Re: RCMP and Government of Canada are killing us! Documentary - Hemp Oil Cures Cancer

csm7532@hotmail.com fell face-first on the keyboard. This was the
result:
news:823af715-c3a0-4cf0-b89c-8ef63c775336@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:

> On May 1, 6:58 pm, Marc Bissonnette <dragnet\_@_/internalysis.com>
> wrote:
>> "Anarchore" <e...@t.me> fell face-first on the keyboard. This was the
>> result:news:nKqdnUyR28FTwofVnZ2dnUVZ_tuonZ2d@unise rvecommunications:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Marc Bissonnette wrote:
>>
>> >>"Anarchore" <e...@t.me> fell face-first on the keyboard. This was
>> >>the result:
>> >>news:F_adneY-AP40SoTVnZ2dnUVZ_ramnZ2d@uniservecommunications:
>>
>> >>> Marc Bissonnette wrote:
>>
>> >>>>"Anarchore" <e...@t.me> fell face-first on the keyboard. This was
>> >>>>the result:
>> >>>>news:BrSdnVqwAOfwj4TVnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@uniserve communications:
>>
>> >>>>> Not really. How many hits does your blog get? Mine is pushing
>> >>>>>50,000 views.
>>
>> >>>>No offense, but big deal. My site is at 7,000 views *a day*.
>>
>> >>>http://www.marcbissonnette.com/
>>
>> >>> LOL. Suuuure it does.
>>
>> >>That's not my site. (I shouldn't even have to clue you in to which
>> >>one I am referring to)
>>
>> > How exciting and what a surprise. You're a firefighter who
>> > worships the military and cops. And you spend your spare time
>> > attempting to debunk factual information about cancer cures on the
>> > 'net. Wow, what a mind! You just might change the world there,
>> > hoser!
>>
>> More so than you, my hateful little sock-puppet.

>
> Now this is just disappointing. All this time I thought he was some
> half-wit troll who spent his time spouting diatribe and bile,
> repeating the same tripe in post after post. It appeared he just
> happened to get into an efight with you. Now you say he's your sock
> puppet. I really would expect you to do better than this. If you're
> going to produce a sock puppet, can't you be more creative? Imbue it
> with intelligence, grace, and humor?

You think he's *my* sock puppet ?

Umm. No.

I've posted under my real name and only my real name for more years than
I can remember on Usenet, now.


--
Marc Bissonnette
Looking for a new ISP? http://www.canadianisp.com
Largest ISP comparison site across Canada.

Marc Bissonnette wrote:

>csm7532@hotmail.com fell face-first on the keyboard. This was the
>result:
>news:823af715-c3a0-4cf0-b89c-8ef63c775336@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>> On May 1, 6:58 pm, Marc Bissonnette <dragnet\_@_/internalysis.com>
>> wrote:
>>> "Anarchore" <e...@t.me> fell face-first on the keyboard. This
>>>was the
>>>result:news:nKqdnUyR28FTwofVnZ2dnUVZ_tuonZ2d@un iservecommunication
>>>s:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > Marc Bissonnette wrote:
>>>
>>> >>"Anarchore" <e...@t.me> fell face-first on the keyboard. This
>>>was >>the result:
>>> >>news:F_adneY-AP40SoTVnZ2dnUVZ_ramnZ2d@uniservecommunications:
>>>
>>> >>> Marc Bissonnette wrote:
>>>
>>> >>>>"Anarchore" <e...@t.me> fell face-first on the keyboard.
>>>This was >>>>the result:
>>> >>>>news:BrSdnVqwAOfwj4TVnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@uniserve communications:
>>>
>>> >>>>> Not really. How many hits does your blog get? Mine is
>>>pushing >>>>>50,000 views.
>>>
>>> >>>>No offense, but big deal. My site is at 7,000 views *a day*.
>>>
>>> >>>http://www.marcbissonnette.com/
>>>
>>> >>> LOL. Suuuure it does.
>>>
>>> >>That's not my site. (I shouldn't even have to clue you in to
>>>which >>one I am referring to)
>>>
>>> > How exciting and what a surprise. You're a firefighter who
>>> > worships the military and cops. And you spend your spare time
>>> > attempting to debunk factual information about cancer cures on
>>>the > 'net. Wow, what a mind! You just might change the world
>>>there, > hoser!
>>>
>>> More so than you, my hateful little sock-puppet.
>
>>
>> Now this is just disappointing. All this time I thought he was
>>some half-wit troll who spent his time spouting diatribe and bile,
>> repeating the same tripe in post after post. It appeared he just
>> happened to get into an efight with you. Now you say he's your
>>sock puppet. I really would expect you to do better than this.
>>If you're going to produce a sock puppet, can't you be more
>>creative? Imbue it with intelligence, grace, and humor?
>
>You think he's my sock puppet ?
>
>Umm. No.
>
>I've posted under my real name and only my real name for more years
>than I can remember on Usenet, now.

Quit talking to yourself you Goddamn weirdo.

lololol



Anarchore wrote:
>

> Suck it, scumbag. You asked for studies... I should have known better
> than to feed the pigs.

actually wannabe, you were be told that you 'had' to provide factual
information, not just anecdotal reference

hint: your 'old' information is already known

should you have know better than to do what you did? of course - your
'once over lightly' doesn't begin to rise to the level of adult
discussion

turns out those 'pigs' know more than you thought and certainly more
than you 'do'...

when faced with an actual discussion about active compounds, you
remained silent

when shown actual current information, you remain silent

yet, you then state:


>
> Another cancer cure is being ignored by mainstream pharma-medicine and

studies are being conducted, including human trials, by the very
pharma-medicine corporate entities that you claim 'aren't' doing
so...part one of your rant proved false

- by both the [older] studies you cite, and the more current ones
already discusssed.

but don't let mere facts stop your foam-spittle diatribe.


> media.

also here, you cite news articles, we cite articles, there are
multitudes of other sources...

your second conspiracy count proved false by the very articles you
quote...

so - is it that you are a disingenuous sophist, magnificently ignorant,
or are you simply a kook?

>
>

you do have such a cute way of misunderstanding factual information

you claimed studies aren't being done, you claimed information is being
withheld, you claim media dones't cover the informaiton

so far this exchange has proven each of your claims to be false.

studies have been done, hare being conducted, and the studies are
publicized...

but you continue to provide a source of amusement to those who have
[both previously and currently] actually read up on the issue.

