- and don?t take this the wrong way ? it?s your lack of knowledge that makes you look stupid. You can?t "unprove" proven facts, no matter how hard you try, and certainly not with purely emotional attacks on me.

While everyone is entitled to voice their opinion, that really should be changed to an ?informed? opinion. I shouldn't have to point this out (again) but you guys really should know something about what you're talking about before you start making accusations, and especially about my motives. I'm doing this movie because the quacks (the allopathic ?conventional? doctors) killed my father with their bogus but highly profitable cancer therapies 13 years ago. And I vowed I'd come up with some way to get the truth out to the whole world, so others wouldn?t have to suffer through that nightmare of misery, incompetence, insanity, and greed. And so people might wake up and take back their medical freedom of choice, which was taken away by the big corporations long ago. In America it was in the 1920s, by the Rockefellers, et al, just so they could make even more money off the little guy, mostly by pushing their drugs. (FYI, 98% of all drugs, and that was over 24,000 several years ago, don't even do what they CLAIM to do, let alone cure anything.)

I only knew about a few of the cancer cures back then, and they weren't as easy to obtain (thanks to the AMA's monopolistic stranglehold on our health), or administer, as most of the 30 or so ones that I know about now are. And I only found out about the simple one that JFK's doctor cured himself with a couple days before my dad died.

Why a movie? Because that?s the only media the cartel doesn?t completely own or control. While most of the info is in books and non-mainstream magazines, this is a post-literate world and not many people read, so unless you already know about the cures and know where to look, you probably won?t find them. And as I?ve pointed out, the mainstream (conservative) media won?t risk losing advertising dollars by ever telling the truth and exposing their drug-pushing advertisers as the greedy, soulless, bastards they are. Hence, a movie.

BTW, asking people to invest a mere $8-10 to learn they can cure nearly every disease on their own, and do it inexpensively ? i.e., save their life -- is hardly exploiting peoples? misery or being greedy. It?s a freaking public service! Because who else is ever going to be brave enough to risk their life and tell them? And certainly not for that token sum. Look at all the crap I got from just you few guys.

You want to talk about greedy exploitation? Here you go: heart bypasses cost almost $85,000 and angioplasties almost $40,000 each ? yet not only do they not save your life, or even extend it, they actually make things worse. You?re twice as likely to die from a bypass as from heart disease itself! Or if you survive the operation, you?ll likely suffer brain damage. Dozens of studies over the past 25+ years prove that neither bypasses nor angioplasties prevent heart attacks or premature deaths. As the honest doctors who?ve studied the statistics conclude, these ?life-saving? procedures are a total fraud. Yet these are still very popular operations, generating ?45% of the total revenue of most hospitals. Their only purpose is generating obscene profits for the heart surgeons and the hospitals ? over $121 billion a year in the US alone.

Does anyone think the people making this blood money would willingly kiss that goodbye and tell the public that heart disease is the easiest disease in the world there is to prevent or completely cure, and can be done for much less than $1 a day? And also, by doing that, you?ll help prevent cancer as well? Sorry, very few people are that altruistic, especially people who are used to making that big, easy money. (Yes, the more you learn, the uglier organized medicine gets. In fact, as many researchers have proven, it?s not unlike Organized Crime.) FYI, the money the movie makes won't go to Ferraris and mansions in Bel Air, most will go towards funding this work and other projects to help people around the world.

quote:

---

Originally posted by tomjscott

OK, Moviedale. You've challenged me to do a little research? How about these apples?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/21/144057/028
http://www.rainbowinvestigations.com/story.cfm?rainbowID=260

Just a couple of examples. Yes, I did find lots of links where people ranted just like you, but that's all they were: rants. Again, just cause they say it, doesn't make it so.

---

First off: Reality check -- you're the ranter. All emotion and no facts, all heat and no light -- that's a rant. I was calmly relaying FACTS, so it's speechifying at worst.

