Cancer Anyone?

[WorldIndustries]

I've read most of the first book. It does make sense, but he CONSTANTLY refers to his site (ie; "to get remedies for this, go to my site!") which you have to PAY for.. There is truth to what he says, but I still don't think he's 100% there to help people out of his own expense.

 

[TheSlipknotFreak]

In his second book he gives the cures in the actual book this time. The first time around the FTC censored parts of his book saying "you cannot list brand names of products."

This is probably why he said to go on his site.

 

[motoxer4533]

In my book I mentioned that if you can't eat it you shouldn't put it on your skin. This is something that many people blow off as not that important or significant, but I want you to reevaluate this. Many of the products used in cosmetics, skin care, soaps, detergents, shampoos, etc. contain ingredients that are categorically cancer causing. here are a couple of examples. DEA, or diethanolamine. This particular ingredient has been found in over 600 home and personal care products. These products include shampoos, conditioners, bubble baths, lotions, cosmetics, soaps, laundry and dish washing detergents. It is just one of an estimated 125 ingredients used in home and personal care products that have been proven to cause cancer.


So does this mean that we should bath and wash ourselves with meat and shampoo our hair with milk?

 

[Apokalipse]

I have not been force fed anything. I read his book and came to my own conclusions.

as for calling people stupid...

I did no such thing.

I said he came across as stupid and I said it as such because you are right, I do not know him. But his post made it seem that way.

very close minded IMO.

Trotter pointed out exactly why he disagreed with your post. In response, you attacked Trotter directly without even mentioning his points or why you disagree with them.

The fact is, you have not given any objective evidence to demonstrate what you are saying is true.

I'm open to the fact that I might be wrong. But I won't abandon my viewpoint in favour of something some guy posted on the internet, when there is no scientific evidence backing it up.

*edit*

To whoever that person above that said this "article" was lacking any scientific proof, let me tell you this is NOT an article, it was taken directly out of the book and the book mind you is FULL of things to back of what Mr. Trudeau says.

That's a Red Herring.
Okay, so it's not an article. That doesn't somehow mean you shouldn't give evidence to back yourself up.

If there really is objective, verifiable evidence in favour of what you are saying, then please share it with us.

 

[TheSlipknotFreak]

Motoxer:

If you don't want to post something that is on a level slightly above idiotic, then please don't.

How disrespectful.

One of the main points of Trudeaus book, is to get people to use their brain when making descisions, apparently you missed that whole concept when you asked that question.

 

[TheSlipknotFreak]

Trotter pointed out exactly why he disagreed with your post. In response, you attacked Trotter directly without even mentioning his points or why you disagree with them.

The fact is, you have not given any objective evidence to demonstrate what you are saying is true.

Don't be a fool. I am not trying to proove anything to anyone. I simply shared what I read with the public and then YOU all attack me and treat me like I am some hoodoo witch doctor crazy man.

I am not trying to proove a **** thing to anyone, the proof exists soley in the book, if you so choose to believe it, which you don't have to.

wow one of the greatest concepts of literature and free thinking. YOU CAN CHOOSE!

and I chose to believe, so stop crawling up my ***.

I didnt ask any of you to believe me, I simply asked, that you listen to what Kevin has to say with an open mind and SUGGESTED you read his work and research before calling him a nut.

THAT is why I said trotter came off as stupid, because in spite of my SUGGESTIONS, he still wants to flame someone who has obviously put a lot more thought into all of this than him or I or any of the rest of us.

 

[Trotter]

I have already researched Mr Trudeau and his claims, and based my conclusions on that.

UV rays in sunlight can and do cause skin cancer, contrary to what you think. Sunlight is needed and required for life, but, like anything else, too much of a good thing is bad.

I can handle personal attacks, and can defend myself if need be. But I will not allow foul language. Please restrain yourself, slipknow.

 

[Nitestick]

"we are sicker today than ever before" Yeah, I don't buy that for a second. Length of life and standard of living are at a historical high. In 1850, people were living half as long as they are now

well yes and no. it is definitely true that life expectancy has increased greatly in pretty much every country, however i would agree that "we are sicker". see life expectancy has been increased artificially through medicine, though that does not mean people remain "in good health" for that life span.

other than that i think Trotter's first post is EXACTLY what i was going to say .

Quote:
Because the multinational conglomerates that own these companies want you to get cancer.
The article lost all credibility at that point. Using scare tactics is a definite red flag, and immediately showed the authors true colors.

Wile all natural ingredients can be better for you, not all man-made chemicals are bad for you. Painting the picture with a brush this wide skews the actual data and attempts to have you believe exactly what the author wants you to believe... whether it is actually true or not.

Funny how all these claims are made, but there is nothing there to back them up... no sources, no data.

