Are instincts a program or a developed coincidence

pitabread said:

I'm asking if you are able to identify and explain the factual inaccuracies you claim exist in PsychoSarah's post. And rather than actually explain any, you are being evasive and ridiculous in your responses.

Thus, I can only conclude that you are unable to identify any such factual inaccuracies and are instead playing silly games.

(Curiously though you're not the first person today who has engaged in this sort of behavior when I've attempted to engage them on a topic.)

Click to expand...

You're an agnostic , right?

What does that label mean to you ?

To me it means you have your own 'reality' ..... how much or how little, I don't know at all....

yeshuaslavejeff said:

The Evolution of Imprint Identification
"History of Imprint-Code Regulations

Prior to 1995, there were no federal regulations addressing imprint data on solid oral-dosage forms of prescription drug products."

Click to expand...

-_- then you haven't been a pharmacist since before I was born and thus your previous career, if any, has long ceased to grant you any authority on the matter.
Also, you never noticed drugs from other states? " Approximately 23 states had existing state laws requiring the imprinting of prescription drugs."

You just keep missing the boat don't you !?
I rejected all "authority" opposed to Yahweh. When I left the evil system, I noted to others "all they do is lie", and didn't know that millions of others already knew that - NO ONE had told me before - I thought (totally deceived by all concerning that) that it would be a great job to have ...... there was nothing to hold me back before I found out ......
the Truth.

Do you want to know the Truth ?

PsychoSarah said:

then you haven't been a pharmacist since before I was born and thus your previous career, if any, has long ceased to grant you any authority on the matter.
Also, you never noticed drugs from other states? " Approximately 23 states had existing state laws requiring the imprinting of prescription drugs."

Click to expand...

yeshuaslavejeff said:

You just keep missing the boat don't you !?
I rejected all "authority" opposed to Yahweh. When I left the evil system, I noted to others "all they do is lie", and didn't know that millions of others already knew that - NO ONE had told me before - I thought (totally deceived by all concerning that) that it would be a great job to have ...... there was nothing to hold me back before I found out ......
the Truth.

Do you want to know the Truth ?

Click to expand...

The truth that I have taken more chemistry courses than you have, and that you've decided to ignore my comment that if you were ever a pharmacist that you haven't been one since before I was born? Because that's the truth I am getting from you right now.

You have only claimed that what I have said is false about amygdalin without any sources, without any logical argument. I have no idea why you would want to push poison as a painless panacea, but I will not stand for it. Just like I won't stand for baking soda or coffee edemas as a treatment for cancer. These things hurt the people they are supposedly going to help.

Look, I even found a clinic (an alternative medicine one) that uses it, since they think it may help reduce cancer resistance to other forms of chemotherapy, and they STILL acknowledge the cyanide and the reasons other institutions don't use it Laetrile Cancer Therapy | Oasis of Hope Hospital

You need to pay attention to your fellow woo sellers.

PsychoSarah said:

You have only claimed that what I have said is false about amygdalin without any sources, without any logical argument. I have no idea why you would want to push poison as a painless panacea, but I will not stand for it.

Click to expand...

You just took someone's word for it, when the older pharceutical references all called amygdalin NON-TOXIC, and it has been proven non-toxic more times than there are days in your life. You are so 'young' I almost feel sorry for you, and the mess the world has been in since before you were born and all of your life....

Anyway, you still might be able to unravel the tangled web you got thrown into if you can find a pharmaceutical reference book published before 1940 and not edited (obviously). You would also be SURPRISED if not absolutely SHOCKED to find out the same thing about several vitamins that were always non-toxic until doctors and scientists and researchers found out how good they were and how useful....
Again, all it takes is LOOKING IN THOSE OLDER BOOKS, before they were "censored". That's the older OFFICIAL MEDICA and so forth - by the governmentally recognized offical authorities .....

Just find them and look - and don't stop then.... rest a while.... take your time.... this upsets your whole life, I know....... (apparently you haven't been willing to really do the necessary "due diligence" / study and research before today)

Yes, the whole system you trust in ..... is dangerous.

Still, FIND an honest licensed doctor for yourself, your family, and your friends.
Honest doctors are good resources and will be invaluable to you in the future.
LISTEN to them, and DO what they say , and you will be okay, or at least as good as can be.

PsychoSarah said:

The truth that I have taken more chemistry courses than you have, and that you've decided to ignore my comment that if you were ever a pharmacist that you haven't been one since before I was born? Because that's the truth I am getting from you right now.

Click to expand...

BEFORE you were born, "Nutrition the Cancer Answer" summarized simple and gentle and whole-food sourced

immuno-therapy !!!!!!!!!!

that always worked better than synthetic or toxic approaches...

World wide 32 answers to cancer proven over hundreds of years ....
Published BEFORE you were born.... proven to work more often than other more profitable methods .... that you NEVER even had a hint about.... in honesty.

