I told you so

[John H. Gohde]

Cancer 'as old as multi-cellular life on Earth'

http://richarddawkins.net/2014/07/cancer-as-old-as-multi-cellular-life-on-earth-researchers-discover-a-primordial-cancer-in-a-primitive-animal/

[Taka]

Post by John H. Gohde
Cancer 'as old as multi-cellular life on Earth'
http://richarddawkins.net/2014/07/cancer-as-old-as-multi-cellular-life-on-earth-researchers-discover-a-primordial-cancer-in-a-primitive-animal/

moi is a cancer of the usenet ....

[Large Hadron Collider]

Post by Taka

Post by John H. Gohde
Cancer 'as old as multi-cellular life on Earth'
http://richarddawkins.net/2014/07/cancer-as-old-as-multi-cellular-life-on-earth-researchers-discover-a-primordial-cancer-in-a-primitive-animal/

moi is a cancer of the usenet ....

Do I need to put JHG in my kill file?

[John H. Gohde]

Post by John H. Gohde
Cancer 'as old as multi-cellular life on Earth'
http://richarddawkins.net/2014/07/cancer-as-old-as-multi-cellular-life-on-earth-researchers-discover-a-primordial-cancer-in-a-primitive-animal/

Just like I told you so, age-related cancer is nothing more than a breakdown in what makes multicellular life multicellular as a function of both time and vitamin D insufficiency.

It is absolutely a brilliant idea, which moi located and verified to be 100% correct over 3 years ago, no thanks to the Science Imbeciles.

Age-related cancer despite the perverse protests of the Science Imbeciles can be completely eradicated by vitamin D, for mere pennies.

[unknown]

http://richarddawkins.net/2014/07/cancer-as-old-as-multi-cellular-life-on-eart
h-researchers-discover-a-primordial-cancer-in-a-primitive-animal/


"Just like I told you so, age-related cancer is nothing more than a
breakdown in what makes multicellular life multicellular as a function of
both time and vita min D insufficiency.

It is absolutely a brilliant idea, which moi located and verified to be
100% cor rect over 3 years ago, no thanks to the Science Imbeciles."

Just one problem, that is not what the article said. In fact it is support
against the vit d as silver bullet for cancer notion.

As said many times, one needs even a minimal knowledge of science to be
able to evaluate science related information.

[John H. Gohde]

Post by John H. Gohde
http://richarddawkins.net/2014/07/cancer-as-old-as-multi-cellular-life-on-eart
h-researchers-discover-a-primordial-cancer-in-a-primitive-animal/
"Just like I told you so, age-related cancer is nothing more than a
breakdown in what makes multicellular life multicellular as a function of
both time and vita min D insufficiency.
It is absolutely a brilliant idea, which moi located and verified to be
100% cor rect over 3 years ago, no thanks to the Science Imbeciles."
Just one problem, that is not what the article said. In fact it is support
against the vit d as silver bullet for cancer notion.

What the article says and what it points out are two entirely different things.

Just thought that I would tell you being that Science Imbeciles are totally devoid of intelligence.

Yes, it points out that despite staring it straight in the face conventional medicine, and all the closet Science Imbeciles on these ngs, don't get it and apparently never will.

It is NOT about genes, Dumb-asses.

For those with a still intact brain, cancer is nothing more than a
breakdown in what makes multicellular life multicellular as a function of both time and vitamin D insufficiency.

It is absolutely a brilliant idea, which moi located and verified to be 100% correct over 3 years ago, no thanks to the Science Imbeciles.

Age-related cancer despite the perverse protests of the Science Imbeciles can be completely eradicated by vitamin D, for mere pennies.

Just connecting the dots for the benefit of the mentally challenged Science Imbeciles on these ngs.

[John H. Gohde]

Post by John H. Gohde
Age-related cancer despite the perverse protests of the Science Imbeciles can be completely eradicated by vitamin D, for mere pennies.

Depending upon your perspective, the good news is that it takes a few more things than just supplementing with vitamin D. There are in fact a few other important caveats.

Saying that cancer can be completely eradicated by vitamin D, is just a figure of speech. Or, a rallying point to get people's attention. Having gotten your attention, people should be motivated enough on their own to figure out the rest of the details.

The caveat that moi likes the best is that it takes a minimum of three (3) years of daily supplementation in order to be protected from cancer.

Those who wait until the very last minute, expecting that a handful of vitamin D supplements will save them are complete fools.