Anarchore wrote:
>
> Paul T. Holland wrote:
>
> >but silly thing - studies are being paid for, are being done - you are
> >several years behind - why are we not surpoirsed.....lololol - gosh i
> >guess all those conspiracy theories are...incorrect? lololol
>
> LOL now the retard contradicts himself and says that I was right!
> AHAHAHAHAA!
>
> >
> >Anarchore wrote:
> >>
> >> Marc Bissonnette wrote:
> >>
> >> >"Anarchore" <e@t.me> fell face-first on the keyboard. This was the
> >> >result:
> >>news7GdnbFL1-BwHIXVnZ2dnUVZ_rCtnZ2d@uniservecommunications: >
> >> >> Marc Bissonnette wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>"Anarchore" <e@t.me> fell face-first on the keyboard. This was
> >>the >>>result:
> >> >>>news:E72dnWEIkoC36orVnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@uniservec ommunications:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> Patrick Keenan wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>[snip]
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>>You have no idea what I want. You apparently don't even know
> >> >>>>>that there are various forms of cancer, yet you claim to have
> >> >>>>>a cure.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>There might be some valid clinical use for cannabis oils, but
> >> >>>>>if you're going to misrepresent and lie about it, you will
> >> >>>>>only push away the rational people who might be able to
> >> >>>>>actually conduct or arrange studies and trials. They won't
> >> >>>>>want to be associated with liars and frauds.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>Your attitude does nothing but further associate the substance
> >> >>>>>with crackpots who have zero understanding of science, and
> >> >>>>>that pushes the possibility of real trials fuirther away.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>You could have been honest in the first place and simply
> >> >>>>>answered that there weren't any studies or trials.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>You made a choice to not answer honestly. But what else
> >> >>>>>should we expect from a Holocaust denier or "revisionist"?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I presented the information for people that weren't
> >> >>>>assholes... as for you and the big pharma industry you
> >> >>>>represent, you can FOAD of cancer for all I care.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>...Except for the fact that everyone who isn't an "asshole"
> >> >>>certainly knows you are and wouldn't trust anything you posted
> >> >>>online if you paid them to.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why not? My being an asshole does not preclude me from being
> >> >>right. And I usually am right.
> >> >
> >> >Sigh. I am curious if you are this obtuse in person. Look: This
> >>is a >relatively anonymous medium - you, especially, are using a
> >>pseudonym >to shield your identity and thus your credibility. Just
> >>because you >say you are right not only doesn't make you right,
> >>but it doesn't >tell anyone else that you are correct, thus the
> >>demand for proof >other than a biased film who's participants
> >>benefit by you claiming >you are "right".
> >>
> >> How do they benefit? By cops raiding them, and taking peoples
> >>medicine away?
> >>
> >> And what is proof to you? Some study? Twenty years of trials,
> >>then they push out inferior tainted Marinol garbage? People are
> >>dying now.
> >> Show evidence from non-biased sources that your
> >> >claims have merit (and there are many medical research facilities
> >>out >there with no attachment to pharmaceutical companies) and
> >>maybe >someone will take you seriously.
> >>
> >> Why don't you call all the people in the film and tell them that
> >>they are liars or that they did not really get cured.
> >>
> >> Oh yeah I guess they are biased because they don't have big tumours
> >> growing out of them.
> >>
> >> OK asshole your study is below(scroll down).
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Unltil then, you're just another pot-head looking to legalize his
> >> >daily fix so you won't be harassed by the police.
> >>
> >> LOL. My guess is that you are on the pigs side somehow.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>>Anarchore: Cheap spammer shill.
> >> >>
> >> >> That's right I'm a shill for the truth, not a shill for the
> >> >> pharmaceutical/medical death industry like the creep that
> >>responded >> with his cheap accusations.
> >> >
> >> >Show us the proof that you are spouting truth. Your videos *do
> >>not do >that*.
> >>
> >> Prove that I am not truthfull.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> If you have cancer and want to die of it after being burned by
> >>the >> doctors who get paid handsomely in corporate kickbacks for
> >>their >> mutilations, of course you can ignore any documented
> >>cures. >
> >> >Ah, but that's the crux: Your "cure" isn't documented by anyone
> >>with >actual knowledge of cancer or it's treatment. If you think
> >>that >Canadian doctors are "handsomely paid in corporate
> >>kickbacks", you're >even more uneducated than your rather poor
> >>public-relations skills >show.
> >>
> >> What, of course they get paid to give out specific products.
> >>
> >> >> People that want to live will seek out alternatives and try
> >> >>something that looks credible.
> >> >
> >> >And what we - the people who have a vested interest in something
> >> >being credible are saying is that your claims do not look
> >>credible.
> >> Why not? If I was dying of cancer I would be grateful to have the
> >> opportunity to learn about different cures.
> >>
> >> Of course the "vested interests" you speak of are the pharma
> >>lobbies led by Zionists like the Monsanto family.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> And if you watch the film instead of listening to shills you
> >>would >>find it out.
> >> >>
> >> >> Or don't watch it. In your case I don't care, but I am sure
> >>there >>are good people out there who could use the information.
> >> >>
> >> >> That is who it is for.
> >> >>
> >> >> So go ahead, be a scumbag for big pharma. Who cares what you
> >> >>think?
> >> >
> >> >Apparantly, more people than those that care what you think. Bet
> >>that >stings, doesn't it ?
> >>
> >> Not really. How many hits does your blog get? Mine is pushing
> >>50,000 views.
> >>
> >> What kind of scumbag tries to suppress cures?
> >>
> >> A big pharma scumbag. No one else has the "vested interest".
> >>
> >> OH and here's your studies done by men in labcoats, asshole.
> >>
> >> http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/...r_nov_2003.htm
> >>
> >> New Study Explains How Pot Kills Cancer Cells
> >>
> >> Nov 6, 2003, Steve Kubby
> >>
> >> A new study published in Nature Reviews-Cancer provides an
> >>historic and detailed explanation about how THC and natural
> >>cannabinoids counteract cancer, but preserve normal cells.
> >>
> >> The study by Manuel Guzmán of Madrid Spain found that
> >>cannabinoids, the active components of marijuana, inhibit tumor
> >>growth in laboratory animals. They do so by modulating key
> >>cell-signalling pathways, thereby inducing direct growth arrest
> >>and death of tumor cells, as well as by inhibiting the growth of
> >>blood vessels that supply the tumor.
> >> The Guzman study is very important according to Dr. Ethan Russo , a
> >> neurologist and world authority on medical cannabis: "Cancer occurs
> >> because cells become immortalized; they fail to heed normal
> >>signals to turn off growth. A normal function of remodelling in
> >>the body requires that cells die on cue. This is called apoptosis,
> >>or programmed cell death. That process fails to work in tumors.
> >>THC promotes its reappearance so that gliomas, leukemias,
> >>melanomas and other cell types will in fact heed the signals, stop
> >>dividing, and die."
> >> "But, that is not all," explains Dr. Russo: "The other way that
> >>tumors grow is by ensuring that they are nourished: they send out
> >>signals to promote angiogenesis, the growth of new blood vessels.
> >>Cannabinoids turn off these signals as well. It is truly
> >>incredible, and elegant."
> >> In other words, this article explains several ways in which
> >> cannabinoids might be used to fight cancer, and, as the article
> >>says, "Cannabinoids are usually well tolerated, and do not produce
> >>the generalized toxic effects of conventional chemotherapies.
> >>
> >> Usually, any story that even suggests the possibility of a new
> >> treatment for cancer is greeted with headlines about a "cancer
> >>cure" - however remote in the future and improbable in fact it
> >>might be. But if marijuana is involved, don't expect any coverage
> >>from mainstream media, especially since mainstream editors have
> >>been quietly killing this story for the past thirty years.
> >>
> >> That's right, news about the abilility of pot to shrink tumors
> >>first surfaced, way back in 1974. Researchers at the Medical
> >>College of Virginia, who had been funded by the National
> >>Institutes of Health to find evidence that marijuana damages the
> >>immune system, found instead that THC slowed the growth of three
> >>kinds of cancer in mice -- lung and breast cancer, and a
> >>virus-induced leukemia.
> >> The Washington Post reported on the 1974 study -- in the "Local"
> >> section -- on Aug. 18, 1974. Under the headline, "Cancer Curb Is
> >> Studied," it read in part: "The active chemical agent in marijuana
> >> curbs the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice and may also
> >>suppress the immunity reaction that causes rejection of organ
> >>transplants, a Medical College of Virginia team has discovered."
> >>The researchers "found that THC slowed the growth of lung cancers,
> >>breast cancers, and a virus-induced leukemia in laboratory mice,
> >>and prolonged their lives by as much as 36 percent."
> >>
> >> "News coverage of the Madrid discovery has been virtually
> >>nonexistent in this country. The news broke quietly on Feb. 29,
> >>2000 with a story that ran once on the UPI wire about the Nature
> >>Medicine article," complained MarijuanaNews.com editor Richard
> >>Cowan, who said he was only able to find the article through a
> >>link that appeared briefly on the Drudge Report Web page. "The New
> >>York Times, The Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times all ignored
> >>the story, even though its newsworthiness is indisputable: a
> >>benign substance occurring in nature destroys deadly brain
> >>tumors," added Cowan.
> >> On March 29, 2001, the San Antonio Current printed a carefully
> >> researched, bombshell of a story by Raymond Cushing titled, "POT
> >> SHRINKS TUMORS; GOVERNMENT KNEW IN '74." Media coverage since then
> >>has been nonexistant, except for a copy of the story on Alternet .
> >>
> >> It is hard to believe that the knowledge that cannabis can be used
> >>to fight cancer has been suppressed for almost thirty years , yet
> >>it seems likely that it will continue to be suppressed. Why?
> >>
> >> According to Cowan, the answer is because it is a threat to
> >>cannabis prohibition . "If this article and its predecessors from
> >>2000 and 1974 were the only evidence of the suppression of medical
> >>cannabis, then one might perhaps be able to rationalize it in some
> >>herniated way. However, there really is massive proof that the
> >>suppression of medical cannabis represents the greatest failure of
> >>the institutions of a free society, medicine, journalism, science,
> >>and our fundamental values," Cowan notes.
> >> Millions of people have died horrible deaths and in many cases,
> >>familes exhausted their savings on dangerous, toxic and expensive
> >>drugs. Now we are just beginning to realize that while marijuana
> >>has never killed anyone, marijuana prohibition has killed millions.
> >>
> >> http://www.sierratimes.com/03/11/07/article_kubby.htm
> >>
> >> --

