THE DERAILING ROOM

[patrix]

What I have a problem with dear ICFreely, is your use of rhetorics. You voice opinions about Prof. Seyfried but I fail to see that any of them concern his actual research.

Now you did the classic hint and retract. Same rhetorical trick as the article I linked to before - I'm not judging Warburgs research on the claim he was a Nazi. I just point that out and let you do the judging.

You're not discrediting Seyfried. You just choose to point out his research is funded by this institute, while you avoid to say anything on the actual research even though you claim authority on medical knowledge."

I'm afraid I don't have time to write an essay here, but if you do have any factual criticism of Seyfrieds research I would appreciate to hear about it since I'm going to do a pod interview with him soon.

For example - Do you think his evidence against the gene theory of cancer is flawed in some way? Do you find problems with his findings that a calorie restricted ketogenic diet inhibits growth of cancer tumours? Even the supposedly incurable glioblastomas (brain cancer)?

And also so there can be no misunderstanding, which there might be anyway. I agree that vaccines, AIDS, Statins etc are hoaxes. And there are more sources than CF on that.

[ICfreely]

Cool Hand Luke (1967) - The Captain's speech "What we've got here is failure to communicate"

full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=452XjnaHr1A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=452XjnaHr1A

Dear patrix,

I think the thread was locked for good reason. Having said that, I owe you one final response.

What I have a problem with dear ICFreely, is your use of rhetorics. You voice opinions about Prof. Seyfried but I fail to see that any of them concern his actual research.

Fair enough.

Now you did the classic hint and retract. Same rhetorical trick as the article I linked to before - I'm not judging Warburgs research on the claim he was a Nazi. I just point that out and let you do the judging.

All apologies.

You're not discrediting Seyfried.

I agree. I'm not discrediting him.

You just choose to point out his research is funded by this institute…

Allow me to elaborate.

Cancer as a metabolic disease: implications for novel therapeutics

Carcinogenesis. 2014 Mar; 35(3): 515–527.
Published online 2013 Dec 16. doi: 10.1093/carcin/bgt480
PMCID: PMC3941741
PMID: 24343361

Thomas N. Seyfried,* Roberto E. Flores, Angela M. Poff, 1 and Dominic P. D’Agostino 1
Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer
This article has been cited by other articles in PMC.

Abstract

Emerging evidence indicates that cancer is primarily a metabolic disease involving disturbances in energy production through respiration and fermentation. The genomic instability observed in tumor cells and all other recognized hallmarks of cancer are considered downstream epiphenomena of the initial disturbance of cellular energy metabolism. The disturbances in tumor cell energy metabolism can be linked to abnormalities in the structure and function of the mitochondria. When viewed as a mitochondrial metabolic disease, the evolutionary theory of Lamarck can better explain cancer progression than can the evolutionary theory of Darwin. Cancer growth and progression can be managed following a whole body transition from fermentable metabolites, primarily glucose and glutamine, to respiratory metabolites, primarily ketone bodies. As each individual is a unique metabolic entity, personalization of metabolic therapy as a broad-based cancer treatment strategy will require fine-tuning to match the therapy to an individual’s unique physiology.
...

He seems to believe in the unscientific theory of evolution despite the lack of evidence/proof for such a phenomenon. This unfounded belief, more than any other, continues to lead medical research down so many blind alleys.

Implications for novel therapeutics
...
As each person is a unique metabolic entity, personalization of metabolic therapy as a broad-based cancer treatment strategy will require fine-tuning based on an understanding of individual human physiology. Also, personalized molecular therapies developed through the genome projects could be useful in targeting and killing those tumor cells that might survive the non-toxic whole body metabolic therapy.

You may consider asking him if he believes:

1) In the “central dogma.”
2) In the efficacy of chemotherapy.
3) In the legitimacy of the Human Genome Project.

The number of molecular targets should be less in a few survivor cells of a small tumor than in a heterogeneous cell population of a large tumor. We would therefore consider personalized molecular therapy as a final strategy rather than as an initial strategy for cancer management. Non-toxic metabolic therapy should become the future of cancer treatment if the goal is to manage the disease without harming the patient. Although it will be important for researchers to elucidate the mechanistic minutia responsible for the therapeutic benefits, this should not impede an immediate application of this therapeutic strategy for cancer management or prevention.

