• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Blog Comments posted by jts

  1. On the statement that autolysis of tumors is not well understood.

    Most if not all cells of the body have things called lysosomes. When these break open the cell self destructs. Perhaps this is the mechanism of how tumors frequently shrink or go away during a long enough fast. Shelton saw at least hundreds of tumors autolyze during a fast. Shelton writes that he saved hundreds of women from breast surgery. Other doctors have seen tumors autolyze during a fast. Autolysis of tumors is a well known phenomenon to doctors who have experience with fasting. Most people know little or nothing about fasting.

    During a fast (water only, no food) the body has no choice but to live on its own tissues after the food in the gut and the glycogen in the liver are used up. The body differentiates between expendable tissue and nonexpendable tissue. Fat is the most expendable; brain and nerve tissue the least expendable; muscle is intermediate. Sometime a tumor is consumed during a long fast as an expendable food source.

    There seems to be a competition between fat and tumors for being consumed during a fast. The less fat on the body, the faster the tumor goes away.

    The time a tumor takes to go away completely during a fast is highly variable. The average for a breast tumor, says Shelton, is about 3 weeks. The shortest Shelton saw was 3 days. If a tumor is very large it might not be possible to fully autolyze it in one fast and several fasts may be needed.

    There are stories, true or false, of tumors going away without fasting. All such stories that I heard of were about some form of nutrition therapy.

    Dr. Russell Blaylock says that sometimes the self destruct mechanism of  cell is impaired and therefore the cell can't self destruct even when it should. And sometimes the self destruct mechanism is restored by ... guess what ... nutrition.

    To me autolysis of tumors is not all that mysterious. Learning more details might be useful but we have the bird's eye view.

    Some so-called experts make rationalist arguments to prove that tumors can't autolyze. Rationalism is a fallacy of reasoning well know to Objectivists. It means arm chair reasoning without looking at the facts.

    One rationalistic argument is it is not in the nature of tumors to go away by themselves. This is proved wrong by the fact the sometimes they do.

    Another rationalist argument is tumors are caused by impaired DNA and it can't be corrected; therefore tumors can't autolyze. Perhaps tumors are caused by impaired DNA but sometimes they autolyze. Autolysis does not mean the DNA is repaired; it means the tumor goes away.


  2. Just a question.

    If we are going to discuss evolution, why are Kent Hovind video lectures and debates not permitted on OL?

    Is it because he is a Christian and believes the creation story in Genesis? But in his lectures and debates he does not use that and instead sticks to science. He had many debates with evolutionists and so far as I know he kicked ass every time. Are you all gonna let him get away with his BS?

    I don't believe in God and I have little or no use for the Bible and I don't believe in the creation story. When I listen to Kent Hovind, I filter out everything to do with Bible and religion. I can filter out his Bible thumping; maybe some people can't do that.

    Perhaps Kent Hovind presents the case against evolution too strongly for rational people to handle.

    His problems with the law and all that are irrelevant to the discussion about evolution and do not need to be brought into the discussion about evolution..


  3. At the risk of stating the obvious:

    When a person's capacity for emotion is surgically removed, the intelligence as revealed by intelligence tests is unimpaired but the ability to make decisions is impaired. Ayn Rand's statement that emotions are not tools of cognition still stands but decision making apparently calls for more than just cognition.

    The Vulcan ideal, kolinahr, apparently can be achieved by surgery. But it is illogical. Lack of ability to make decisions is bad, not good.

    The correct ideal instead of kolinahr is integration of intellect and emotion into a harmonious whole, perhaps a synergy, the whole being greater than the sum of the parts. Spock, son of Sarek, is not the ideal. Vulcans are not the ideal. Ayn Rand was a better philosopher than Surak. If Ayn Rand had replaced Surak , Vulcans would not be so illogical.

    Intellect without emotion is thought without action,  a computer. Emotion without intellect is action without thought, a bull in a china shop. The 2 integrated is the ideal human, capable of both thought and action.




    The tail of a tadpole autolyzes. It is consumed as a food source. Sometimes the same happens to a tumor during a fast. If there is no need for the tumor to be there (no excess, no deficiency, no imbalance, no nothing) and it's not cancer, the body thinks "what the %$#@ for do I need that!?" and consumes it as a food source. Like a tadpole's tail.


  5. 1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

    autolyzed during the fast.

    The fallacy  is post hoc ergo propter hoc.   After this  hence because of this.   Tumors have "mysteriously" disappeared  following events other than fasts.  if a tumor  decompose  very quickly  it could be do to a biochemical process that is simply not understood.  Lots of "mysterious" things happen in the world but no one believes it is due to magic

    To investigate into whether it is just coincidence that the tumor vanished during the fast, ask 2 questions. What is the probability of the tumor vanishing or at least shrinking substantially during a fast of 20-40 days done under proper conditions? Shelton in his chapter on autolysis of tumors makes it sound like the probability with easy tumors is near certainty. What is the probability of this happening during any given span of 20-40 days of normal eating? Rare.