Marc Bissonnette wrote:
> csm7532@hotmail.com fell face-first on the keyboard. This was the
> result:
> news:823af715-c3a0-4cf0-b89c-8ef63c775336@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On May 1, 6:58 pm, Marc Bissonnette <dragnet\_@_/internalysis.com>
> > wrote:
> >> "Anarchore" <e...@t.me> fell face-first on the keyboard. This was the
> >> result:news:nKqdnUyR28FTwofVnZ2dnUVZ_tuonZ2d@unise rvecommunications:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Marc Bissonnette wrote:
> >>
> >> >>"Anarchore" <e...@t.me> fell face-first on the keyboard. This was
> >> >>the result:
> >> >>news:F_adneY-AP40SoTVnZ2dnUVZ_ramnZ2d@uniservecommunications:
> >>
> >> >>> Marc Bissonnette wrote:
> >>
> >> >>>>"Anarchore" <e...@t.me> fell face-first on the keyboard. This was
> >> >>>>the result:
> >> >>>>news:BrSdnVqwAOfwj4TVnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@uniserve communications:
> >>
> >> >>>>> Not really. How many hits does your blog get? Mine is pushing
> >> >>>>>50,000 views.
> >>
> >> >>>>No offense, but big deal. My site is at 7,000 views *a day*.
> >>
> >> >>>http://www.marcbissonnette.com/
> >>
> >> >>> LOL. Suuuure it does.
> >>
> >> >>That's not my site. (I shouldn't even have to clue you in to which
> >> >>one I am referring to)
> >>
> >> > How exciting and what a surprise. You're a firefighter who
> >> > worships the military and cops. And you spend your spare time
> >> > attempting to debunk factual information about cancer cures on the
> >> > 'net. Wow, what a mind! You just might change the world there,
> >> > hoser!
> >>
> >> More so than you, my hateful little sock-puppet.
>
> >
> > Now this is just disappointing. All this time I thought he was some
> > half-wit troll who spent his time spouting diatribe and bile,
> > repeating the same tripe in post after post. It appeared he just
> > happened to get into an efight with you. Now you say he's your sock
> > puppet. I really would expect you to do better than this. If you're
> > going to produce a sock puppet, can't you be more creative? Imbue it
> > with intelligence, grace, and humor?
>
> You think he's *my* sock puppet ?
>
> Umm. No.
>
> I've posted under my real name and only my real name for more years than
> I can remember on Usenet, now.

Not really. You referred to him as "my...", so I took liberties with
that. Maybe it wasn't as funny as I thought---it wouldn't be the
first time. Maybe I should have used an emoticon, but I'm too
confident of my humor for that.

As for using real names, I consider that a mistake. With some of the
vitriol you've encountered, I'm sure you know why, but of course
you're free to be less careful. Since about '95, I've used three
different handles, the other two including part of my real name. It's
still possible for some lunatic to track me down and harass me, but
they'd have to be a little more intelligent, resourceful, and diligent
than if I posted with my full real name.