Re: the first link. It was written by a doctor, and doctors aren't taught how to cure diseases, only how to diagnose them and which drugs to give (or surgery to perform) to treat the symptoms (see previous posts if you've forgotten this). Very few of them ever overcome this brainwashing and see beyond their blinders. But fortunately, nowadays more are. They're being forced to by their patients, who usually know more about HEALTH & NUTRITION than they do. Doctors only do a few hours of coursework in nutrition (although again, things are slowly being forced to change), so I knew more about it after I read my first book on it when I was a teenager in the ?60s than most do now!

Drugs AREN'T needed. They DON'T cure cancer, and never will. They can't, because they're ALL toxic. If you want to ever get healthy and cure pretty much all diseases, you eliminate ALL toxins, not add them. If you knew how the body actually works you'd realize that. That's why accepted cancer therapies don't work. Earlier detection only makes it look like they extend lives. Look it up. Chemo itself kills 1 in 4 people who use it. The ?reasoning? behind chemo is: ?we?ll poison the body, and, if we?re lucky, kill the cancer cells before we kill the patient.? This is ?science?? Hardly. And whatever happened to the Hippocratic Oath ... first do no harm? It's been replaced by the Hypocritical Oath. Most doctors wind up being only in it for the money, even if they start out truly wanting to help. The corruption is insidious.
...A swing and a miss. Strike one!

Re: link 2. Whoa, ho, ho. You really should've picked a better site than someone who quotes "Dr." Stephen Barrett. This just goes to show that all research is not good research, especially on the Web. Barrett is kind of like the George W. Bush of the Medical Mafia, not bright, not honest, no credibility, and not interested in the truth. Here?re some ?highlights? about him from this link: http://www.canlyme.com/quackwatch.html:
And the attorney?s statements at the end do an excellent job of explaining why you haven?t heard the truth, and why it?s so important this movie gets made.

Dr. Stephen Barrett of Quackwatch Exposed In Court Cases
Quackwatch Founder Stephen Barrett Loses Major Defamation Trial in Hometown

In his 2001 newsletter, chiropractor Ted Koren published articles that revealed that even though he touted himself as a medical expert, Barrett had not been a licensed physician since the early 1990s. At trial, under a heated cross-examination by Koren?s attorney, Barrett conceded that he was not a Medical Board Certified psychiatrist because he had failed the certification exam. This was a major revelation since Barrett had provided supposed expert testimony as a psychiatrist and had testified in numerous court cases. Barrett also had said that he was a legal expert even though he had no formal legal training.

The most damning testimony before the jury, under the intense cross-examination by Negrete, was that Barrett had filed similar defamation lawsuits against almost 40 people across the country within the past few years and had not won one single one at trial. During the course of his examination, Barrett also had to concede his ties to the AMA, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Food & Drug Administration (FDA).

After the Koren trial, Negrete stated: ?The de-bunker has been de-bunked. I am pleased and satisfied with this outcome for Dr. Koren and am proud that Dr. Koren did not succumb to the pressures of the intimidation of Barrett?s legal wrangling. Not everyone can stand up to someone as well known as Barrett.?

Negrete continued, ?It is another great day for health freedom and alternative healthcare around the world. I am especially pleased that this most important victory was in Barrett?s own hometown. It just goes to show you that there is justice anywhere, even when you are a visitor challenging the home team. Barrett is a shill for the medical and pharmaceutical cartels and his bully tactics and unjustified discrediting of leading innovators, scientists and health practitioners should not be tolerated.?

Negrete said, ?You can be assured that our legal team will be wherever health freedom advocates and practitioners are being persecuted. The tide is now turning and people are no long accepting that synthetic drugs are the only form of treatment are the only way to address health concerns. "Every day, consumers are becoming more educated about the benefits of holistic and alternative methods. This is something that the medical establishment obviously fears and wants to crush with false propaganda.?
...Strike two AND three! You're out!....

Sorry, it doesn?t matter how many people you come up with who don?t know any more about it than you do, or won?t admit they do -- that doesn?t make the tens of thousands of people (and animals) who?ve been cured of cancer using non-drug methods any less cured. Belief doesn?t change reality (at least not on this plane of existence). If you seriously want to find out the truth, you have to read about the people who?ve done ?the impossible?. I gave you many names and book titles, so why do you refuse to read about them? (Oh, add Hoxsey to that list. The way he was treated you?d think he was a mass murderer instead of a healer who saved many peoples? lives.)

