So if it's not in your Natural Resources class it's not true? This is SO proof of the theory that there's nothing more dangerous than someone with a little bit of information.

Ok to state it bluntly.

Bullshit!!!

If I'm wrong then why don't you get me some solid resources. (IE MSNBC, BBC world) NY Times ect.)

Why would theories related to the pharmaceutical industry be discussed in a natural resources class?

I'm going to ditto that. They were testing it at my University (their med school research dept that is.)

And as for curing cancer... do you know how hard it is to get the body to kill it's own cells gone mad? Cancer is not an external disease (HPV is one of the rare exceptions where a virus is directly linked to cancer) You get cancer because the toxins in, say, cigarettes, cause your body's cells to malfunction.

Alzheimers appears to work similarly. It's a malfunction of your own brain cells. Organic diseases like this are much more difficult to deal with than ones caused by bacteria, virii, or fungi.

And if you not knowing a member of the military who suffers from colds is not statistically significant. Show me a study that says military personnel suffer from fewer colds and we can start talking.

/of course, THAT is covered up too I'm sure.

Not that it ever was, but why would you ask such a question on such a extensive subject??

As stated before, but I see you've ignored that part of my post. Please, if it's BS then prove me wrong with a reliable source. One that doesn't talk about UFO'scoming down to earth and raping cows.

Honestly I think it's very sad that somebody hasn't backed me up on this. I'd expect to see this conversation on the X-files.

So the X-files is a reliable source...as well as your Natural Resources class. And if it's not discussed in your Natural Resources class, then it doesn't exist until someone proves it does by citing C-SPAN??? Ok, I understand now.


:rolleyes: :confused: :confused:

I think I found something that could fix it.

From the UWSP course catalog...

PHIL 121. Critical Thinking. 3 cr. Fundamental principles of reasoning; recognition, analysis, and evaluation of arguments; selection and testing of hypotheses. GDR:HU3

Perhaps Langox510x should enroll himself in this class.

Seriously dude. I didn't ignore anything. All of us are merely pointing out that citing your Natural Resouces class as the source of all information on this topic is a little sketchy. I'm not even DISAGREEING WITH YOU. Personally, I don't know enough on the topic to have much of an opinion either way....like I said 20 posts ago.

I don't even have a problem with him stating "This is what we discussed in my Natural Resources class...", it's the fact that he tried to use the inverse and say "Well, since we never discussed this, it couldn't have possibly happened...". I took a Marine Geology class, and we never discussed the fact that water was wet, but I'm pretty sure that it is, despite never having covered that in the Marine Geology class.

You stated that better than I did. :)

Whatever you discussed or did not discuss in your natural resources class (hopefully, you can find a way to mention the fact that you are, in fact, taking a natural resources class in your response, for those who missed it the first 900 times) is irrelevant to any potential conspiracy by the pharmaceutical industry.

Your "argument" in this thread seems to involve telling everyone to prove you wrong -- although I'm not even sure what statement you made that you want people to attempt to prove wrong. You said you've heard nothing about a pharmaceutical conspiracy in your natural resources class (hey guys, he's in a natural resources class, if you didn't catch that earlier). Then you say if it's bullshit prove me wrong with sources. If what is bullshit? That you didn't hear about it in your natural resources class?

Even if you did make some type of substantive statement, making an unsupported statement and telling everyone to prove you wrong is not an effective strategy on your part, and I can't imagine why anybody would entertain your requests.

I never ment that in any way, what I mean is that threw "logical reason" I have concluded this to be BS. Now what you need to do is at the least prove me wrong with some sources!!! Oh, and in this case because of the nature of the subjefct if this isn't on MSNBC, BBC, or mdia along that lines it probubly isn't true.

Ok, you get no points for overlooking the sarcasm. I'm not the one who came up with this loony theory, I'm the one whos asking if you can back it up with reliable sources, sources such as those a professor would ask for in college. Can you handle that??

Scroll back and read about how AIDS has supposedly been cured, but the Pharmaceutical companies are unethically holding the cure back to make money.

Now all I’m kindly asking is where this myth was fabricated. (Source)

No, what you said was and we're simply pointing out the FLAW in your "logic".

Also, the sarcasm bus missed one passenger in this thread and it certainly wasn't AlphaFrog.

The person who made that statement is free to provide a source. Why would you expect those of us who did not make that statement to provide a source? It's not our job to do that any more than it's yours, and if finding a source is so important to you, it's probably easier to look for one yourself instead of harping on us to do it for you.

ETA: I'm not even mentioning the fact that your demand to "prove you wrong" was not directed toward that.