---
CSM

lol

csm7532@hotmail.com wrote:
>

> > More so than you, my hateful little sock-puppet.
> >
> > --
> > Marc Bissonnette
> > Looking for a new ISP?http://www.canadianisp.com
> > Largest ISP comparison site across Canada.
>
> Now this is just disappointing. All this time I thought he was some
> half-wit troll who spent his time spouting diatribe and bile,
> repeating the same tripe in post after post. It appeared he just
> happened to get into an efight with you. Now you say he's your sock
> puppet. I really would expect you to do better than this. If you're
> going to produce a sock puppet, can't you be more creative? Imbue it
> with intelligence, grace, and humor?


you may have been a bit too 'dry' for some to get it - but i thought it
funny!
>
> For what it's worth, I found myself with nothing better to do, and
> watched the videos.

enjoy the nap?

>To all you non-believers, I can confirm that
> following the practices shown, you can indeed keep yourself from dying
> of cancer (call that "cure" if you like), or from even getting it.

of course you can!

> Although there are warnings, it is their proposed method to produce
> the hemp oil, so unless someone else does it for you, this is what you
> need to do.

let us not forget a salient issue of quality controls on the basic
'source' product...with no lab, there aren't any.

>To make a long story short, it involves boiling some
> highly flammable solvents.

and what about the by product residues!

>I just hope the adherents do this in very
> sparsely populated areas.

i was thinking tunnels - isn't that the natural habitat for trolls?


>
> I wonder why they feel the need to concentrate the drug. Why not
> brownies?

not members of the bakers union?

>
> ---
> CSM

marc! think wry parody

Marc Bissonnette wrote:
>
> csm7532@hotmail.com fell face-first on the keyboard. This was the
> result:
> news:823af715-c3a0-4cf0-b89c-8ef63c775336@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On May 1, 6:58 pm, Marc Bissonnette <dragnet\_@_/internalysis.com>
> > wrote:
> >> "Anarchore" <e...@t.me> fell face-first on the keyboard. This was the
> >> result:news:nKqdnUyR28FTwofVnZ2dnUVZ_tuonZ2d@unise rvecommunications:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > Marc Bissonnette wrote:
> >>
> >> >>"Anarchore" <e...@t.me> fell face-first on the keyboard. This was
> >> >>the result:
> >> >>news:F_adneY-AP40SoTVnZ2dnUVZ_ramnZ2d@uniservecommunications:
> >>
> >> >>> Marc Bissonnette wrote:
> >>
> >> >>>>"Anarchore" <e...@t.me> fell face-first on the keyboard. This was
> >> >>>>the result:
> >> >>>>news:BrSdnVqwAOfwj4TVnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@uniserve communications:
> >>
> >> >>>>> Not really. How many hits does your blog get? Mine is pushing
> >> >>>>>50,000 views.
> >>
> >> >>>>No offense, but big deal. My site is at 7,000 views *a day*.
> >>
> >> >>>http://www.marcbissonnette.com/
> >>
> >> >>> LOL. Suuuure it does.
> >>
> >> >>That's not my site. (I shouldn't even have to clue you in to which
> >> >>one I am referring to)
> >>
> >> > How exciting and what a surprise. You're a firefighter who
> >> > worships the military and cops. And you spend your spare time
> >> > attempting to debunk factual information about cancer cures on the
> >> > 'net. Wow, what a mind! You just might change the world there,
> >> > hoser!
> >>
> >> More so than you, my hateful little sock-puppet.
>
> >
> > Now this is just disappointing. All this time I thought he was some
> > half-wit troll who spent his time spouting diatribe and bile,
> > repeating the same tripe in post after post. It appeared he just
> > happened to get into an efight with you. Now you say he's your sock
> > puppet. I really would expect you to do better than this. If you're
> > going to produce a sock puppet, can't you be more creative? Imbue it
> > with intelligence, grace, and humor?
>
> You think he's *my* sock puppet ?
>
> Umm. No.
>
> I've posted under my real name and only my real name for more years than
> I can remember on Usenet, now.
>
> --
> Marc Bissonnette
> Looking for a new ISP? http://www.canadianisp.com
> Largest ISP comparison site across Canada.

Anarchore wrote:
>

> Quit talking to yourself you Goddamn weirdo.

well, why should he? he gets a more adult and intelligent response than
from you

csm7532@hotmail.com fell face-first on the keyboard. This was the
result:
news:0a5b65d4-d3ef-4bbd-913e-80d93a2d0d0a@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

>
>
> Marc Bissonnette wrote:
>> csm7532@hotmail.com fell face-first on the keyboard. This was the
>> result:
>> news:823af715-c3a0-4cf0-b89c-8ef63c775336@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > On May 1, 6:58 pm, Marc Bissonnette <dragnet\_@_/internalysis.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> "Anarchore" <e...@t.me> fell face-first on the keyboard. This was
>> >> the
>> >> result:news:nKqdnUyR28FTwofVnZ2dnUVZ_tuonZ2d@unise rvecommunications
>> >> :
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Marc Bissonnette wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >>"Anarchore" <e...@t.me> fell face-first on the keyboard. This
>> >> >>was the result:
>> >> >>news:F_adneY-AP40SoTVnZ2dnUVZ_ramnZ2d@uniservecommunications:
>> >>
>> >> >>> Marc Bissonnette wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >>>>"Anarchore" <e...@t.me> fell face-first on the keyboard. This
>> >> >>>>was the result:
>> >> >>>>news:BrSdnVqwAOfwj4TVnZ2dnUVZ_hWdnZ2d@uniserve communications:
>> >>
>> >> >>>>> Not really. How many hits does your blog get? Mine is
>> >> >>>>> pushing
>> >> >>>>>50,000 views.
>> >>
>> >> >>>>No offense, but big deal. My site is at 7,000 views *a day*.
>> >>
>> >> >>>http://www.marcbissonnette.com/
>> >>
>> >> >>> LOL. Suuuure it does.
>> >>
>> >> >>That's not my site. (I shouldn't even have to clue you in to
>> >> >>which one I am referring to)
>> >>
>> >> > How exciting and what a surprise. You're a firefighter who
>> >> > worships the military and cops. And you spend your spare time
>> >> > attempting to debunk factual information about cancer cures on
>> >> > the 'net. Wow, what a mind! You just might change the world
>> >> > there, hoser!
>> >>
>> >> More so than you, my hateful little sock-puppet.
>>
>> >
>> > Now this is just disappointing. All this time I thought he was
>> > some half-wit troll who spent his time spouting diatribe and bile,
>> > repeating the same tripe in post after post. It appeared he just
>> > happened to get into an efight with you. Now you say he's your
>> > sock puppet. I really would expect you to do better than this. If
>> > you're going to produce a sock puppet, can't you be more creative?
>> > Imbue it with intelligence, grace, and humor?
>>
>> You think he's *my* sock puppet ?
>>
>> Umm. No.
>>
>> I've posted under my real name and only my real name for more years
>> than I can remember on Usenet, now.
>
> Not really. You referred to him as "my...", so I took liberties with
> that. Maybe it wasn't as funny as I thought---it wouldn't be the
> first time. Maybe I should have used an emoticon, but I'm too
> confident of my humor for that.