Tom, I get it. You're pathologically skeptical -- like ?Scientific American? magazine was a hundred years ago. Even though they had numerous photographs and dozens of eyewitness accounts of the Wright Bros. flying, they refused to acknowledge it for several years, because they KNEW that heavier-than-air flight was JUST NOT POSSIBLE! Physics proved it! Again, just because you can't comprehend something or don?t want it to be true doesn't make it any less true.

Okay, that?s it. Unless someone has something intelligent and actually helpful to say I will no longer respond, I have better things to do. There are people out there who actually WANT to know how to get well. I'm done trying to educate the un-educatable here, and will just do it with the movie. And boy, are you guys going to be in for a HUGE shock. But if, like Tom, you're dead-set (pun intended) on being a victim of our corrupt, failed medical system (#1 in cost, worldwide; #72 in overall effectiveness!) good luck ? you?re going to need it. Unless you see the movie when it comes out. But then you might have to admit you were wrong. I won?t hold my breath....

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by tomjscott

Maybe you should change your name to Master of the Scam.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

How is that calling you a scammer? he was reffering to your perculiar email address

SUBSCRIBE TO MY VIDEOS!
?url?www.youtube.com/rsteenoven?/url?

quote:

---

You want to talk about greedy exploitation? Here you go: heart bypasses cost almost $85,000 and angioplasties almost $40,000 each ? yet not only do they not save your life, or even extend it, they actually make things worse. You?re twice as likely to die from a bypass as from heart disease itself! Or if you survive the operation, you?ll likely suffer brain damage. Dozens of studies over the past 25+ years prove that neither bypasses nor angioplasties prevent heart attacks or premature deaths. As the honest doctors who?ve studied the statistics conclude, these ?life-saving? procedures are a total fraud. Yet these are still very popular operations, generating ?45% of the total revenue of most hospitals. Their only purpose is generating obscene profits for the heart surgeons and the hospitals ? over $121 billion a year in the US alone.

---

That's a load of crap right there. My father had 5 bypasses a few years ago. He had been at his regular doctor visit and just happen to mention that he was having pains and numbness when they realized how bad his condition was. If he hadn't said anything, he'd be dead right now. He nearly collapsed on the golf course a few weeks prior to that. We are so fortunate that he was at that visit and was amditted for surgery. He is now healthy and happy and will live many more years.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Moviedale
certified instigator: Tom calling me a scammer isn't an opinion, it's a snide remark and an attack on me. Saying he doesn't believe me and thinks I?m wrong is an opinion.
And the first two responders chose the tone for all of this, I just went with the flow. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.

---

Fair enough.

Treating people - all people - with respect and professionalism is a very difficult thing to do. This is a discussion board. People here are free to express their comments - even comments you don't like.

I have found that if you have an unusual project the best way to get people on your side is to treat them with respect. Sarcasm and insults don't turn people from nonbelievers into believers. All to often they, too, want to fight fire with fire, and then we end up with a thread like this one. A thread that could have been interesting and informative, but instead has turned into you insulting people you feel have wronged you. An unusual way of doing business.

Have you found your visual efx artist?

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

So I am genuinely interested in what you have to say, Moviedale. I'm a pretty cynical person, so I agree that what you are saying could be completely true, and at the same time, you may very well be a scammer. I am not calling you a scammer, I am just interested in learning more before I would commit to belief. I did a little research myself, and I have a basic level of knowledge in biology, so I have a few questions about the cures you are talking about. Please do not be offended by this, I just want to hear your side completely.

First off, because of the nature of cancer, and it's composition, which is still not fully understood by science (at least as I learned it), there is supposedly no blanket cure for cancer. Cancer in different parts of the body, caused by different carcinogens or other means, is all different and therefore all deserves a different cure, correct? So when you say that Cancer has been cured, is there a blanket cure for all of it that addresses some hidden weakness, or is it a cure that is changed according to each form of cancer? Please specify.

