User talk:Amusedspaceman

The previous writer has a clear bias against the subject and has cited research of the American Cancer Society. I have cited The Gerson Therapy book, but that's not good enough?

What American Cancer Society research? Please look at the writer's reference numbers 2, 5, and 9.

I find it funny that you say a book written by the subject's daughter isn't good enough, while statements by an organization with a bias against him are ok. Please clarify why the Gerson book isn't good enough.

Not that I'm against having ACS research, but I think it should be allowed to be balanced with a differing point of view. Thanks for your help. I will make edits on it that meet the guidelines.

I understand neutral now as far as Wikipedia is concerned, thanks. I suggest you familiarize yourself with the term as well because the article as written does not meet the standard of neutrality and I challenge several things in it.

So you're saying if it goes against what the ACS says, it's not neutral? That's called censorship and bias and would make Wikipedia worthless. However I have to believe it's more than that. I don't very much care for other's suggestions that I not edit the article, because it's my right to challenge it. I'm just learning about editing articles, but I will come back to post and site quotes from reputable national and international sources, and we'll see if there's any integrity to Wiki's policy of neutrality.

Here's a debate tip: just calling a premise flawed isn't a rebuttal, it's a cop out. I understand Wiki policies perfectly: try to get past the hidden little, biased gatekeepers of the Wikipedia monoculture. You're hidden, have no accountability, so you feel free to push your agenda on Wiki write ups.

To be proven in a control group that's acceptable to the medical establishment, you have to be using a pill, a shot, one single thing that can dissected, broken down, patented, run through a lab, tested, etc. That scientific protocol does not work for a therapy that is basically a lifestyle change, that includes a wide range of vegetables, supplements, avoidance of toxins, etc. The fact is, there ARE many people that beat cancer using Gerson Therapy, but the American medical establishment (the FDA, the American Cancer Society, National Cancer Institute, Big Pharma, the American Medical Association, etc.) won't give it credence because it would mean upsetting the status quo, threatening the billions made in pharma and by doctors every year. They protect their interests ferociously. (don't take my word for it, please look at a movie documentary called "Burzynski"--his is a different kind of cure than Gerson, but you will see first hand how someone with a real cure will be vilified and dragged through the mud by the FDA and the establishment when they dare to potentially reap all the rewards and praise from a cure). To call the Gerson institute "greedy" is myopic. I would hardly call them a money machine. If you want to talk greed--real, EPIC greed--let's talk Big Pharma, Big Cancer, let's talk the american medical establishment. Trillions in profits. To say corporations would not protect these kind of profits would be pollyanna, to say lawmakers and people in power at the FDA and other places can't be bought by these interests would be just naive. Here's the thing: for those reasons, the American medical establishment won't give Gerson credence, but the REST OF THE WORLD does. Most of the rest of the world is not under the thumb of the American medical establishment like we are in America. Look at Japan, for instance, where Gerson is seen as a savior, almost a god. Top doctors there are embracing Gerson Therapy and saving people's lives. Gerson clinics are popping up all over the place. But unless you dig, you won't hear about it in America too much in our media (Wiki included) because he and his therapy are marginalized as "crackpot". The reason for that is because there are big interests to protect.

"Science is inherently iconoclastic", "It just cares if something works" are wrong and sounds ridiculously pollyanna. What world do you live on? Science just cares if something turns a profit, but you should know that first hand. (really why else would you support an industry of death and failure unless you were getting paid to push their agenda on Wiki) If you put billions into research costs, you expect a profit on your money, no? Re: Burzynski, the FDA forced his patients to do chemo before they were allowed to take Burzynski's therapy, get your facts straight. You sound irrational when you say Gerson's therapy doesn't make sense and "that's not how the body works"? Allowing the body to cure itself naturally by strengthening the immune system is wacky, huh? But chemotherapy makes sense to you? Injecting a poison first derived from mustard gas in order to ruin the immune system is the correct way that the body works? Re; peach pits, really? That's your argument? Um, maybe that's something you enjoy munching on while collecting checks from the medical establishment for your work on Wikipedia (really, I'd love some transparency and accountability here, little hidden one. Give us a name.) but most of us avoid eating peach pits. Your points are so laughable, at this point I have assume you're just messing with me. So thanks for the laughs, pal! And if not, I only hope when you get a tumor the size of a peach pit, our little discussion will help you make the right decision. Good luck, you'll need it!