That was almost like me - I never had a hint about, until AFTER .... well, you know...

then they said "we only use what we can patent, and that's how it should be"....
it doesn't matter what works, what is inexpensive and what has no side effects.

we want the money, and think that is right. (WITH A STRAIGHT FACE THEY SAID THIS ! --- NO sign of any caring for people, no sign of any conscience - that was the most heart breaking )

PsychoSarah said:

These things hurt the people they are supposedly going to help.

Click to expand...

Do you know how "party-line" and sad that is ? And false.... keep looking .... reading..... you might not know enough to even know where to search (not so far anyway)...
and you might be like the others: "we want the money" .... but I pray it's not that way for you.....

yeshuaslavejeff said:

You just took someone's word for it, when the older pharceutical references all called amygdalin NON-TOXIC,

Click to expand...

Which you have never cited. Also, people used to think mercury and asbestos weren't toxic either, so past beliefs on the matter aren't really all that relevant, especially considering the fact that the stuff was considered too toxic for medicine by the 1920s. Laetrile/Amygdalin
I'm pretty sure that's from before either of us were born.

Laetrile, which was initially sold as a synthetic, "non-toxic" form wasn't available until the 1950s, so I have no idea why you tell me to look at sources from before the 1940s so much.

yeshuaslavejeff said:

and it has been proven non-toxic more times than there are days in your life.

Click to expand...

-_- even woo sources often don't claim that, and everything about the chemistry behind it says otherwise.

yeshuaslavejeff said:

You are so 'young' I almost feel sorry for you, and the mess the world has been in since before you were born and all of your life....

Click to expand...

-_- whose generation made it that way, hmm?

yeshuaslavejeff said:

Anyway, you still might be able to unravel the tangled web you got thrown into if you can find a pharmaceutical reference book published before 1940 and not edited (obviously).

Click to expand...

Of which you aren't naming. Seriously, cite your references old man.

yeshuaslavejeff said:

You would also be SURPRISED if not absolutely SHOCKED to find out the same thing about several vitamins that were always non-toxic until doctors and scientists and researchers found out how good they were and how useful....

Click to expand...

The whole vitamin B-17 woo is about the same age as me, so the fact that you call it a vitamin is a good indication that you learned about it AFTER you ceased to be a pharmacist if you ever even were one to begin with. It certainly

yeshuaslavejeff said:

Again, all it takes is LOOKING IN THOSE OLDER BOOKS, before they were "censored". That's the older OFFICIAL MEDICA and so forth - by the governmentally recognized offical authorities .....

Click to expand...

-_- dude, if the super racist taxonomy books remain uncensored, clearly people don't care about covering up embarrassing scientific mistakes of the past enough to bother.

yeshuaslavejeff said:

Just find them and look - and don't stop then.... rest a while.... take your time.... this upsets your whole life, I know....... (apparently you haven't been willing to really do the necessary "due diligence" / study and research before today)

Click to expand...

-_- I am not upset at the idea of it curing cancer, I am annoyed because it demonstrably isn't and you are clinging to it harder than you cling to your own religion.

yeshuaslavejeff said:

Yes, the whole system you trust in ..... is dangerous.

Still, FIND an honest licensed doctor for yourself, your family, and your friends.
Honest doctors are good resources and will be invaluable to you in the future.
LISTEN to them, and DO what they say , and you will be okay, or at least as good as can be.

Click to expand...

"Honest" woo peddlers.

PsychoSarah said:

Which you have never cited. Also, people used to think mercury and asbestos weren't toxic either, so past beliefs on the matter aren't really all that relevant, especially considering the fact that the stuff was considered too toxic for medicine by the 1920s. Laetrile/Amygdalin
I'm pretty sure that's from before either of us were born.

Click to expand...

Your link doesn't look at all like it is from before 1940.
Hopefully you can find the proper resource yourself, that you can verify first is trustworthy --- NOT "people used to think" but
the professional publications ...and NOT past beliefs, but (can't believe I'm saying this! ) SCIENCE at the time and earlier..

PsychoSarah said:

Laetrile, which was initially sold as a synthetic, "non-toxic" form wasn't available until the 1950s, so I have no idea why you tell me to look at sources from before the 1940s so much.

Click to expand...

I think I said amygdalin, but excuse me if I use the terms interchangeably on this forum. Or not. Check them all out, and if you ever do find the truth, you will be sure to let me know ?

PsychoSarah said:

even woo sources often don't claim that, and everything about the chemistry behind it says otherwise.

Click to expand...

Sorry , but that doesn't jive with good sources - not just the amazing succes that was accomplished before 1960, (and unknowingly in panama for centuries),
the so-called "chemistry" you refer to was not only a "little" slanted -
it was just like asking north korea to protect hawaii for the usa
then letting them set up their missiles there !
ie. the proverbial let the fox guard the chickens ! (see? or is that too long ago?)

PsychoSarah said:

-_- whose generation made it that way, hmm?

Click to expand...

GREAT QUESTION ! ..... WONDERFUL QUESTION ! You know it's true,
so searching for which generation made it that way makes a good next step , right ?

i.e. start with what you know already....

PsychoSarah said:

Of which you aren't naming. Seriously, cite your references old man.

