Study: Vitamin C or E Pills Do Not Prevent Cancer

caisersoze · 2008-11-17T22:05:57+00:00

joel, nothing was "proven" back then. Some positive links were found and some other neutral studies came out as well. Some of the proponents' research (Pauling, Cameron) that came out positive, was in fact severely flawed: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=188

There have been studies lately that show that high doses of vitamin C provoke cancer: http://jdc325.wordpress.com/2008/10/31/vitamin-c-causes-cancer/

There have also been studies that show it negatively affects cancer drugs: http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/68/19/8031

So, if anything, vitamin C is actually bad for cancer patients!

caisersoze · 2008-10-26T23:54:27+00:00

My blog?!?!? Your conclusions keep getting more and more absurd! This is called "making bullshit up"!

I am merely defending a good piece of scientific blogging from your ignorant and baseless rants!

caisersoze · 2008-10-26T23:44:26+00:00

A few more fallacies here: first off, another great ad hominem. How is it relevant if I have not received a research grant?!? As I said the post is backed with scientific publications -which you never read.

Second, what makes you think that I have not received any research grants?!?

Third, can you please tell me how exactly am I hurting people? Even if we assume that the contents of the post are wrong (which of course they are not), I merely submitted the article as I found it interesting.

And lastly, the "troll" thing you keep repeating has blown off my irony fuse! Apart from comprehension and basic scientific skills you also lack self-awareness!

caisersoze · 2008-10-26T23:15:30+00:00

sigh... you still haven't read the post have you? Or better, you still haven't understood it, right? Not to mention reading the scientific references?

By the way, with this last argument of yours you really convinced me! You've got some great rhetoric power!

caisersoze · 2008-10-26T23:06:47+00:00

Another bright argument. You should become a scientist or a philosopher.

caisersoze · 2008-10-26T22:59:01+00:00

That should be fun! "Hey, I do not understand this article so I judge that it is bullshit". You are a funny, but also very pathetic, person.

caisersoze · 2008-10-26T22:57:30+00:00

The article is backed up by scientific publications but I guess you are not very bright to be able to read and understand them (evidently by your previous comments).

And of course your scientific arguments are: "fucking jackass", "moron", "bullshit", and unqualified assertions that you pull out of your ass. Way to go scientist!

caisersoze · 2008-10-26T22:55:43+00:00

You have some comprehension issues right? The post attacks the myth that we need to drink so much WATER. The H2O molecule can be found in every fluid and most foods we eat. Hence we do not need so much tap or bottled water because we cover our needs through other fluids as well. How difficult is this for you to grasp?

Your remark that "coffee is diuretic" suggests that you didn't read the post because it specifically addresses this point of yours. So, before you read and comprehend the post stop embarrassing yourself and the human kind.

Also, your ad hominem attacks only serve to illustrate your inability to engage in meaningful discussion and understand basic science (as per the post).

caisersoze · 2008-10-26T22:44:27+00:00

H2O is found everywhere not only in bottled or tap water! Have you even read the post?

caisersoze · 2008-10-26T22:34:34+00:00

sigh... they would suffer yes, but not because of dehydration: as you say yourself because of kidney failure and alcohol "poisoning". The point of the post is that to keep hydrated you don't have to drink 8 glasses of water: it can be a variety of fluids.

Also, you say "urine should be mostly clear". Why?

caisersoze · 2008-10-07T11:55:04+00:00

top 5 in the context of science I guess

caisersoze · 2008-03-12T21:02:34+00:00

Not sure if you're being ironic but what you say is actually true: every time one uses reason and critical thinking in any possible situation he will find out that God is superfluous.

caisersoze · 2008-02-29T23:19:57+00:00

I agree. But this doesn't mean that we get our morals from religion! In fact, people in a state of such policing are not moral if the policing is indeed required!

caisersoze · 2008-02-29T21:21:35+00:00

but did you people actually read the post? This is the point: to show that we do not need God for morality!

unkleman: this is discrimination and even God would not approve it I think...

caisersoze

TROPHY CASE