Secondly, you said, and I quote

quote:

---

the drug companies ... persecuted the brave doctors who have dared to buck the system and use them. Read about Rife, Koch & Burzynski for starters.

---

I did a little research on my own, and wikipedia had the following information about Koch and his influence in Biochemistry.

quote:

---

Robert Koch (December 11, 1843 ? May 27, 1910) was a German physician. He became famous for isolating Bacillus anthracis (1877), the tuberculosis bacillus (1882) and the cholera vibrio (1883) and for his development of Koch's postulates.
He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his tuberculosis findings in 1905. He is considered one of the founders of bacteriology.

---

Koch's postulates, which is the most applicable invention of his to what you are claiming, are as follows.

quote:

---

Koch's postulates are:

1. The microorganism must be found in all organisms suffering from the disease, but not in healthy organisms.
2. The microorganism must be isolated from a diseased organism and grown in pure culture.
3. The cultured microorganism should cause disease when introduced into a healthy organism.
4. The microorganism must be reisolated from the inoculated, diseased experimental host and identified as being identical to the original specific causative agent.

---

However,

quote:

---

Koch abandoned the second part of the first postulate altogether when he discovered asymptomatic carriers of cholera (Koch, 1893) and later, Typhoid Mary. Indeed, asymptomatic carriers of many diseases have since been found, especially viruses such as polio, herpes simplex, HIV and hepatitis C. As a specific example, all doctors and virologists agree that poliovirus causes paralysis in just a few infected subjects, and the success of the polio vaccine in preventing disease supports the conviction that the poliovirus is the causative agent.

The third postulate does not hold true, as Koch himself discovered and stated in regard to both tuberculosis and cholera (Koch, 1884). Indeed, we see this today with diseases such as HIV, where CCR5 #916;32 deletion individuals seem to be resistant to infection with HIV.

---

So as you can see, Koch himself later decided that 50% of his findings were not accurate.

quote:

---

Koch's postulates were developed in the 19th century as general guidelines to identify pathogens that could be isolated with the techniques of the day.?1? Even in Koch's time, it was recognized that some infectious agents were clearly responsible for disease even though they did not fulfill all of the postulates.?2? ... Currently, a number of infectious agents are accepted as the cause of disease despite their not fulfilling all of Koch's postulates.?5? Therefore, while Koch's postulates retain historical importance and continue to inform the approach to microbiologic diagnosis, fulfillment of all four postulates is not required to demonstrate causality.

---

I am not saying that this means your reports are false, I am merely wondering how that was taken into account, and whether you were already aware of that. I was unable to find information on Rife, but I found an article ?url? http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/history/biographies/burzynski.htm?/url? about Stanislaw R Burzynski, MD, PhD.
The article is undeniably written with a bias towards him, however, I will assume that they have their facts straight. If they do however, then their are several basic problems. First off, his program for curing cancer appears, to my limited knowledge, to hold real potential, and it also appears to be that he was persecuted by unknown peoples, presumably medical bodies. However, why were they persecuting him? If they were doing it because he had cured cancer, then why? His cure was by no means cheap, in fact it was criticized for being overly expensive. If it is so expensive, why didn't pharmaceuticals take advantage of this chance to make money easily?

And one last point I am curious about. The second link that Tom posted was written by someone who has undeniably come under intense scrutiny and pressure for possible unfair practices, so we will ignore his testimony for the time being. However, the first link was written by someone with limited credentials, who stayed well within their bounds of knowledge. They brought up an interesting idea which does not require a medical degree to pursue. If pharmaceuticals became aware of a cure for cancer or other various high death diseases, then why wouldn't they tkae the cure and in some way pervert it so as to make it difficult to manufacture and expensive, so that the consumer market would believe they needed to pay a lot, when in reality only the core ingredient was necessary. This is totally within their grasp as cold, greedy people, correct? Case in point.

quote:

---

If this drug is as great as everyone says it is, Big Pharma will FIND a way to make it profitable. Here's one idea: link DCA to a large molecule which is cleaved from DCA in the liver, let's say. The large molecule is something inert, has little biologic activity, or perhaps has anti-cancer activity of its own. Et voila. You have a large, patentable product, and you can doubtless devise a study to make it look better than DCA alone. Or say **** it all, I'm not even going to compare it to DCA alone. I'll do this trial: standard chemo regimen with "DCA-plus" versus standard chemo regiment alone. Wow! Look how great "DCA-plus" is!