You also may consider asking him:

1) What his definition of “personalized molecular therapy” is. Genetic therapy?
2) What his “initial strategy for cancer management” is? Surgery/radiation/chemotherapy?

Funding

National Institutes of Health (HD-39722;, NS-55195;, CA-102135); American Institute of Cancer Research; the Boston College Expense Fund (to T.N.S.); Scivation and Office of Naval Research (to D.P.D.).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3941741/

… while you avoid to say anything on the actual research even though you claim authority on medical knowledge."

If I gave you the impression that I’m an authority on medical knowledge, then I apologize. Rest assured I’m not an authority on any form of knowledge.

I'm afraid I don't have time to write an essay here, but if you do have any factual criticism of Seyfrieds research I would appreciate to hear about it since I'm going to do a pod interview with him soon.

I don’t have the time to write an essay either.

For example - Do you think his evidence against the gene theory of cancer is flawed in some way?

His so called evidence against the gene theory of cancer is irrelevant. The gene theory (genetic determinism), in and of itself, is flawed period. I alluded to it almost four years ago here:

Bruce Lipton – The Biology of Belief
Bruce Lipton, The Biology of Belief, Fall 2009. (San Francisco State University: SFSU Speaker
Archives. http://www.sfsu.edu/~holistic/Welcome.html (accessed 01, 10, 2014).
...
Francis Crick comes up with what is called the Central Dogma - this is what it’s called in a textbook.
In science, what does it say?
...
Okay so why is it relevant?
You’re taught that, and listen to what it’s called in the book – The Central Dogma
And you say “What does that mean? So what?
I go “Nah uh, I taught it for 15 years and I never looked up the world ‘Dogma’”
When I left the university I looked up the word dogma and I was completely blown away for several reasons!
Here’s the definition of dogma!
A truth, based on religious persuasion, and not scientific fact.
I was teaching religion in medical school for 15 years.
And the reality is why?
Because that belief that you read about and have heard about and is published 1958 – was never true.
It was a hypothesis!
You say “What does that mean?”
I say “It was a suggestion!”
...
But guess what?
Over 40 years, we let go of the fact that it was only a hypothesis and never tested and made into a truth
It’s weird, it’s the truth!
So we accepted something that wasn’t true and is actually religious belief that you are programmed by your DNA
...
In a world where the whole damn thing is built on genetic regulation and I’m telling you the truth
Genes do not control who you are
But the problem with that is that we bought into it
And we made a model that’s called a medical model of health
And what is it?
You are a biochemical machine, and you’re controlled by genes
And you go what does all that end up?
Well I say there’s nothing spiritual about you number one,
Number two, you’re a mechanism made out of chemistry
Number three, you’re controlled by your genes
Relevance?
If you’re broken, it has nothing to do with you
But you need somebody to fix you
And the relevance comes to this:
The story as illustrated in a couple of Life magazine right here
It says “Were you born this way?”
And why is it relevant?
Because it is a belief in something called genetic determinism that you were programmed with
They still read about it in the newspapers today
“A gene has been found to have been associated with this, and a gene has been found to control this”
...
I don’t do it, I’m a machine!
Uh, basically what the concept is
You believe you’re a victim
And then you’re not just a victim of things on the outside of you
We get you to believe that your own selves are trying to terrorize you
That even inside your body there’s a war going on and the cells are trying to take over and kill you
You become this victim and everything you need is protection
And you buy it
...
Because as long as you buy that you’re a victim
Then you bought that somebody has to save you in this process and it costs money
And that’s what the whole healthcare crisis is all about
And it’s interesting because if there’s not enough new diseases, they make them up every week


http://www.sfsu.edu/~holistic/documents/biology(2)-1.pdf
https://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1487&hilit=dna+technology#p2394251

And when Seneca asked for clarification, this was my response:

I specifically chose Lipton’s lecture because he explains in layman’s terms the DNA---> mRNA ‘Central Dogma’ fallacy & its psychological ramifications on people who believe it. I agree with that portion of his lecture. I also specifically chose that poison-ivy league’s findings to demonstrate that even though they half-heartedly acknowledge their high priest’s dogma is incorrect they, in true elitist fashion, blame the mRNA for making ‘mistakes.’ In reality it is Crick’s faithful followers who are mistaken. Ideally when a hypothesis is falsified you toss it aside & move on. This helps narrow the field & advance the cause. However, if you maintain blind faith in a falsified hypothesis you regress. There should be no room in science for dogmatism. It’s revolting! But we all swim in the same waters. Every aspect of society is corrupt & science is no different.

