Nov 11, 2011 -- 6:30PM, Shubee wrote:

What if Seventh-day Adventists had the cure for cancer? And what if it was against the law to give the cure to cancer patients or prove scientifically that the cure was safe and effective? Would Seventh-day Adventist physicians choose to be safe and law abiding or would they tell their cancer patients that their only choice is to die a miserable death or they must depend on expensive chemotherapy and radiation treatments if they can afford them and also settle for poor health as a consequence?

Just an assumption on my part, but I would like to think that they would adhere to the laws of the land and present their cure for authentication and approval by the approving authorities. In this manner, ALL physicians would have access to it. In the long run, many more would be cured as a result.

Just my thoughts.

Discerner

Nov 13, 2011 -- 10:42PM, Shubee wrote:

Nov 12, 2011 -- 9:59PM, Discerner wrote:

 I would like to think that they would adhere to the laws of the land and present their cure for authentication and approval by the approving authorities.

You failed to understand my question. I said what if it is against the law to prove scientifically that the cure is safe and effective.

For an approving authority to institute a law to deem a cure for cancer as being scientifically unproven because of a question whether the cure was unsafe and/or ineffective or not is a 'stretch', for a law to be written that affects only that particular possible cure as the only provision in the law is infinitely unlikely. Besides, there had to be some research initially performed in order to determine that it needed to issue a law prohibiting further scientific research. If that research was the cause of establishing the fact that the cure was unsafe, then it would behoove the doctor to adhere to approved medical procedures within the law.

Nov 13, 2011 -- 11:12PM, Shubee wrote:

Nov 13, 2011 -- 10:58PM, Discerner wrote:

For an approving authority to institute a law to deem a cure for cancer as being scientifically unproven because of a question whether the cure was unsafe and/or ineffective or not is a 'stretch', for a law to be written that affects only that particular possible cure as the only provision in the law is infinitely unlikely. Besides, there had to be some research initially performed in order to determine that it needed to issue a law prohibiting further scientific research. If that research was the cause of establishing the fact that the cure was unsafe, then it would behoove the doctor to adhere to approved medical procedures within the law.

Discerner,

You are remarkably undiscerning to not discern the meaning of www.everythingimportant

In view of this 'overwhelming evidence' that marijuana cures cancer, why haven't the approving authorities passed their hand of approval over it? Also known by some organizations is that lemons will cure cancer, but I don't think you can purchase 'lemon pills' at the drugstore yet! Until there is irrefutable proof of the safety and validity of marijuana as a cure for cancer, as a doctor I would refrain from its use as a substitute for approved and proven cancer meds used today. I have several friends that are either undergoing treatment for cancer, or have just finished doing so, and marijuana was never posed as a possible cure. The only situation in which I could see this type of treatment used would be as a last resort...maybe down in Mexico!

Nov 15, 2011 -- 8:27PM, Shubee wrote:

Nov 14, 2011 -- 9:40PM, Discerner wrote:

Nov 13, 2011 -- 11:12PM, Shubee wrote:

Discerner,

You are remarkably undiscerning to not discern the meaning of www.everythingimportant

In view of this 'overwhelming evidence' that marijuana cures cancer, why haven't the approving authorities passed their hand of approval over it? 

Discerner,

You're still not discerning. How can we have an intelligent conversation unless you begin by trying to live up to the name that you've given yourself?

Or by the name Discerner, do you really mean sorcerer and mind reader? That would explain why you're not discerning at all.

Probably the reason I am failing to comprehend what you want me to say is that the subject fails to raise my interest. I'm just an old dumb GI, and if it doesn't affect my retired pay, then I'm not interested in it. So I guess I'll have to rely on an intellectual like you to explain it to me. Besides, my doctor isn't an SDA, and most likely will do anything for money, so at my next visit with him, I'll present him with your scenario. In the meantime, would you like to talk about the velocity of a 105mm artillery piece using an HE shell at Charge 7...range 10,000 yards? Also, figure in the site measurement since the target is 3000 feet higher than the gun placement. So, the question is...what type of target would warrant a battery three-round volley?

See you at the Officers Club!