>Not only is cancer not caused by DNA damage, but safe and gentle natural medicine cancer treatments exist that can revert cancer cells into normal cells. This was first done in the 1930s, but the technology was shut down by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is essentially the "police force" of the ultra-wealthy and politically-connected drug companies.
> When you kill all of the microbes inside of a cancer cell, the cancer cell will revert into a normal cell because there is nothing to block the production of ATP energy. This is the ideal way to cure cancer because there are no dead cells and no debris from dead cells.
And another from the same website.
> Autism is caused by microbes (e.g. infections in the stomach) and/or metals, such as mercury. They are usually in the stomach, colon, gut, call it what you want. The source of the micobes is usually vaccinations, which will be discussed in the next section.
It's like a cesspit of misinformed medical garbage.
It's an interesting bit of human behaviour really. When faced with the knowledge that they are being besieged with malignant cells, people tend to try and find any material that gives some assurance and kind words. The booklets they give you in oncology aren't particularly reassuring, and I haven't even been more than on the slideline with them.
You can almost attribute the death of Steve Jobs to this sort of material. His form of pancreatic cancer was, according to his biography, quite treatable with conventional medicine. He instead went off the path and tried to combat it with diet and behaviour, and by the time it became too much for him, the window for conventional medicine was over.
So if we were to brand it "natural" chemotherapy, we could contest these Quacksalbers?
I'm actually serious about this. Marketing is powerful stuff, and leaving it in the hand of insane people isn't going to fix the problem we have with them.
I'm pretty sure you could get some of the best in the field onto it (after all, it's against cancer), and significantly cut into their target market, making business hell for them. I know it sounds equally crazy, but i think this issue calls for alternate solutions.
'Natural' products appeal to people who apparently have a distrust of technology, drug companies, etc. I think the notion of natural breakfast cereal, or natural processed products is hilarious to begin with (where exactly is this in nature?). I think if you label a product as natural it is pretty out of touch with the actual definition and intention of the word.
I'm not sure that I agree though that diluting the word natural is the best course of putting the hucksters out of business. We already have a lot of that, and people still buy into natural cures and food without any scientific backing whatsoever.
Perhaps we need more aggressive public education in skepticism and rational thinking?
Maybe. I think part of this fear of technology is scary is that is seems like magic to most people. And I believe that's partially caused by scientists not selling themselves properly. I'm actually glad they don't, because they are doing best. But here's the part where skilled marketers can do a lot of good.
The word natural is the only working homeopathic. The more you dilute it, the stronger it seems to become. Hell, there are "Natural Taste Malboros" out there, with their packaging resembling coarse brown paper. They aren't exactly healthier, are they?
Yes, more aggressive public education in skepticism and rational thinking will certainly help to an extent, but it's preaching to the reformed. For those children which have been indoctrinated by their parents that science isn't to be trusted, and that technology is trying to repress us? It'll just play into that narrative. Australia is withdrawing child benefits from people not vaccinating their children. How long do you think it will take till that's another selling point on those anti-vac sites?
> And I believe that's partially caused by scientists not selling themselves properly.
From a public relations perspective, yes, that makes sense. But from a professional perspective it's a non-starter, because scientists are trained to doubt everything, including their own work. Scientists who become boosters for science itself end up being shunned by other scientists -- witness Carl Sagan's inability to be inducted into the National Academy of Science, thought to result from his science popularization activities.
So don't count on scientists to be public science representatives or boosters -- it conflicts with scientific skepticism and objectivity, normally thought to be a "good thing".
Secret knowledge is appealing. If 99% of the sheeple are being duped by the puppet masters, the politicians, the corporate interests, the bankers, and you and you alone know the true shape of the world, then you are special, you are powerful, you are cleverer than everyone else.
Seems legit and not conspiratorial AT ALL.