Lipton’s blueprint-building analogy is right on. Blueprints don’t build. Contractors build & their choice of building materials makes a big difference. In other words, you are what you eat. You can actively participate in your own well being. You can make the most of what you’ve been given. Moreover you’re not just a building/machine, you’re a living soul. How you feel & what you believe has a tremendous impact on you. “Your genes control you & it’s out of your hands” is tantamount to “It’s God’s will.” Either way you become a passive follower of a shepherd who will lead you to slaughter. The current trend towards genetic therapy quackery is based on Crick’s dogma. They will produce an endless stream of ‘treatments’ with ‘side’ effects to ‘correct’ genetic ‘mistakes.’ That’s why the central dogma is still taught!

Lipton is also absolutely right about the fallacy of the nucleus being the control center (brain) of the cell. The brain is the control center of the body. If you remove the brain the body immediately dies. However, if you remove a nucleus from a cell the cell continues to live & function normally. The only difference is that it cannot replicate! Therefore the nucleus a) IS NOT the control center (brain) of the cell and b) IS the reproductive center (gonad) of the cell. This is not a theory; it’s a demonstrable & repeatable fact. It’s old news. Despite this fact they still teach the ‘nucleus is the control center of the cell’ bullshit to this day. Why? Because it lends credence to Crick’s dogma – Genetic Determinism!

I part ways with Lipton on evolution. Natural selection is obvious. So is adaptation. ‘Survival of the fittest’ is tautological nonsense. ‘Transmutation of species’ is an absolute falsehood. It’s not a matter of a missing link – it’s a missing chain. We haven’t been able to find evidence let alone prove any species has transmuted/evolved into any other species. Evolution is a religion.

I don’t fully endorse anyone to anyone. We’re all unique & what works for one person may not work for another. The only thing I suggest is for people to think for themselves & make informed decisions. I have hundreds of sources that I’d be more than glad to share with anyone. I don’t think this is the appropriate thread to do so. IMHO nature heals & allopathic treatment is useful only in emergency situations. My line of thought is similar to Dr. Stewart's.

Dr. David Stewart, Ph.D.
http://www.thewholedog.org/WhyEssentialOilsHealandDrugsDont.pdf

https://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1487&hilit=dna+technology#p2394374

I also provided excerpts from an article which explained (in layman’s terms) the fallacy of the Human Genome Project here:

Unraveling The DNA Myth: The Spurious Foundation of Genetic Engineering

BARRY COMMONER / Harper's Magazine Feb02

The wonders of genetic science are all founded on the discovery of the DNA double helix-by Francis Crick and James Watson in 1953-and they proceed from the premise that this molecular structure is the exclusive agent of inheritance in all living things: in the kingdom of molecular genetics, the DNA gene is absolute monarch. Known to molecular biologists as the "central dogma," the premise assumes that an organism's genome-its total complement of DNA genes---should fully account for its characteristic assemblage of inherited traits. The premise, unhappily, is false.

Guided by Crick's theory, the Human Genome Project was intended to identify and enumerate all of the genes in the human body by working out the sequence of the three billion nucleotides in human DNA. In 1990, James Watson described the Human Genome Project as "the ultimate description of life."

the conclusion—troublesome as it is that the project's planners knew in advance that the mismatch between the numbers of genes and proteins in the human genome was to be expected, and that the $3 billion project could not be justified by the extravagant claims that the genome—or perhaps God speaking through it would tell us who we are.

Scientific theories are meant to be falsifiable; this is precisely what makes them scientific theories. The central dogma has been immune to this process. Divergent evidence is duly reported and, often enough, generates intense research, but its clash with the governing theory is almost never noted.

Because of their commitment to an obsolete theory, most molecular biologists operate under the assumption that DNA is the secret of life, whereas the careful observation of the hierarchy of living processes strongly suggests that it is the other way around: DNA did not create life; life created DNA.

