Cancer also seen by regenerates

[Janic]

Janic wrote:
but since there is only you to take yourself as a reference, your method, you know where you can put it

"MY" method is the method YOU are applying in the discussion.

which proves that it is not worth a nail. I prefer my version that you are applying in the discussion (if you can call it a discussion!)
so back to the subject on CASASNOVAS.

[ABC2019]

[ which proves that it is not worth a nail.

Thank you for expressing your agreement with me on this point. I point out to you that I described it according to what I observed in YOUR way of discussing, as well as the other "JOE". I completely agree that it's not worth a damn.

[Janic]

so back to CASASNOVAS
moved from the Raoult topic to this one

[*] as you do for H or hygiene.

but it is not a PRESCRIPTION, it is a DESCRIPTION, if you have another description of what you observed in the others, of course you can propose it.

I suggested that you check out the 1.000 videos in question to see if your description is valid! You will have a hard time.
I have been practicing this hygienism for more than 50 years, ME, (therefore something other than from a simple point of view, like you) with numerous authors, (at the time no internet and its social networks) having small personal nuances, but the same guideline. and the same results obtained by their readers with their testimonials and their large conventional medical files in support.
But my question, which you awkwardly dismiss like your friends, is:
is the government made up of charlatans when it advocates THE SAME MEANS as C to reduce cancers by 40%, ie 160.000 people. But their fate may not interest you!
So no matter how much you try to escape, Pedro way, I will systematically ask the same question, until exhaustion or a coherent and rational answer of course!

[ABC2019]

so back to CASASNOVAS
moved from the Raoult topic to this one

[*] as you do for H or hygiene.

but it is not a PRESCRIPTION, it is a DESCRIPTION, if you have another description of what you observed in the others, of course you can propose it.

I suggested that you check out the 1.000 videos in question to see if your description is valid! You will have a hard time.

if I hear a 2 minute clip from a guy who can't say clearly that drinking turnip juice while praying to Jesus Christ is definitely not going to regrow a human arm, that doesn't give me more than want to watch 1000 videos than spend a day chatting with a schizophrenic. And what I hear about it elsewhere doesn't make me want to do it any more.

On the other hand, the shrink who made the video on it, I find it interesting, she says no nonsense of this kind, and I may go and watch some of her videos.

And also allow me to tell you that I find your way of speaking super aggressive for someone who is supposed to practice a "soothing" lifestyle, I'm afraid your arteries are hurting there!

[Janic]

si I hear a 2 minute clip of a guy who can't say clearly that drinking turnip juice while praying to Jesus Christ is definitely not going to regrow a human arm, it doesn't make me want to watch 1000 anymore videos than spending a day chatting with a schizophrenic. And what I hear besides, it doesn't make me want to do it anymore.

People who talk bullshit, the world is full of them starting with you or me. If we had to stop at that because we don't share this bullshit, the world would stop communicating. But your real reasons are elsewhere:
on the one hand you don't know anything about it and getting involved in it would make you say as much bullshit as you currently do on other subjects that you don't know as much. And moreover, your belonging to a category of so-called scientists who are only scientists according to their pretensions, prevents you from maintaining a capacity for analysis on documents.

On the other hand, the shrink who made the video on it, I find it interesting, she says no nonsense of this kind, and I may go and watch some of her videos.

Everyone has their own way of feeling the other! Personally, I did not find it particularly top, but to each his tastes.
But the question is not there, but here:

my question, which you awkwardly dismiss like your friends, is: is the government made up of charlatans when it advocates THE SAME MEANS as C to reduce cancer by 40%, i.e. 160.000 people. But their fate may not interest you!

So no matter how hard you try to escape, I will systematically ask the same question, until exhaustion or a coherent answer.
I enlarged because you seem to have vision problems!

And also allow me to tell you that I find your way of speaking super aggressive for someone who is supposed to practice a "soothing" lifestyle, I'm afraid your arteries are hurting there!

This is of the same kind as all your usual a prioris: A healthy lifestyle allows you to keep clear ideas on known subjects, so as not to imitate those who are ignorant and who are satisfied with this state! a heap of ignorance and claim to know despite everything, that cannot leave one indifferent in the same way as a non-hygienist. So save my arteries by stopping saying bullshit and serial fake news.
Now answer the question posed above....in big letters!

[ABC2019]

my question, which you awkwardly dismiss like your friends, is: is the government made up of charlatans when it advocates THE SAME MEANS as C to reduce cancer by 40%, i.e. 160.000 people. But their fate may not interest you!

I do not dismiss your question, I do not see how it is very embarrassing. Everyone says that eating fruits and vegetables is much healthier than eating junk food, and reduces the risk of cancer, no one will contradict you on that. But no one said that a quack only says bullshit !

but he says it all the same....come on, I'm going to eat an apple.