Click to expand...

GOOD ! My grey hair finally has been recognized by someone, even if they aren't yet ..... showing respect for the elderly..... or for the wisdom of 'grey hair'

It was long ago since I had the physical books and the references (before computers almost.... at least before internet that is.... ) ... I picked them up at hospital and medical sales , or elsewhere with old editions (maybe a book store with used books?) ....

I'll cite some references later, Yahweh willing.....

PsychoSarah said:

The whole vitamin B-17 woo is about the same age as me, so the fact that you call it a vitamin is a good indication that you learned about it AFTER you ceased to be a pharmacist if you ever even were one to begin with.

Click to expand...

Actually I learned most about it , to start with, from an old pharmacist I used to work with named Jaffe. He was about 60 at the time, and was an active licensed pharmacist for about 40 years, in good standing, and had gone to Mexico for something..... and it worked in 3 to 6 weeks. A neighbor of his stayed in the usa for routine, standard treatment for the same thing, and died within six months from the treatment.

PsychoSarah said:

-_- dude, if the super racist taxonomy books remain uncensored, clearly people don't care about covering up embarrassing scientific mistakes of the past enough to bother.

Click to expand...

What ?

PsychoSarah said:

-_- I am not upset at the idea of it curing cancer, I am annoyed because it demonstrably isn't and you are clinging to it harder than you cling to your own religion.

Click to expand...

Not nearly ..... but you seem to miss the importance of all this....

I got to witness the tragedies (not usually "in person") in the 'education' and so forth , the tragedies of the deceptions of the corporations that never should have been foisted on the american public. Birth defects, seizures, sids, mental impairment (of many kinds), reproductive impairment (to put it most politely),

all from mal-practice of the manufaturers first, then the ... system./ providers....

PsychoSarah said:

"Honest" woo peddlers.

Click to expand...

Sadly, both the huge corporations, governments, and small business,
manufacturers of all kinds of products healthy and unhealthy,
have not been openly hones in a reliable way,
and greed is too often the reason why.

Finding the truth in a sea of pollution will not be easy for you. Not even from those who ought to be the "good guys" (but aren't)......

It wasn't easy for me. It will be many times more difficult for you.

pitabread said:

I suppose if one wanted to get really technical, the storage medium itself undergoes physical changes when one changes the software on a computer. In that sense, one could argue that "software" itself doesn't actually exist is a discrete sense.

Click to expand...

Sure. But then again, in analogy to living things, "installing a new os" would then rather be the equivalent of removing the hard drive and replacing it with another.

DogmaHunter said:

Sure. But then again, in analogy to living things, "installing a new os" would then rather be the equivalent of removing the hard drive and replacing it with another.

Click to expand...

Agreed. That analogy is apt.

yeshuaslavejeff said:

Sadly, both the huge corporations, governments, and small business,
manufacturers of all kinds of products healthy and unhealthy,
have not been openly hones in a reliable way,
and greed is too often the reason why.

Finding the truth in a sea of pollution will not be easy for you. Not even from those who ought to be the "good guys" (but aren't)......

It wasn't easy for me. It will be many times more difficult for you.

Click to expand...

Look dude, I have taken enough chemistry to easily recognize the presence of cyanide in a compound, I've shown it to you so many times. Do I need to draw the arrow pushing to show exactly how it breaks down to form hydrogen cyanide?

Also, my link doesn't look like it's from 1920? Of course it isn't, no link on the internet can be that old because the internet isn't nearly that old.

You have not once presented evidence that amygdalin treats or prevents cancer in any way, and you don't even seem like you are willing to acknowledge what the chemical structure of it is. You want your cancer cure and you want your conspiracy, but there isn't any. This is just a failed chemotherapy drug, no more and no less. Your denial will not change that. Your lack of sources certainly won't change that. Heck, you even made a point of suggesting that some of the before 1940s sources could have been tampered with such that even if I find old sources that disagree with your views, you can dismiss them as lies.

Can you even imagine how much people would be poisoning themselves if we only judged chemicals based on 1940s standards anyways? Mercury would still be played with by children for crying out loud.

There are tons of real life cases in which yes, people were dishonest about their products and long lasting negative consequences were a result. But your entire premise relies on this idea that pharmaceutical companies couldn't make money off of this, which simply is not true. They could have made money off of it in 1953 when it was first patented in pill form. Drugs need not be expensive to make for such companies to make an immense profit, and if they marketed it like the woo peddlers do, people wouldn't be consuming it just because they were ill. They'd be consuming it like a daily vitamin. You think 3-10 years of various cancer treatments would make them money? Try a lifetime of daily supplements that are super cheap to make and would always be in high demand with being able to essentially have a monopoly on it for 5 years with the possibility of extending that time.

Greed is the reason a pharmaceutical company WOULD sell a cure for cancer if they had it. Greed is the reason why some people claim drugs work when they actually don't, but there is nothing to gain by claiming a drug you made that does work doesn't. It entirely wastes all the money put into researching the drug in the first place.