We must be willing to recognize how little we truly understand about the secrets of the cell, the fundamental unit of life.

Why, then, has the central dogma continued to stand? To some degree die theory has been protected from criticism by a device more common to religion than science: dissent, or merely the discovery of a discordant fact, is a punishable offense, a heresy that might easily lead to professional ostracism. Much of this bias can be attributed to institutional inertia, a failure of rigor, but there are other, more insidious, reasons why molecular geneticists might be satisfied with the status quo; the central dogma has given them such a satisfying, seductively simplistic explanation of heredity that it seemed sacrilegious to entertain doubts. The central dogma was simply too good not to be true.

http://www.mindfully.org/GE/GE4/DNA-Myth-CommonerFeb02.htm

https://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=1487&p=2399460&hilit=dna+technology#p2394436

IMO, the basic premises of Seyfried's research discredit his work. I have nothing against the man.

Do you find problems with his findings that a calorie restricted ketogenic diet inhibits growth of cancer tumours?

In all honesty I don’t know whether is does or doesn’t. Either way, it's a moot point because I don't think the inhibition of "cancer tumors" is necessary to begin with.

About ten years ago, as a supplement to my workout regiment, I tried the ketogenic diet to “get chiseled.” Within a month I started experiencing severe headaches and kidney pain. Suffice to say, I found it to be very unhealthy for me.

Even the supposedly incurable glioblastomas (brain cancer)?

Again, I don’t agree with the premise of your questions. I don’t think a “cancer tumor” is something that needs to be cured managed or treated. Its presence (like acne or swelling) is an indication of the body’s healing process.

So long as people fear it there will be people coming up with new ways of treating and managing "cancer."

And also so there can be no misunderstanding, which there might be anyway. I agree that vaccines, AIDS, Statins etc are hoaxes. And there are more sources than CF on that.

When we first discussed vaccines last month you seemed to be on the fence as to whether or not they were beneficial/harmful. If I recall, you were more concerned with "controlled studies" not having been performed. But you now boldly state that they are a hoax. I wonder how you came to that conclusion.

I wish you all the best in your pursuit, patrix, but I see no reason to carry this conversation 0n anymore. Let's just agree to disagree and leave it be once and for all.

Best regards,
IC

[patrix]

ICfreely wrote:

The gene theory (genetic determinism), in and of itself, is flawed period. I alluded to it almost four years ago here:

That may be so. I haven't had time look into it enough to have an opinion.

His so called evidence against the gene theory of cancer is irrelevant.

Oh really? Here we go again. This is the rhetoric/argument "I deny the results of a controlled experiment because I claim the premises it is based on are wrong (without proving this). Redefine the rules if you can't make a case with the present ones.

But I'll humor you and translate this to something you would be able to criticize if you wanted to:

The medical/biological community thinks that something inside the cell core/nucleus, they choose to call this genetic material or DNA, controls how cells behave and multiply. They believe this because they have performed great many experiments were they for example have replaced the nucleus in cells and observed that the cell behaves differently because of it.

Now what Seyfried have shown is that if you take the nucleus of a healthy and a cancerous cell and swap them, their behavior does not change. And what he's proven with this and a pile of other historical research that supports this, is that the cause of cancer can not be related to the cell nucleous.

So Dear ICfreely, you have now pointed out that you don't think that the gene paradigm is correct, so let me rephrase - It has been observed that cells change their behavior in certain ways if you replace their nucleus. This is not the case when it comes to if a cell is cancerous or not, as Seyfried have shown. And since this is the current paradigm (that something within the cell nucleus determines if a cell is cancerous), I would say this is a pretty significant discovery that is indeed relevant when it comes to cancer research and treatments. Do you agree or disagree with that?

And I would appreciate if you didn't write "an essay". I really don't see why that is necessary. I asked for criticism on Seyfrieds research. So far you have provided none but you are welcome to. Let's not dwell on other medical related matters for now since we're not supposed to.

Edit:

You may consider asking him if he believes:
1) In the “central dogma.”
2) In the efficacy of chemotherapy.

Dear ICfreely. This is really sad/disappointing/embarrassing. This indicates you don't seem to know/have looked into any of Seyfrieds research. So why do you offer opinions?







full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiiWjE0OhB4

[ICfreely]

That may be so. I haven't had time look into it enough to have an opinion.