---

*EDIT* P.S.- You said that

quote:

---

The truth is, the underlying cause of ALL cancers was discovered back in the 1920s! The biochemist who discovered it got TWO Nobel Prizes for his work.

---

According to ?url? http://almaz.com/nobel/double.html?/url?There is only one person who has ever received two nobel prizes both in chemistry. That is

quote:

---

Frederick Sanger
1958 in Chemistry
1980 in Chemistry

---

However, he received both of these long after the 1920's. If the person you were referring to received two, but only one was in chemistry, then that leaves us

quote:

---

Marie Sklodowska Curie
1903 in Physics
1911 in Chemistry

---

and

quote:

---

Linus Pauling
1954 in Chemistry
1962 in Peace

---

Marie Curie received hers in 1911, before the 1920's, and hers was for the discovery of radiative elements, which could only be applied to cancer via chemotherapy, which you claim doesn't work.
Linus Pauling received hers well after the 1920's. Wikipedia said

quote:

---

in 1954 was awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry for his work describing the nature of chemical bonds.

---

quote:

---

Pauling is noted as a versatile scholar for his expertise in inorganic chemistry, organic chemistry, metallurgy, immunology, anesthesiology, psychology, debate, radioactive decay, and the aftermath of nuclear warfare, in addition to quantum mechanics and molecular biology.

---

Molecular biology pertains to the study of cancer.

quote:

---

He realized that vitamins might have important biochemical effects unrelated to their prevention of associated deficiency diseases. Pauling published a brief paper, "Orthomolecular Psychiatry", in the journal Science in 1968 (PMID 5641253) that gave name and principle to the popular but controversial megavitamin therapy movement of the 1970s. Pauling coined the term "orthomolecular" to refer to the practice of varying the concentration of substances normally present in the body to prevent and treat disease. His ideas formed the basis of orthomolecular medicine, which is not generally practiced by conventional medical professionals and is strongly criticized by some.?13??14?

---

Therefore, I will assume that you were talking about him. His studies and beliefs are pretty commonly believed, and have been shown to have an effect on the welfare and cure of disease. I personally am a certified organic freak?:D?, and I eat all organic food, make my own bread, and grow my own vegetables. I am a believer after watching my brother be cured of eczema from switching to organic milk. Our doctor beliefs that hormones and additives in common milk may have actually caused the eczema, and that the addition of proteins and vitamins from the organic milk helped cause it. So I am a believer in his principle, that eating well and changing your input of vitamins, minerals, and various other stuff can help cure small disease and prevent others. As a preventative, it's proven. But as a cure, it is only used in conjunction with other cures. I'm not sure I believe that it could be used to cure HIV or cancer on it's own.

Once again, I may have sounded a little cynical, but I sincerely would like to hear your reply to this. Thank you.

"We all have the potential to be great. It is our inability to do so that makes us miserable." C.S.Lewis

Since this appears to be a dry hole, I?ve been busy elsewhere and only now checked back.

Yes, I?ve found a CG artist, fairly local too. He really ?gets it? and how important this movie is, and of course, how it?ll make his name too. But I still need a VFX supervisor to match the shots. And a co-producer/?frontperson?, or at least a salesperson, to contact all the names and other potential backers, as the present salesman is turning out to be more talk than action.

Anyhow, I?m just the messenger, folks. These are ALL FACTS, I didn?t create them, others did -- I?m just relaying them. (I don?t HAVE to make anything up, because the truth is stranger -- and more outrageous -- than fiction.) As I said at the beginning, if you don?t want to believe them and want to remain oblivious to reality, and suffer, that?s your choice and you?re welcome to it, but it does NOT make the facts untrue.