No worries - No harm, no foul

> As for using real names, I consider that a mistake. With some of the
> vitriol you've encountered, I'm sure you know why, but of course
> you're free to be less careful. Since about '95, I've used three
> different handles, the other two including part of my real name. It's
> still possible for some lunatic to track me down and harass me, but
> they'd have to be a little more intelligent, resourceful, and diligent
> than if I posted with my full real name.

Yeah, believe me, I know what you mean. I've been considering a change
to a pseudonym for a while, simply because the ko0ks out there just
aren't worth the stress. Ironically, nearly all of them use pseudos
themselves - They don't, of course, want to take what they dish out.

--
Marc Bissonnette
Looking for a new ISP? http://www.canadianisp.com
Largest ISP comparison site across Canada.

Paul T. Holland wrote:

>lololol
>
>
>
>Anarchore wrote:
>>
>
>> Suck it, scumbag. You asked for studies... I should have known
>>better than to feed the pigs.
>
>actually wannabe, you were be told that you 'had' to provide factual
>information, not just anecdotal reference
>
>hint: your 'old' information is already known

Gee I guess we don't know that the earth revolves around the sun,
because that is "old information", right genius?

>
>should you have know better than to do what you did? of course - your
>'once over lightly' doesn't begin to rise to the level of adult
>discussion

I sure made you sit up and beg!

>
>turns out those 'pigs' know more than you thought and certainly more
>than you 'do'...

Uhhh huh... do demonstrate that you are a clever pig... we are waiting.

>
>when faced with an actual discussion about active compounds, you
>remained silent
>
>when shown actual current information, you remain silent

You didn't show anything, liar.

>
>yet, you then state:
>
>
>>
>> Another cancer cure is being ignored by mainstream pharma-medicine
>>and
>
>studies are being conducted, including human trials, by the very
>pharma-medicine corporate entities that you claim 'aren't' doing
>so...part one of your rant proved false

They are doing studies using THC to treat cancer? Do tell.

>
>- by both the [older] studies you cite, and the more current ones
>already discusssed.
>
>but don't let mere facts stop your foam-spittle diatribe.
>
>
>> media.
>
>also here, you cite news articles, we cite articles, there are
>multitudes of other sources...

I cite articles, you make a lot of noise and kick up dust in a bid for
attention or some sick desire to keep cancer cures from the people.

>
>your second conspiracy count proved false by the very articles you
>quote...

You don't see much followup though do you scumbag? Without the
internet the studies would have simply gone down the memory hole.

And the cancer industry continues to press us to shovel money down the
hole to them, in the quest for "the cure" that would bankrupt them.

LOLOLLOLOOLOOLOOLLOLLLOOOOOLLOLLLLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLLOLOL!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!

>
>so - is it that you are a disingenuous sophist, magnificently
>ignorant, or are you simply a kook?

Go tell astronomers that they are kooks, because they are using
Galileo's "old information".

Either that or step up and debunk it. Put it up or shut it up, you
scumsucker shitball.



--

Paul T. Holland wrote:

>you do have such a cute way of misunderstanding factual information
>
>you claimed studies aren't being done, you claimed information is
>being withheld, you claim media dones't cover the informaiton
>
>so far this exchange has proven each of your claims to be false.
>
>studies have been done, hare being conducted, and the studies are
>publicized...
>
>but you continue to provide a source of amusement to those who have
>[both previously and currently] actually read up on the issue.


A scumbag saying it is so does not make it so. You just want attention
or something. <pats Paul Holland on the head> Now run along and play
elsewhere, little man.