Say no more, kind sir, say no more.

Dear ICfreely. This is really sad/disappointing/embarrassing.

Agreed. Take care, patrix.

[ICfreely]

I asked for criticism on Seyfrieds research. So far you have provided none but you are welcome to.

Be careful what you ask for, dear patrix.

I highly suggest you click the link and read the following article in its entirety in order to gain a bit of historical perspective.

Dr. Gonzalez Dismantles the Ketogenic Diet For Cancer
...
So, what evidence does Dr. Seyfried himself provide to prove his point that the best diet for all cancer patients, whatever the type, is the ketogenic, high fat, no carb diet? Well, very little. Certainly the 400 plus pages of elaborate biochemistry and theory are impressive and informative. But in terms of practicalities, that is, results with actual human patients diagnosed with cancer, there is next to no evidence.

Dr. Seyfried does include a chapter toward the book’s end entitled “Case Studies and Personal Experiences in using the Ketogenic Diet for Cancer Management.” Here, Dr. Seyfried provides a description of a pilot study, written by the investigators themselves, discussing the use of the ketogenic diet in children with inoperable brain cancer. However, the authors admit the study was intended only to evaluate the diet’s tolerability and effect on glucose metabolism as determined by PET scanning, not treatment benefit or survival.

As the authors write, “the protocol was not designed to reverse tumor growth or treat specific types of cancer.” The researchers also acknowledge the patient numbers were too small to allow for meaningful statistical evaluation, even for the avowed purposes. Overall, the discussion centers on the practicalities of implementing the diet and the results of the PET scans.[/b
...
-Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez, MD

This article originally appeared on Natural Health 365.

https://www.chrisbeatcancer.com/dr-gonzalez-dismantles-ketogenic-diet-for-cancer/

[patrix]

Dear ICfreely. For readability purposes I've taken the liberty to edit out most of the article above from the chatbox. I left your highlighted sections and the article is of course readable in its entirety at the link provided.

I think it will suffice to say we have different opinions here and also different ways of forming them.

All the best /Patrik

[ICfreely]

I think it will suffice to say we have different opinions here and also different ways of forming them.

Absolutely. Reasonable people can agree to disagree, dear patrix.

But I wonder if you took the time to actually read the article in its entirety and what, if anything, you took away from it. After all you specifically asked for criticism on Seyfried's research, did you not? If your goal is to help CF's readership make the best possible health related decisions for themselves and their loved ones, then I'd like to believe that you're open to criticism. I hope you haven't canonized St. Seyfried to such an extent that, in light of new evidence, you still maintain blind allegiance to his "controlled studies." What's more important to you, dear patrix; relentlessly advocating for a medical guru of your choice or slowly but surely exposing the false authority of allopathic absolutism?

[patrix]

But I wonder if you took the time to actually read the article in its entirety and what, if anything, you took away from it.

Dear ICfreely, I mean really? Really? You blatantly displayed before that you in essence had no clue about Seyfrieds research, yet you were criticizing him.

My take away is this. People are value based. We have a set of values and we look for things that correlate with those values, and we disregard the facts that don't. Logic and reason does not have much say in this process, as we are all very familiar with on this forum. If we have a set of values that include that it is not possible that global media could be controlled, and that those who control it could lie to us about anything, then it doesn't matter how much logically irrefutable evidence there is that disproves this idea. People won't look at it and if they do they won't see what it says.

Now, one value that seems deeply entrenched in many people is that vegetarian/vegan/plant based foods are "good" and that animal based foods are "bad". There are variations but it mostly boils down to that it is morally wrong to keep animals captive to kill and eat them. This in turn makes a person with these values to look for things that correlate with them. They will see and read claims that vegetarian/vegan diets are healthy and they will disregard anything that indicates that animal based foods are essential to humans.

So if a researcher comes along with evidence that glucose, the main energy we can get from plants, is promoting or rather feeding cancer, this will be disregarded. Similarly will research that shows that a too low intake of animal fats and protein can lead to the plethora of so called western diseases like obesity, diabetes, dementia and of course cancer, be disregarded.