I realize no one likes to admit they?ve been duped, and how foolish it makes you look. And how embarrassed and angry it makes you, having JUST gone through that with a ?professional? CG artist, who kept telling me he was doing the work and was almost done. After having jerked us around for over... well... longer than we care to admit, we realized he isn?t slow: he just COULDN?T do it, but couldn?t admit it and so just kept doing a little and giving excuse after excuse. So we finally had to fire him. Which is why I wasn?t in a great mood a couple weeks ago. So when I was attacked I was more than ready to fight back. Sorry. (And the fact that I?m Scots-Irish-Austrian didn?t help.) Of course, if you guys HADN?T attacked me, and HAD been civil....

Tom, unfortunately you?ve bought into the heart disease hoax as well. Replacing a foot or two of clogged plumbing while leaving the rest of it untouched does NOT make your father ?healthy? because that does NOT cure heart disease. How could it? You haven?t eliminated the cause of the problem. That?s like blowing your nose and saying you?ve cured your cold. The only thing that was cured was his angina (chest pain) -- unless he?s changed his diet and lifestyle -- so yes, he FEELS better, but mistakenly thinks he?s cured. THAT?S false hope and his doctors know it.

Many honest doctors have written about that scam over the years: the FACTS I reported were from a recent issue of Dr. Julian Whitaker?s newsletter, so no, it?s not ?a load of crap.? As the saying goes, ?Denial ain?t just a river.?

50% of all ?bye?-passes (as doctors who?ve done the research call them) will clog up again by 5 years, and the others will follow. The ONLY way to prevent this is to get the nutrients that will ?Roto-Rooter? your arteries, either through supplements or real food. If your dad had been getting them, he never would?ve been in that position, or condition. Yes, of course cardiologists ALWAYS tell their patients they HAVE to have a ?bye?-pass right away or else they?re gonna die! -- that?s how they stay rich. If his was honest and didn?t prey on ignorance and fear, he would?ve told him to just take the right nutrients, which would?ve started cleaning him out IMMEDIATELY, and w/o all that pain and risk of damage or death. Oh, and for mere pocket change. But cardiologists don?t profit from telling the truth or curing heart disease.

Here?s an excerpt from an article I wrote a few months back for the local papers, which explains things more.

Choosing Profits Over Lives: the M.O. of the M.E.
I see the Medical Establishment (M.E.) has launched yet another shameless attack on the truth, this time courtesy the American Heart Association. They claimed vitamins are worthless for preventing heart disease (which is 100% false), and apparently did it with a straight face! True to form, they include some good advice but then sneak in their lies in the hopes that gullible people will believe they?re true too. Don?t fall for it, your life is at stake here.

So why would they say that? Is it that these ?experts? haven?t done their homework? If they had, they?d know that the REAL cause of?-and simple cure for?-heart disease were proven over 70 years ago! (And no, it?s not cholesterol, so don?t waste your money and risk your life with statins.) I learned this in the early 1970s, and ten years ago cured a local business-owner, after a bypass almost killed him, as they so often do. He feels better now at 60+ than he did 40 years ago when he was in the Army, confounding and disappointing his doctors, who were expecting to perform many more lucrative operations on him.
The truth is, nutrients are the ONLY thing that WILL prevent or cure heart disease ? that?s how nature prevented it for millions of years, even though people ate loads of ? gasp! ? animal fat. The first case was only in 1912 ? which is why it used to be called modern heart disease ? because it?s man-made, as are most of our diseases now. (And despite the lies claiming we now live twice as long as they did a century ago, people DID regularly live to their 60s and 70s, sometimes even their 80s or 90s, hundreds of years ago. The age at death of an adult hasn?t changed much since the late 1700s.)

danstin studios:

Here?s an excerpt from Dr. David Williams? June ?Alternatives? newsletter editorial titled ?Politics as Usual, and Patients Pay?: ?History has demonstrated time and time again that the more successful the natural therapy is against cancer, the more fierce and ruthless the response will be from the FDA ?No, they?re not on the public?s side, and haven?t been for almost a century?, the pharmaceutical industry, and established medicine. And this hasn?t gone unnoticed by various researchers and nutraceutical companies. Research into natural products to treat or cure cancer can be a serious threat to an individual?s career, as well as to a company?s long-term chances of survival.?