Quote:
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined propylene glycol to be "generally recognized as safe" for use in food, cosmetics, and medicines. Like ethylene glycol, propylene glycol affects the body's chemistry by increasing the amount of acid. Propylene glycol is metabolized into lactic acid, which occurs naturally as muscles are exercised,
Coutesy of Wikipedia.

I call BS.

as far as i can tell neither ethylene nor propylene glycol have been shown to be carcinogenic. every page i've seen about propylene glycol as a danger looks like a load of crap. all they do is say propylene glycol is dangerous whilst providing no evidence other than to say it's a similar chemical to ethylene glycol and then prattle on about the effects of ethylene glycol instead. being chemically similar does not mean it will have the same effects on the body. i'm sure you could say oxygen gas (O2) is similar to carbon dioxide (CO2) gas but would you draw the conclusion it's harmful to breathe oxygen?

that is the major issue i have with this article. sounds like some crazy conspiracy theorist, who while superficially having a sound argument is underneath it all failing to make any evidentiary connections. e.g.

It is a colorless, viscous liquid used in antifreeze solutions and hydraulic fluids, and as a solvent. It is not only used in brake and hydraulic fluids, paints and coatings, floor wax, pet food, tobacco products, and laundry detergents,, but also in cosmetics, toothpastes, shampoos, deodorants, lotions, and processed foods. You will even find it in baby wipes. Check the labels, you will be amazed. This is why pets are getting more cancer than ever before.

ok, great. so we're told a bunch of things that propylene glycol is in. we're not told anything accurate about it's effects. what i have read is that it does have similar effects to ethylene glycol in that it raises acid levels in the body. however it takes very large dosages to have an effect. it is almost medically ignored with it not being tested for unless it's probably going to be an issue i.e someone decided they wanted to drink a glass of propylene glycol with breakfast instead of juice. furthermore both ethylene and propylene glycol are metabolised within a few hours of ingestion/absorbtion which conflicts with the statement that it builds up in the body.

the author further discredits himself with his assertations. "this is why this.........this is why that". it's not proven, anyone who states it as fact has an agenda.

*as an after thought*

TheSlipKnotFreak: don't construe this as me attacking you, i'm just pointing this out. the fact is this "evidence" only seems to exist, as you said

soley in the book

it's true, not everyone who disagrees with mainstream truths is wrong. however i can say with certainty they're not all right either. given that the "evidence" seems to disagree with both medical and scientific facts i am inclined to disregard it. personally i find that the author's attempts at stating completely unproven (if even tested) theories as fact are all too familiar.......

 

[TheSlipknotFreak]

It's Slipknot actually...

<_<

and I never suggested anyone just sit in the sun all day.

and I am sure that doing so could damage your skin, leading to cancer though I am not too sure about.

However it is known that since a lot of what kevin says the FDA and FTC want to debunk, and so they do put a lot of information out to do just that.

I will never trust the FDA or FTC in anything they say to be true. They are IMO greedy and money hungry.

and the pharm companies? Publicly traded companies. hey are concerned with one thing, making a profit.

 

[Apokalipse]

Don't be a fool. I am not trying to proove anything to anyone. I simply shared what I read with the public and then YOU all attack me and treat me like I am some hoodoo witch doctor crazy man.

I am not trying to proove a **** thing to anyone

then why did you post what you did?

the proof exists soley in the book, if you so choose to believe it, which you don't have to.

If the only evidence is a single book, then that is not strong enough evidence.

wow one of the greatest concepts of literature and free thinking. YOU CAN CHOOSE!

I know. And it's a good thing I can, too.

and I chose to believe, so stop crawling up my ***.

I'm not the one who posted this up.
If you choose to believe what you do, that's up to you. I won't lose any sleep over it.
I will, however, criticize new claims as per the scientific method.

If you make an extraordinary claim, don't be shocked that people will criticize it.

I didnt ask any of you to believe me, I simply asked, that you listen to what Kevin has to say with an open mind and SUGGESTED you read his work and research before calling him a nut.

You make an extraordinary claim, without giving evidence, and when it is criticized, you accuse us of not having an open mind?

Part of having an open mind is to criticize all new claims you encounter. Especially ones as extraordinary as this one.

THAT is why I said trotter came off as stupid

Yet you didn't address any of his points. He did make some valid ones.

because in spite of my SUGGESTIONS, he still wants to flame someone who has obviously put a lot more thought into all of this than him or I or any of the rest of us.

Trotter was not simply flaming him. He made valid points as to why he disagreed with your post.

How much thought you or anybody else has put into this is meaningless unless there is objective, verifiable evidence to back yourself up.

If you wish to continue supporting your opinion here, I ask that you present some, if there is any.