This is no different from the average Joe that sees the video of the plane melting into WTC, but is incapable of understanding that this is irrefutable evidence that the images aired as news on 9/11 could not have been real.

And just as Joe will label anyone claiming this a conspiracy nut, a person with "the plant based values" will discredit anyone promoting something that goes against his/her values.

And I think these values "The camera doesn't lie", "It is wrong to eat animals", have been intentionally socially engineered into us for a very long time by no other than the Nutworkers.

That is my take on that. And it just so happens that we interviewed Professor Seyfried the other day on our Swedish podcast. The hosts English could be better, but the guest is flawless. I like Boston accent, even though JFK was most likely a Nutworker.
https://www.spreaker.com/user/10042798/ ... thomas-n-s

And there's probably a lot in this pod that can be brought out of context and twisted, but the main message is this - Yes cancer is not correctly understood by today's medicine and therefore the treatments are wrong. This I think we agree on. Our differences begin when I claim that Prof. Seyfried is the person who best understands what cancer actually is and therefore how to treat it. And this is key. Because just as with 9/11 it's not only important to understand that we are fooled, but how.

All the best /Patrik

[ICfreely]

But I wonder if you took the time to actually read the article in its entirety and what, if anything, you took away from it.

I’ll take that as a big “NO” and “Nothing.” How sad.

Dear ICfreely, I mean really? Really? You blatantly displayed before that you in essence had no clue about Seyfrieds research, yet you were criticizing him.

Good Lord, patrix. You have no clue how many cancer diet protocols (ketogenic included) of academic researchers I’ve delved through over the last 20 years. I’ve noticed patterns, sir. I don’t need to read his 400 page book to know his research will lead to a dead end. Controlled lab rat experiments (limited in scope no less) have no value to human life. Really!

Really, what tangible results have all his experiments yielded in terms of improving the lives of actual people?

Forget me. What about the specific criticism of Seyfried’s work (that you so passionately sought) brought forth by Dr. Gonzalez?

Now, one value that seems deeply entrenched in many people is that vegetarian/vegan/plant based foods are "good" and that animal based foods are "bad".

I have no interest in partaking in the dueling diet dogma debate, dear patrix. That's what derailed the "Engineering Disease" thread.

So if a researcher comes along with evidence that glucose, the main energy we can get from plants, is promoting or rather feeding cancer, this will be disregarded.

I don't think he's being disregarded. You yourself admitted that a growing number of people in the alternative cancer treatment arena are following his protocol.

1) He’s hardly the first person to form this hypothesis (Atkins version 2.0).

2) Where’s the so called evidence you speak of? Lab rat experiments and a diet protocol that he himself admits “…was not designed to reverse tumor growth or treat specific types of cancer.”?

3) Where’s the beef?

This is no different from the average Joe that sees the video of the plane melting into WTC, but is incapable of understanding that this is irrefutable evidence that the images aired as news on 9/11 could not have been real.

I’m glad you brought that up. I think we can both agree that Simon’s unparalleled 9/11 research was truly ground-breaking. I may be wrong but I highly doubt that he read the 9/11 commission report cover to cover in order to get to the truth. If you held him to the same standards that you’re holding me to, then you’d disregard his research for him not having any interest in reading the report.

That is my take on that. And it just so happens that we interviewed Professor Seyfried the other day on our Swedish podcast. The hosts English could be better, but the guest is flawless.

All praise be to the infallible St. Seyfried.

You see, my dear patrix, you’ve already come to the conclusion that Seyfried has solved the “cancer riddle” and nothing will ever change your mind or compel you to reconsider your stance thereby broadening you horizons. It’s sad to see you will most likely remain stuck in the “glucose-cancer” paradigm in perpetuity, dear patrix.

Dr. Seyfried's research was definitely worthy of a mention in the aforementioned thread. But to dedicate 20+ pages arguing about and zealously defending his work was unwise, IMHO.


Diagnostic method: Seyfriedoscopy

Diagnosis: Terminal Seyfriedosis

Recommended course of treatment: Thomasectomy

Diet restrictions: Avoid conflating controlled lab rat experiment results with the improvement of human health.

Diet protocol: Historical perspective!


We've obviously reached an impasse, my good sir. All the best to you as well, dear patrix.