    If it is just coincidence, the probability of autolysis would be the same for 20-40 days of normal eating and 20-40 days of fasting.

    To you, how tumors autolyze is a mystery. But why it happens and why it does not happen is understood. I explained in other threads.

    Tumors autolyze during a fast (when they do) the same way the tail of a tadpole autolyzes. The body has the ability to intelligently consume its own structures as a food source, making a distinction between expendable tissue and nonexpendable tissue.


  6. 21 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

    autolyzed during the fast.

    The fallacy  is post hoc ergo propter hoc.   After this  hence because of this.   Tumors have "mysteriously" disappeared  following events other than fasts.  if a tumor  decompose  very quickly  it could be do to a biochemical process that is simply not understood.  Lots of "mysterious" things happen in the world but no one believes it is due to magic

    If you read the story carefully you will see that the doctor refused to believe that the tumor vanished, due to fasting or any other cause. His theory that tumors can't (sometimes) autolyze was wrong. A single example to the contrary is enough to refute a generalization.

    I do not regard autolysis of a tumor as mysterious or due to magic.


  7. 2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

    that is quite a list.  add to it one of the most common errors --- confirmation bias, wherein one ignores any evidence contrary to one's supposition and only looks for conforming evidence. It is not exactly a fallacy,  but it is a flaw in one's thinking.

    One example of confirmation bias, which in this case you and most people probably would regard as correct thinking, is a case of a woman who got rid of a tumor by a 24 day fast. She went back to the doctor who diagnosed the tumor and he confirmed that the tumor was gone. But he was (like most doctors) opposed to fasting and thought it was a stupid thing to do and refused to believe that the tumor autolyzed. He said it was a mix up.

    Here we have a conflict between a fact and a theory. The fact was the tumor autolyzed during the fast. The theory was tumors can't autolyze. Ordinarily facts trump theories; facts rule, theories serve; in any conflict between a fact and a theory, the theory is wrong.

    Perhaps this was an exception, where the fact was false and the medical theory contrary to the fact was true.


  8. 1 hour ago, KorbenDallas said:


    I ran across this article a few weeks ago, "This Is the Freest Country in the World [Canada]"

    It's a short article:

    America may call itself the "Land of the Free," but it's hardly the freest nation in the world, according to a new report from the Legatum Institute, a London-based think tank.

    The group's annual prosperity index, which ranks the prosperity of 142 countries, has ranked Canada the best country in the world for "personal freedom."
    According to the study, Canada is the most tolerant of people from other countries, with 92 percent of Canadians thinking the country is a good place for immigrants. In addition, about 94 percent of Canadians believe that they have the freedom to choose the course of their own lives, the study says.
    Did we mention they might legalize pot soon?
    America, on the other hand, ranks 15th for freedom, just behind Costa Rica and the Netherlands.
    The best countries for personal freedom are:
    1. Canada
    2. New Zealand
    3. Norway
    4. Luxembourg

    In Canada, like probably all other countries in the world, you don't fully own your home and your land. You pay rent property tax.

    And you pay income tax. If I went around pointing a gun at people and telling them to give me a portion of their income, that would be theft. Government does the same thing and calls it a tax. Same thing under a different word.

    What did Ayn Rand say is the only proper function of government? Something about protecting rights, including property rights.

    I have a different theory of government, a theory that actually explains why governments behave as they do, and it explains why all -modern- governments gravitate toward a mixed system, contrary to Ayn Rand's statement that a mixed system is unstable.


  9. 24 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

    Yeahbut what about Jerry, according to Jerry?  The water's warm, come on in.  

    Does anyone give a rat's ass what I think?

    I think Sam Vaknin knows more about narcissism than I know. I'm not even very clear on what narcissism is. He is a professional narcissism expert.

    I think Sam Vaknin knows more about Trump than I know. I didn't do any research on Trump. At the start of the video, Vaknin described his research on Trump and it sounds quite thorough.

    So I leave it at that. I am not saying what Vaknin says is true (or false). I don't know enough to say something that I think is worth saying.


    There are some subjects where asking me what I think might be dangerous. For example a politician made the mistake of asking me what I think about taxes and I told him I think all taxes should be abolished. If you make the mistake of asking me what I think of politicians, I probably will tell you I think politicians are the lowest form of life walking on 2 feet. Another politician made the mistake of asking me what I think and I told him government has a power like the Midas golden touch except everything government touches turns into shit (instead of gold).  Maybe be glad when I don't tell you what I think.

    Taxes:  All taxes should be abolished.

    Politicians:  the lowest form of life walking on 2 feet; professional liars

    Political office:  is a magnet that attracts people who want to control other people's lives

    Government:  is not wisdom and not benevolence but the man with the gun

    Elections:  are lying contests

    Islam:  Satan the Devil would have difficulty inventing a worse religion than Islam.

    Some things I'm thumbs down on:  crookeder than a dog's hind leg and lower than a snake's belly and they deserve a kick in the ass so hard that they gotta clear their throat to fart

    Warning:  Don't nobody ask me what I think. You might get an answer.