[John H. Gohde]

Post by John H. Gohde
The caveat that moi likes the best is that it takes a minimum of three (3) years of daily supplementation in order to be protected from cancer.

Ergo, Vitamin D becomes less of a quick fix and more of a lifestyle issue.

[unknown]

Post by John H. Gohde
The caveat that moi likes the best is that it takes a minimum of three

(3) yea
rs of daily supplementation in order to be protected from cancer.


"Ergo, Vitamin D becomes less of a quick fix and more of a lifestyle
issue."

Can you provide support on the web for the 3 years idea if you please?

[John H. Gohde]

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by John H. Gohde
The caveat that moi likes the best is that it takes a minimum of three

(3) yea
rs of daily supplementation in order to be protected from cancer.
"Ergo, Vitamin D becomes less of a quick fix and more of a lifestyle
issue."
Can you provide support on the web for the 3 years idea if you please?

I already did you fucking tard. Obviously this Science Imbecile is NOT very motivated, nor has anything remotely resembling a brain. Your scum bucket attitude has been noted.

Remember this, the last man standing has the last laugh. :)

[unknown]

Post by John H. Gohde
The caveat that moi likes the best is that it takes a minimum of three

(3) yea
rs of daily supplementation in order to be protected from cancer.


""Ergo, Vitamin D becomes less of a quick fix and more of a lifestyle
issue.""

Post by John H. Gohde
Can you provide support on the web for the 3 years idea if you please?

"I already did you fucking tard. Obviously this Science Imbecile is NOT
very mot ivated, nor has anything remotely resembling a brain. Your scum
bucket attitude has been noted."

Then it should be easy to repeat it for this thread. Unless of course one
wants to avoid a scientific consideration of the source assertion.

[John H. Gohde]

Post by John H. Gohde

Post by John H. Gohde
The caveat that moi likes the best is that it takes a minimum of three

(3) years of daily supplementation in order to be protected from cancer.
Ergo, Vitamin D becomes less of a quick fix and more of a lifestyle issue.

Post by John H. Gohde
Can you provide support on the web for the 3 years idea if you please?

"I already did you fucking tard. Obviously this Science Imbecile is NOT
very mot ivated, nor has anything remotely resembling a brain. Your scum
bucket attitude has been noted."
Then it should be easy to repeat it for this thread. Unless of course one
wants to avoid a scientific consideration of the source assertion.

Guess what? You are NOT my buddy.

You can either use your brain by using my site search on my site, or start reading all of my posts on this ng in reverse chronological order. The choice is yours.

Surprise moi, and prove just how smart you are.

Personally, I do NOT have any faith in you. :)

[unknown]

Post by John H. Gohde
The caveat that moi likes the best is that it takes a minimum of three

(3) yea
rs of daily supplementation in order to be protected from cancer.


""Ergo, Vitamin D becomes less of a quick fix and more of a lifestyle
issue.""

Post by John H. Gohde
Can you provide support on the web for the 3 years idea if you please?

"I already did you fucking tard. Obviously this Science Imbecile is NOT
very mot ivated, nor has anything remotely resembling a brain. Your scum
bucket attitude has been noted."

Then it should be easy to repeat it for this thread. Unless of course one
wants to avoid a scientific consideration of the source assertion.

"Guess what? You are NOT my buddy."

Ah shucks, and all we have been through together.

"You can either use your brain by using my site search on my site, or start
readi ng all of my posts on this ng in reverse chronological order. The
choice is you rs.

Surprise moi, and prove just how smart you are.

Personally, I do NOT have any faith in you. :)"

Thus, the 3 year bit is just all so much hot air until produced for
consideration.

I have great faith in you, you will crap out as usual in a self defeating
flame of the narcissistic.

[unknown]

"Saying that cancer can be completely eradicated by vitamin D, is just a
figure o f speech. Or, a rallying point to get people's attention. Having
gotten your a ttention, people should be motivated enough on their own to
figure out the rest"

One obvious problem, what if one has no credability in such unsupported
pronouncements?

One would have to have earned credibility to evoke others to seek
additional information, no?

One thinks that is not the point of "attention" the poster wants, no?

[John H. Gohde]

Post by unknown
One thinks that is not the point of "attention" the poster wants, no?

I shall simply sit in my easy chair and wait for Darwinian natural selection to remove the thorn from these ngs. :)