[Quift]

It is sad to see that you stopped this discussion in its tracks, as this is onw of the major parts of the magical ritual known as 911.

The numerology is of course only one aspect of this work, with astrology (the twins setting (falling of the horizon), in perfect synch with the two twin towers, in perfect opposition with Pluto, planet of death, destruction and beginnigs), tarot symbolism (major arcana 18, the towers, with the jumpers), and all of this on the first day of the new millenium in the ancient Coptic calendar, which of course has its uses in most hermetic traditions, given the bkrthplace of the western magical tradition (the pyramids are not only pretty).

It takes quite a lot of knowledge of esoteric subjecta and the western esoteric tradition, with its blend of astrology, numerology, kabbalah, freemasonry, liturgy, and ritual magic to decode all thelements, but for most mages, 911 is an obvious magical ritual.

As all the fakery you guys are exposing. It is all ritual. It is a "reality set". All of it relies on symbolism, liturgy, mass hypnosis, and the manipulation of consciousness, which is the primary force of our reality (as shown in lab experiments, double slits just being the starting point, if anyone here still clings to materialism that is a just another veil, another trick).

A good source for the more occult aspects of this event. With basic primers on esoteric philosophy from someone who isn't a frothing christian, nor a new age apologist.

911
https://youtu.be/DwVNI8OTDZA

Introduction into esoteric philosophy
https://youtu.be/0f_VwL4CSiQ
https://youtu.be/Qw49e0FKMYM

The occult symbolism behind the jfk assassination
https://youtu.be/6OicQm70JKY

Staged rituals and ritual initiations (what the 911 ritual seems to have been)
https://youtu.be/fV4uZY4Eq2Q

And for a deeper dive (this is an area of study that requires lifetimes to master. Alchemy is the royal art, dipping your toes is work. It is not for nothing that it is called "the great work", the magnum opus.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... 4llPYBhc9j

[Quift]

Probably best to stick with calling them con-artists or tricksters because they use trickery and deception to persuade and control the masses.

Even though what you're saying about the definition "black magic" may be true, you must understand that most people do not view it that way. Like Hoi Polloi said, we need to appeal to the common man's understanding to speak with them efficiently because honestly people will be immediately turned off by the thought of you suggesting they have magical powers and will COMPLETELY disregard everything you said even if what's said is true.

In a way it's like trying to use big, not well-known, words around friends and they're stuck trying to comprehend what the hell you meant when you could have used simpler wording.

Take the path of least resistance my friend

No.

The "it is a huge magic trick, played on you", is the truth. People need the truth, and not half truths.

Or is this supposed to be a half truth forum?

[SacredCowSlayer]

Probably best to stick with calling them con-artists or tricksters because they use trickery and deception to persuade and control the masses.

Even though what you're saying about the definition "black magic" may be true, you must understand that most people do not view it that way. Like Hoi Polloi said, we need to appeal to the common man's understanding to speak with them efficiently because honestly people will be immediately turned off by the thought of you suggesting they have magical powers and will COMPLETELY disregard everything you said even if what's said is true.

In a way it's like trying to use big, not well-known, words around friends and they're stuck trying to comprehend what the hell you meant when you could have used simpler wording.

Take the path of least resistance my friend

No.

The "it is a huge magic trick, played on you", is the truth. People need the truth, and not half truths.

Or is this supposed to be a half truth forum?

And,

It is sad to see that you stopped this discussion in its tracks, as this is onw of the major parts of the magical ritual known as 911.

. . .

It takes quite a lot of knowledge of esoteric subjecta and the western esoteric tradition, with its blend of astrology, numerology, kabbalah, freemasonry, liturgy, and ritual magic to decode all thelements, but for most mages, 911 is an obvious magical ritual.

. . .

With basic primers on esoteric philosophy from someone who isn't a frothing christian, nor a new age apologist.

[bold inserted by SCS for emphasis]

Dear Quift,

That’s quite a leap to suggest this forum is about half truths. And it’s unnecessarily antagonistic. I smell trouble brewing here. Moreover, your use of “[i]t is sad,” quoted above, stands out to me as strange. If it had been “stopped. . . in its tracks,” rest assured you wouldn’t be able to post on this topic.