>
>Anarchore wrote:
>>
>> Paul T. Holland wrote:
>>
>> >but silly thing - studies are being paid for, are being done -
>>you are >several years behind - why are we not
>>surpoirsed.....lololol - gosh i >guess all those conspiracy
>>theories are...incorrect? lololol
>> LOL now the retard contradicts himself and says that I was right!
>> AHAHAHAHAA!
>>
>> >
>> >Anarchore wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Marc Bissonnette wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >"Anarchore" <e@t.me> fell face-first on the keyboard. This was
>>the >> >result:
>> >>news7GdnbFL1-BwHIXVnZ2dnUVZ_rCtnZ2d@uniservecommunications: >
>> >> >> Marc Bissonnette wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>"Anarchore" <e@t.me> fell face-first on the keyboard. This
>>was >>the >>>result:
>> >> >>>news:E72dnWEIkoC36orVnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@uniservec ommunications:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>> Patrick Keenan wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>[snip]
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>>You have no idea what I want. You apparently don't even
>>know >> >>>>>that there are various forms of cancer, yet you claim
>>to have >> >>>>>a cure.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>There might be some valid clinical use for cannabis oils,
>>but >> >>>>>if you're going to misrepresent and lie about it, you
>>will >> >>>>>only push away the rational people who might be able
>>to >> >>>>>actually conduct or arrange studies and trials. They
>>won't >> >>>>>want to be associated with liars and frauds.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>Your attitude does nothing but further associate the
>>substance >> >>>>>with crackpots who have zero understanding of
>>science, and >> >>>>>that pushes the possibility of real trials
>>fuirther away. >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>You could have been honest in the first place and simply
>> >> >>>>>answered that there weren't any studies or trials.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>You made a choice to not answer honestly. But what else
>> >> >>>>>should we expect from a Holocaust denier or "revisionist"?
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> I presented the information for people that weren't
>> >> >>>>assholes... as for you and the big pharma industry you
>> >> >>>>represent, you can FOAD of cancer for all I care.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>...Except for the fact that everyone who isn't an "asshole"
>> >> >>>certainly knows you are and wouldn't trust anything you
>>posted >> >>>online if you paid them to.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Why not? My being an asshole does not preclude me from being
>> >> >>right. And I usually am right.
>> >> >
>> >> >Sigh. I am curious if you are this obtuse in person. Look: This
>> >>is a >relatively anonymous medium - you, especially, are using a
>> >>pseudonym >to shield your identity and thus your credibility.
>>Just >>because you >say you are right not only doesn't make you
>>right, >>but it doesn't >tell anyone else that you are correct,
>>thus the >>demand for proof >other than a biased film who's
>>participants >>benefit by you claiming >you are "right".
>> >>
>> >> How do they benefit? By cops raiding them, and taking peoples
>> >>medicine away?
>> >>
>> >> And what is proof to you? Some study? Twenty years of trials,
>> >>then they push out inferior tainted Marinol garbage? People are
>> >>dying now.
>> >> Show evidence from non-biased sources that your
>> >> >claims have merit (and there are many medical research
>>facilities >>out >there with no attachment to pharmaceutical
>>companies) and >>maybe >someone will take you seriously.
>> >>
>> >> Why don't you call all the people in the film and tell them that
>> >>they are liars or that they did not really get cured.
>> >>
>> >> Oh yeah I guess they are biased because they don't have big
>>tumours >> growing out of them.
>> >>
>> >> OK asshole your study is below(scroll down).
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >Unltil then, you're just another pot-head looking to legalize
>>his >> >daily fix so you won't be harassed by the police.
>> >>
>> >> LOL. My guess is that you are on the pigs side somehow.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >>>Anarchore: Cheap spammer shill.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That's right I'm a shill for the truth, not a shill for the
>> >> >> pharmaceutical/medical death industry like the creep that
>> >>responded >> with his cheap accusations.
>> >> >
>> >> >Show us the proof that you are spouting truth. Your videos *do
>> >>not do >that*.
>> >>
>> >> Prove that I am not truthfull.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >> If you have cancer and want to die of it after being burned
>>by >>the >> doctors who get paid handsomely in corporate
>>kickbacks for >>their >> mutilations, of course you can ignore
>>any documented >>cures. >
>> >> >Ah, but that's the crux: Your "cure" isn't documented by anyone
>> >>with >actual knowledge of cancer or it's treatment. If you think
>> >>that >Canadian doctors are "handsomely paid in corporate
>> >>kickbacks", you're >even more uneducated than your rather poor
>> >>public-relations skills >show.
>> >>
>> >> What, of course they get paid to give out specific products.
>> >>
>> >> >> People that want to live will seek out alternatives and try
>> >> >>something that looks credible.
>> >> >
>> >> >And what we - the people who have a vested interest in
>>something >> >being credible are saying is that your claims do not
>>look >>credible.
>> >> Why not? If I was dying of cancer I would be grateful to have
>>the >> opportunity to learn about different cures.
>> >>
>> >> Of course the "vested interests" you speak of are the pharma
>> >>lobbies led by Zionists like the Monsanto family.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >> And if you watch the film instead of listening to shills you
>> >>would >>find it out.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Or don't watch it. In your case I don't care, but I am sure
>> >>there >>are good people out there who could use the
>>information. >> >>
>> >> >> That is who it is for.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So go ahead, be a scumbag for big pharma. Who cares what you
>> >> >>think?
>> >> >
>> >> >Apparantly, more people than those that care what you think.
>>Bet >>that >stings, doesn't it ?
>> >>
>> >> Not really. How many hits does your blog get? Mine is pushing
>> >>50,000 views.
>> >>
>> >> What kind of scumbag tries to suppress cures?
>> >>
>> >> A big pharma scumbag. No one else has the "vested interest".
>> >>
>> >> OH and here's your studies done by men in labcoats, asshole.
>> >>
>> >>
>>http://drugpolicycentral.com/bot/pg/...r_nov_2003.htm
>>>> >> New Study Explains How Pot Kills Cancer Cells
>> >>
>> >> Nov 6, 2003, Steve Kubby
>> >>
>> >> A new study published in Nature Reviews-Cancer provides an
>> >>historic and detailed explanation about how THC and natural
>> >>cannabinoids counteract cancer, but preserve normal cells.
>> >>
>> >> The study by Manuel Guzmán of Madrid Spain found that
>> >>cannabinoids, the active components of marijuana, inhibit tumor
>> >>growth in laboratory animals. They do so by modulating key
>> >>cell-signalling pathways, thereby inducing direct growth arrest
>> >>and death of tumor cells, as well as by inhibiting the growth of
>> >>blood vessels that supply the tumor.
>> >> The Guzman study is very important according to Dr. Ethan Russo
>>, a >> neurologist and world authority on medical cannabis:
>>"Cancer occurs >> because cells become immortalized; they fail to
>>heed normal >>signals to turn off growth. A normal function of
>>remodelling in >>the body requires that cells die on cue. This is
>>called apoptosis, >>or programmed cell death. That process fails
>>to work in tumors. >>THC promotes its reappearance so that
>>gliomas, leukemias, >>melanomas and other cell types will in fact
>>heed the signals, stop >>dividing, and die."
>> >> "But, that is not all," explains Dr. Russo: "The other way that
>> >>tumors grow is by ensuring that they are nourished: they send
>>out >>signals to promote angiogenesis, the growth of new blood
>>vessels. >>Cannabinoids turn off these signals as well. It is
>>truly >>incredible, and elegant."
>> >> In other words, this article explains several ways in which
>> >> cannabinoids might be used to fight cancer, and, as the article
>> >>says, "Cannabinoids are usually well tolerated, and do not
>>produce >>the generalized toxic effects of conventional
>>chemotherapies. >>
>> >> Usually, any story that even suggests the possibility of a new
>> >> treatment for cancer is greeted with headlines about a "cancer
>> >>cure" - however remote in the future and improbable in fact it
>> >>might be. But if marijuana is involved, don't expect any
>>coverage >>from mainstream media, especially since mainstream
>>editors have >>been quietly killing this story for the past
>>thirty years. >>
>> >> That's right, news about the abilility of pot to shrink tumors
>> >>first surfaced, way back in 1974. Researchers at the Medical
>> >>College of Virginia, who had been funded by the National
>> >>Institutes of Health to find evidence that marijuana damages the
>> >>immune system, found instead that THC slowed the growth of three
>> >>kinds of cancer in mice -- lung and breast cancer, and a
>> >>virus-induced leukemia.
>> >> The Washington Post reported on the 1974 study -- in the "Local"
>> >> section -- on Aug. 18, 1974. Under the headline, "Cancer Curb Is
>> >> Studied," it read in part: "The active chemical agent in
>>marijuana >> curbs the growth of three kinds of cancer in mice and
>>may also >>suppress the immunity reaction that causes rejection
>>of organ >>transplants, a Medical College of Virginia team has
>>discovered." >>The researchers "found that THC slowed the growth
>>of lung cancers, >>breast cancers, and a virus-induced leukemia
>>in laboratory mice, >>and prolonged their lives by as much as 36
>>percent." >>
>> >> "News coverage of the Madrid discovery has been virtually
>> >>nonexistent in this country. The news broke quietly on Feb. 29,
>> >>2000 with a story that ran once on the UPI wire about the Nature
>> >>Medicine article," complained MarijuanaNews.com editor Richard
>> >>Cowan, who said he was only able to find the article through a
>> >>link that appeared briefly on the Drudge Report Web page. "The
>>New >>York Times, The Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times all
>>ignored >>the story, even though its newsworthiness is
>>indisputable: a >>benign substance occurring in nature destroys
>>deadly brain >>tumors," added Cowan.
>> >> On March 29, 2001, the San Antonio Current printed a carefully
>> >> researched, bombshell of a story by Raymond Cushing titled, "POT
>> >> SHRINKS TUMORS; GOVERNMENT KNEW IN '74." Media coverage since
>>then >>has been nonexistant, except for a copy of the story on
>>Alternet . >>
>> >> It is hard to believe that the knowledge that cannabis can be
>>used >>to fight cancer has been suppressed for almost thirty
>>years , yet >>it seems likely that it will continue to be
>>suppressed. Why? >>
>> >> According to Cowan, the answer is because it is a threat to
>> >>cannabis prohibition . "If this article and its predecessors
>>from >>2000 and 1974 were the only evidence of the suppression of
>>medical >>cannabis, then one might perhaps be able to rationalize
>>it in some >>herniated way. However, there really is massive
>>proof that the >>suppression of medical cannabis represents the
>>greatest failure of >>the institutions of a free society,
>>medicine, journalism, science, >>and our fundamental values,"
>>Cowan notes. >> Millions of people have died horrible deaths and
>>in many cases, >>familes exhausted their savings on dangerous,
>>toxic and expensive >>drugs. Now we are just beginning to realize
>>that while marijuana >>has never killed anyone, marijuana
>>prohibition has killed millions. >>
>> >> http://www.sierratimes.com/03/11/07/article_kubby.htm
>> >>
>> >> --