[Janic]

I do not dismiss your question, I do not see how it is very embarrassing. Everyone says that eating fruits and vegetables is much healthier than eating junk food, and reduces the risk of cancer, no one will contradict you on that. But no one said that a quack only says bullshit !

You answer next as usual. The question is clear! The government site indicates specific criteria. However, you treat individuals who say the same thing as charlatans because their action of information is precisely this one? so is the government a charlatan?

But nobody said that a quack only talks bullshit

so what is the percentage, even approximate and on what verifiable criteria?

but he says it anyway....

like all of us, unless you're perfect!
so deja vu; charlatan
B. - P. ext., Pej. Skillful person who deceives his real qualities and exploits the credulity of others to enrich himself or impose himself.
this definition can very well be attributed to you since you are deceiving your qualities and skills in homeopathy in order to impose your own ignorance on others by using fakenews.

[ABC2019]

I do not dismiss your question, I do not see how it is very embarrassing. Everyone says that eating fruits and vegetables is much healthier than eating junk food, and reduces the risk of cancer, no one will contradict you on that. But no one said that a quack only says bullshit !

You answer next as usual. The question is clear! The government site indicates specific criteria. However, you treat individuals who say the same thing as charlatans because their action of information is precisely this one? so is the government a charlatan?

I call charlatan those who say that a human arm can grow back by drinking vegetable juice and praying to Jesus Christ
They can say next to sensible things like "the bottom of the air is fresh" or "fuck this covid" note well!
And the day a government says you can regrow an arm (or cure AIDS) by drinking vegetable juice, yes of course I will call it a government of charlatans. Which happens by the way.

But nobody said that a quack only talks bullshit

so what is the percentage, even approximate and on what verifiable criteria?

it depends on the charlatans, according to the degree of bad faith. You, for example, I would say roughly around 80%, but I would have to check, it's an estimate.

this definition can very well be attributed to you since you are deceiving your qualities and skills in homeopathy in order to impose your own ignorance on others by using fakenews.

Come on I rectify, 90%

[Janic]

I call charlatan those who say that a human arm can grow back by drinking vegetable juice and praying to Jesus Christ
They can say next to sensible things like "the bottom of the air is fresh" or "fuck this covid" note well!

or call you charlatans too

And the day a government says you can regrow an arm (or cure AIDS) by drinking vegetable juice, yes of course I will call it a government of charlatans. Which happens by the way.

Ah, ah, ah! how many governments have already been called charlatans? You are fantasizing once again!

So to use your own wording elsewhere: do you have the legal and medical skills to judge it and do not come out to me as above that lawyers and even the order of doctors will stop on this point which obsesses you, if not the half of humanity made up of believers of all kinds would be made up of charlatans.
However, in this case, legally, it is a question of whether he would practice the illegal practice of medicine, nothing else. Even those who would like to sue him do not undertake to say THAT HE IS a charlatan in order not to be accused of defamation before trial

But nobody said that a quack only talks bullshit

so what is the percentage, even approximate and on what criteria verifiable?

it depends on the charlatans, according to the degree of bad faith. You, for example, I would say roughly around 80%, but I would have to check, it's an estimate.

If bad faith is your evaluation criterion, then you are well over 100%, no need to check! Vain and a liar!

this definition can very well be attributed to you since you are deceiving your qualities and skills in homeopathy in order to impose your own ignorance on others by using fakenews.

come on I rectify, 90%

I specified: verifiable, not at personal guesswork
otherwise you are below your reality, you greatly exceed this figure for your bad faith, your successive incompetence and your lies beyond defamation which the internet escapes.

[ABC2019]

I call charlatan those who say that a human arm can grow back by drinking vegetable juice and praying to Jesus Christ
They can say next to sensible things like "the bottom of the air is fresh" or "fuck this covid" note well!

or call you charlatans too

you can always, you just have to say why, that's all.

And the day a government says you can regrow an arm (or cure AIDS) by drinking vegetable juice, yes of course I will call it a government of charlatans. Which happens by the way.

Ah, ah, ah! how many governments have already been called charlatans? You are fantasizing once again!

I didn't count but there were

https://www.revmed.ch/RMS/2001/RMS-2343/319

https://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/ ... _3212.html

So to use your own wording elsewhere: do you have the legal and medical skills to judge it and do not come out to me as above that lawyers and even the order of doctors will stop on this point which obsesses you, if not the half of humanity made up of believers of all kinds would be made up of charlatans.
However, in this case, legally, it is a question of whether he would practice the illegal practice of medicine, nothing else. Even those who would like to sue him do not undertake to say THAT HE IS a charlatan in order not to be accused of defamation before trial

we'll see what the courts judge, if you're not a lawyer yourself it's better not to come forward.

for the rest of your message, thank you for refining your JOE method, there's no denying that you're a master.