If/when you have something to add, well. . . just say it. No need to bemoan the things expressed by those who have been here a long time. It’s not like we asked you to search our forum for the things you find “sad,” so you can go about setting us straight. You asked to join. Remember?

Also, regardless of the religion, we don’t permit the outright disparagement of people such as your wildly throwing out the phrase “frothing christian.” That is also unnecessarily provocative. I doubt there is a type of forum disruption (deliberate or not) that I’m unfamiliar with at this point, and you are dinging the flag poles pretty quickly here.

I’m going to place you back in the “newly registered users” group for now. Perhaps I activated your account prematurely. There is a certain decorum here that appears to be lost on you.

Come on back to the initial “Introduce Yourself to the Administrators” topic, and let’s take it from there.

Sincerely,

[ICfreely]

Dear CF readers, contributors, and admins,

As I'm starting to follow the trails of Simons astronomical research, I find many interesting things. I am however reluctant to clutter up Simon's Tychos threads with them. Would it be a good idea if we set up a separate thread where astronomy in general could be discussed?
...
I can imagine something like this has transpired historically regarding the big questions in astronomy along with man's increased knowledge and improved tools for observations and experiments:
...

Dear patrix,

No offense but seeing as how our discussions went in the "Engineering Disease" thread, I don't think you & I would be helping Simon in such an endeavor.

Speaking only for myself, I don't think it would be fair for me to comment on Simon's Tychos without reading it in its entirety first (BTW, thank you very much for your generous offer, dear Simon. I plan on taking you up on it when I have the time to do so.). Generally speaking, I agree with you that peering into this (or any other) topic from a historical perspective may be advantageous.

I know that Simon's received a lot of heat from all fronts for his efforts. All I can say is, "What a bunch of ingrates!"

If it weren't for his "September Clues" and the efforts of the founders of CF this forum (and all the valuable collaborative research it contains) wouldn't exist in the first place. How about cutting him some slack and showing some gratitude, people?

[patrix]

But I wonder if you took the time to actually read the article in its entirety and what, if anything, you took away from it.

Good Lord, patrix. You have no clue how many cancer diet protocols (ketogenic included) of academic researchers I’ve delved through over the last 20 years. I’ve noticed patterns, sir. I don’t need to read his 400 page book to know his research will lead to a dead end.Diagnostic method: Seyfriedoscopy

Diagnosis: Terminal Seyfriedosis

Recommended course of treatment: Thomasectomy

Diet restrictions: Avoid conflating controlled lab rat experiment results with the improvement of human health.

Diet protocol: Historical perspective!


We've obviously reached an impasse, my good sir. All the best to you as well, dear patrix.

Dear ICfreely,
You've spent much effort now discrediting both me and Prof. Seyfried. I really think you are overdoing this "Nothing to see here, move along" maneuver :-)
I hope this will lead to the Streisand Effect among our readers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect)
The field of medicine, has been littered with disinformation for many decades now, and it's hard, also for me many times, to see which is which. But as time passes, things become clearer just as with 9/11.

I find Seyfrieds research impeccable (to the extent that I understand it) and he clearly proves that the ruling cancer paradigm is wrong, but more importantly also shows how cancer forms and grows. And this is of course key for developing effective treatments.

Bottom line: Too few animal products , fats in particular, in combination with too much carbohydrates, vegetable oils and additives in your diet can lead to toxification and malnutrition that will manifest itself as disease, for example cancer. And the key to get well is to fast and rest, as this puts our body in "detoxification mode", and then stay on a ketogenic (fat rich) diet for as long as necessary (since this keeps our body in that state).

Edit: A good article that summarizes the state of most of nutritional research today https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... -need-know

[ICfreely]

The field of medicine, has been littered with disinformation for many decades now, and it's hard, also for me many times, to see which is which. But as time passes, things become clearer just as with 9/11.

Give it some time, dear patrix, and you will eventually come to realize that everything I did was for your own good. Time is on my side and soon you will learn how to catch this pebble from my palm, grasshoppa.

I am going to kindly request that this topic be dropped for now. If it (i.e. “Engineering Disease”) was still open for discussion, then the topic wouldn’t be locked. And we aren’t going to unlock it simply because Admin action was IGNORED in the Chatbox. That’s not how this works.

Say no more, dear SCS. I trust your judgment in toto. Mum’s the word.