--

Paul T. Holland <pholland@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> Anarchore wrote:
> >
>
> > Quit talking to yourself you Goddamn weirdo.
>
> well, why should he? he gets a more adult and intelligent response than
> from you
>
Don't you love it when the only recourse of wackos is to call those they are
debating with "wackos" (or weirdos in this case)?

It's not far off that nut case who posts in can.politics and many right wing
groups named Ross John Lambourn.

He says that all Americans should knuckle under and give the government DNA
samples and fingerprints, claiming that only the leftists would disagree;
then uses Jonah Goldberg's book to claim that liberals are fascists!

Needless to say, the ensuing Usenet riot resulted in both Republicans and
Democrats agreeing that he was an asshole!

Spork wrote:

>Paul T. Holland <pholland@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>> Anarchore wrote:
>> >
>>
>> > Quit talking to yourself you Goddamn weirdo.
>>
>> well, why should he? he gets a more adult and intelligent response
>>than from you
>>
>Don't you love it when the only recourse of wackos is to call those
>they are debating with "wackos" (or weirdos in this case)?
>
>It's not far off that nut case who posts in can.politics and many
>right wing groups named Ross John Lambourn.
>
>He says that all Americans should knuckle under and give the
>government DNA samples and fingerprints, claiming that only the
>leftists would disagree; then uses Jonah Goldberg's book to claim
>that liberals are fascists!
>
>Needless to say, the ensuing Usenet riot resulted in both Republicans
>and Democrats agreeing that he was an asshole!

http://phoenixtears.ca/

THC in action killing cancer cells on the "Featured Experiment"

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can
change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
Margaret Mead

"The more money you spend on cancer, the more cancer you get," says Dr.
Sam Epstein, cancer expert and author of The Politics of Cancer "The
more drugs are bought, the higher the profit. The more disease there
is, the greater the profit."

"Cancer is a massive industry," says Diana Ward, a cancer information
advocate in London with the UK Working Group on the Primary Prevention
of Breast Cancer. "We're being taught to think about cancer as you do
about diabetes, as you do about asthma, and prepare for a time when if
you have it, you will just be on a lifelong drug regime."

The Canadian Cancer Society says; "The ultimate goal of basic cancer
research is twofold:

"coming up with the rare, "breakthrough" discovery that will help
prevent, control or even cure cancer...
contributing a small but significant bit of knowledge that will help
other scientists as they work on their own piece of the cancer puzzle."
but, even though 8 Canadians die every hour from various cancers, they
reply;

"The Society does not endorse or support medical products or dietary
supplements...thanks for the information. We wish you luck in your
work."

--
"The greater the corrupting power, the greater the number of
sycophants, quislings and agents rallying to defend it"--Anarchore 2008

http://zionofascism.wordpress.com/

Paul T. Holland <pholland@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
> lol
>
> csm7532@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
>
> > > More so than you, my hateful little sock-puppet.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Marc Bissonnette
> > > Looking for a new ISP?http://www.canadianisp.com
> > > Largest ISP comparison site across Canada.
> >
> > Now this is just disappointing. All this time I thought he was some
> > half-wit troll who spent his time spouting diatribe and bile,
> > repeating the same tripe in post after post. It appeared he just
> > happened to get into an efight with you. Now you say he's your sock
> > puppet. I really would expect you to do better than this. If you're
> > going to produce a sock puppet, can't you be more creative? Imbue it
> > with intelligence, grace, and humor?
>
>
I had a drink with Ted Rogers the other day and he said that he was thinking
about switching his notebook wireless over to http://www.canadianisp.com so
that nobody would know about his Peer to Peer file sharing habit!

having comprehension issues again i see -

yawn

Anarchore wrote:
>
> Paul T. Holland wrote:
>
> >lololol
> >
> >
> >
> >Anarchore wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> Suck it, scumbag. You asked for studies... I should have known
> >>better than to feed the pigs.
> >
> >actually wannabe, you were be told that you 'had' to provide factual
> >information, not just anecdotal reference
> >
> >hint: your 'old' information is already known
>
> Gee I guess we don't know that the earth revolves around the sun,

gosh! you didn't? well do try to catch up won't you?

> because that is "old information", right genius?
>

not even a good attempt at misdirection - yawn

> >
> >should you have know better than to do what you did? of course - your
> >'once over lightly' doesn't begin to rise to the level of adult
> >discussion
>
> I sure made you sit up and beg!

now, now puppy - mostly the replies are aimed for folks who are
interested in facts - unlike your polemical treatise

now, had 'you' actually read my posts for 'content' - you would have
noticed one small yet important fact:

they gave 'current' information as to the studies being done - you
apparently missed that - not that anyone really cares given your
presentational manner.