Yes, basically, there IS a blanket cure for cancer (that?s what the biochemist got his Nobels for proving, way back then), just as there are blanket cures for all infections. You don?t have to do a culture and find out which drug to use to TRY and stop it, wasting all that time that the wide-spectrum natural cures could already be curing. (If doctors were bright & honest enough to do that, people like Jim Henson ?The Muppets? would still be here with us.) That?s one of the reasons that Modern Medicine is so unsuccessful at most things, they still hold the Mechanistic view of the body as a collection of unrelated parts. If they?d realize everything is interconnected (far more than they could ever realize) and looked at it holistically they?d be able to actually cure diseases, the way the good doctors and I do.

But that?s the accepted insanity of allopathic medicine. It makes things as complex and convoluted as possible in order to scare people into buying into their expensive treatments (and has been very successful at THAT). But healing is actually incredibly simple. Unlike conventional therapy, which assaults and harms the body with toxic, petroleum-based drugs, traumatic surgeries, and mutation-causing radiation, alternative therapies actually DO cure diseases, because they work WITH the body, strengthening it and allowing it to heal itself. That?s why it can cure nearly all diseases, including AIDS, cancer, and Alzheimer?s. And most of the cancer treatments (and other treatments as well) work in similar ways, so nearly all of them can be used together to speed healing, IF conventional medicine hasn't already destroyed your body.

quote:

---

Originally posted by danstin studios

As a preventative, it's proven. But as a cure, it is only used in conjunction with other cures. I'm not sure I believe that it could be used to cure HIV or cancer on it's own.

---

It has been used by itself to cure both of them, many, many times, especially cancer, as it's been around longer. Of course, using as many of them as you can stand would be better. Suzanne Somers cured her cancer using natural therapies, against her doctors' advice, of course. I just cured a friend's HIV, after the "recommended" drug therapy almost killed him. He didn't really believe me at first either, so vacillated, but mostly went their route. But after it gave him hepatitis, hemachromatosis, edema, GI distress, etc., which we also had to cure, he saw the light and left the darkside. He's fine now, since he stopped using their drugs before they'd completely destroyed his liver and other systems.

I cured my attorney?s dog of cancer using only ONE supplement. (Animals obviously limit your choice of the many human cures.) I also regenerated our old cat?s kidneys, after the vet said they?d shut down and she?d be dead in a few days (and so offered to euthanize her). Which just goes to show how little conventional medicine knows -? she lived another 15 good months with us! Which is something like 8-9 human years; not bad for a ?dead? cat. She was a feisty cat and wouldn't let us give her supplements, so I just used energy medicine on her to do that.

No, you have the wrong people. The biochemist wasn?t allowed by his government to accept his 2nd Nobel, which is probably why it didn't show up.

I can?t tell you any more than this because I can?t give away all my research here ? that?s for the movie. But... if you have something to contribute to the project, that?s different. If so, let me know. Otherwise, you?ll have to wait like everyone else.

And for any of you who still think we have a great medical system and great doctors, here?s something to ponder, which was written over 4,600 years ago:

Superior doctors prevent diseases, mediocre doctors treat disease before it is evident, and inferior doctors treat full-blown disease. - Huang Dee, in Nai Chain, 1st Chinese medical text

Western medicine took a wrong turn several hundred years after Hippocrates, by following Galen?s misguided ideas, and still hasn?t found its way back to the right road, even after 2,000 years. The two other major wrong turns this century certainly haven?t helped either.

Oh, and if I was a scammer, I think the 60-some people who?ve liked or loved the script would?ve busted me for that by now, and I doubt that one of the Academy-Award-winning editors of ?Titanic? would?ve wanted to do the project when he read an earlier draft years ago.

At the moment 'nutrients' is far to vague to convince me. I understand, of course, that you can't disclose what the specifics are as you want to make a movie about this discovery.

Where are the profits from this blockbuster going, Dale?

=========================
There's daggers in mens' smiles