>
> >
> >turns out those 'pigs' know more than you thought and certainly more
> >than you 'do'...
>
> Uhhh huh... do demonstrate that you are a clever pig... we are waiting.

tsk, tsk , already did - you weren't able to read for content - lololol

>
> >
> >when faced with an actual discussion about active compounds, you
> >remained silent
> >
> >when shown actual current information, you remain silent
>
> You didn't show anything, liar.
>

that you didn't bother to read it, or, perhaps weren't able to
comprehend it, isn't our problem youngster. that you label someone a
liar when the facts are in the archives for anyone to see is simply
droll

> >
> >yet, you then state:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Another cancer cure is being ignored by mainstream pharma-medicine
> >>and
> >
> >studies are being conducted, including human trials, by the very
> >pharma-medicine corporate entities that you claim 'aren't' doing
> >so...part one of your rant proved false
>
> They are doing studies using THC to treat cancer? Do tell.

i did - there's that comprehension problem of yours...or is it simply
laziness on your part?
>
> >
> >- by both the [older] studies you cite, and the more current ones
> >already discusssed.
> >
> >but don't let mere facts stop your foam-spittle diatribe.
> >
> >
> >> media.
> >
> >also here, you cite news articles, we cite articles, there are
> >multitudes of other sources...
>
> I cite articles, you make a lot of noise and kick up dust in a bid for
> attention or some sick desire to keep cancer cures from the people.


gosh! and i even included one done by the same researcher you
quoted...lololol

but it's noise? from the same individual? lolololol
>
> >
> >your second conspiracy count proved false by the very articles you
> >quote...
>
> You don't see much followup though do you scumbag?


ah! changing the requirements aren't you? you said there wasn't any -
all the while actually having some to quote - we posted others, 'now'
you claim it's about 'follow-ups'? lolololololo

noise! indeed youngster

i guess researchers like anju preet, Kenneth M. Hargreaves, Straiker,
Kunos, Di Marzo, Mackie, and others would be surprised that you haven't
read their [more current] work

on the over 100,000 individual web hits any cursory search gives any
given month

like on qmul.ac.uk, biomedcentral.com, cancercouncil.com.au,
newscientist, bizjournals, associatedcontnet, and literally hundreds of
other contemporary - mainstream - sites.

> Without the
> internet the studies would have simply gone down the memory hole.

i guess you didn't bother to check mainstream outlets like forbes,
sciencedaily, innovations-report, nytimes, at least 5 newpapers that i
have read within the last year...
>
> And the cancer industry continues to press us to shovel money down the
> hole to them, in the quest for "the cure" that would bankrupt them.

so - the money being spent on hemp/thc/[and those other pesky compounds
that i mentioned and you didn't know] isn't really happening? lololol


>
> LOLOLLOLOOLOOLOOLLOLLLOOOOOLLOLLLLOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLO LOLOLOLOLLOLOL!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!
>
> >
> >so - is it that you are a disingenuous sophist, magnificently
> >ignorant, or are you simply a kook?
>
> Go tell astronomers that they are kooks, because they are using
> Galileo's "old information".

very humorous, and totally irrelevant - you simply aren't in that class

you might actually be able to conduct a reasonable conversation if you
were able to discuss contemporary work being done - but you don't, so
you can't

>
> Either that or step up and debunk it.

you are so on a rant that you haven't actually read what i've written -
that just makes you very silly


>Put it up or shut it up, you
> scumsucker shitball.

lolololololololol another failure to read for content -

i have shown that there 'is' work being done, and there 'is' some
modicum of media attention 0- that is isn't as 'you' want doesn't in any
way lessen the truthfulness and factualness of what is really out there.

that is just one reason why you are being laughed at - you simply don't
know what is real

>
> --

bwahahaha - well youngster, i don't require anyone to take my word for,
instead i posted quotes and sources - but don't let take interrupt your
rant...lolol

Anarchore wrote:
>
> Paul T. Holland wrote:
>
> >you do have such a cute way of misunderstanding factual information
> >
> >you claimed studies aren't being done, you claimed information is
> >being withheld, you claim media dones't cover the informaiton
> >
> >so far this exchange has proven each of your claims to be false.
> >
> >studies have been done, hare being conducted, and the studies are
> >publicized...
> >
> >but you continue to provide a source of amusement to those who have
> >[both previously and currently] actually read up on the issue.
>
> A scumbag saying it is so does not make it so. You just want attention
> or something. <pats Paul Holland on the head> Now run along and play
> elsewhere, little man.
>
> >
> >Anarchore wrote:
> >>
> >> Paul T. Holland wrote:
> >>
> >> >but silly thing - studies are being paid for, are being done -
> >>you are >several years behind - why are we not
> >>surpoirsed.....lololol - gosh i >guess all those conspiracy
> >>theories are...incorrect? lololol
> >> LOL now the retard contradicts himself and says that I was right!
> >> AHAHAHAHAA!
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Anarchore wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Marc Bissonnette wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >"Anarchore" <e@t.me> fell face-first on the keyboard. This was
> >>the >> >result:
> >> >>news7GdnbFL1-BwHIXVnZ2dnUVZ_rCtnZ2d@uniservecommunications: >
> >> >> >> Marc Bissonnette wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>"Anarchore" <e@t.me> fell face-first on the keyboard. This
> >>was >>the >>>result:
> >> >> >>>news:E72dnWEIkoC36orVnZ2dnUVZ_gKdnZ2d@uniservec ommunications:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>> Patrick Keenan wrote:
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>[snip]
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>>>You have no idea what I want. You apparently don't even
> >>know >> >>>>>that there are various forms of cancer, yet you claim
> >>to have >> >>>>>a cure.
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>There might be some valid clinical use for cannabis oils,
> >>but >> >>>>>if you're going to misrepresent and lie about it, you
> >>will >> >>>>>only push away the rational people who might be able
> >>to >> >>>>>actually conduct or arrange studies and trials. They
> >>won't >> >>>>>want to be associated with liars and frauds.
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>Your attitude does nothing but further associate the
> >>substance >> >>>>>with crackpots who have zero understanding of
> >>science, and >> >>>>>that pushes the possibility of real trials
> >>fuirther away. >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>You could have been honest in the first place and simply
> >> >> >>>>>answered that there weren't any studies or trials.
> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >>>>>You made a choice to not answer honestly. But what else
> >> >> >>>>>should we expect from a Holocaust denier or "revisionist"?
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> I presented the information for people that weren't
> >> >> >>>>assholes... as for you and the big pharma industry you
> >> >> >>>>represent, you can FOAD of cancer for all I care.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>>...Except for the fact that everyone who isn't an "asshole"
> >> >> >>>certainly knows you are and wouldn't trust anything you
> >>posted >> >>>online if you paid them to.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Why not? My being an asshole does not preclude me from being
> >> >> >>right. And I usually am right.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Sigh. I am curious if you are this obtuse in person. Look: This
> >> >>is a >relatively anonymous medium - you, especially, are using a
> >> >>pseudonym >to shield your identity and thus your credibility.
> >>Just >>because you >say you are right not only doesn't make you
> >>right, >>but it doesn't >tell anyone else that you are correct,
> >>thus the >>demand for proof >other than a biased film who's
> >>participants >>benefit by you claiming >you are "right".
> >> >>
> >> >> How do they benefit? By cops raiding them, and taking peoples
> >> >>medicine away?
> >> >>
> >> >> And what is proof to you? Some study? Twenty years of trials,
> >> >>then they push out inferior tainted Marinol garbage? People are
> >> >>dying now.
> >> >> Show evidence from non-biased sources that your
> >> >> >claims have merit (and there are many medical research
> >>facilities >>out >there with no attachment to pharmaceutical
> >>companies) and >>maybe >someone will take you seriously.