Comments by "Jack Haveman" (@JackHaveman52) on "Newsmax" channel.

@patriotpastor59 What would you suggest he do? Do something? Do what?
22
@brianmalexander And representatives are chosen by a democratic system. That's what this scandal is all about. VOTING and voting fraud. If the US isn't a democracy, all this is moot. The entire election is moot and pointless. The US is a representative republic which uses a Constitution to be a check on Democratic excesses or mob rule. The Democratic process is integral to the function of this representative republic.
5
What other countries are curing cancer? There are a lot of us out here that not only would like to know, but absolutely need that information. Almost cruel to tell us that and not tell us where we can go to be cured.
4
@giordanobruno1333 "Show me the man and I'll show you his crime" Lavrentiy Beria, Stalin's strong man has said proudly. Of course, trolls don't get what that even means or implies.
4
I'd pay more for the cure than I would for the treatment. Then again, I have a poor head for business.
3
Another one that''s complaining about nothing being done. What would YOU suggest should be done?
3
@Troy Hendrickson What do YOU think about the killing of gays by the government in Iran? What do you think about the killing of those kids in Nashville? What do you think about the genocide in Cambodia in the seventies? Are my questions relevant to what happened to Riley? They're just as relevant as your pointless question. Maybe you should try to stay on topic.
3
@giordanobruno1333 Like I said....trolls have no understanding of what I just said. You've just proved that you are a troll.
3
I've been to the DR and Cuba. Cuba is such a sad country with really great people. The poverty is heart wrenching. We would give the cleaning staff food and knick knacks that they just can't get in Cuba, along with money. They were so grateful. Their stores were near empty with hardly any food choices. DR is corrupt but things are a lot better there than they are in Cuba. Right now, Cuba is undergoing nation wide blackouts that have lasted for days. It's terrible what radical socialism will do to a nation. Don't even start down that road by voting Democrat.
3
StigmataBob2 I'm not American, so I can't really say what your medical people say. Here in Canada, cancer is a terrible disease and I've lost my mother and friends to it. Our survival rate is a little better than the United States, but believe me, the word cancer carries with it a real sense of dread here, as it does all over the world. Right now there is no definitive cure. Some cancers, pancreatic and brain cancer, are a near death sentence. Others, testicular and skin cancer have very good survival rates. There are lifestyle habits that can stave off the disease, smoking, alcohol abuse, diet for example, but the idea that there is something out there that will cure all cancer, all the time, is a myth. When I was young, a person with heart problems had a death sentence hanging over them. A person that had undergone heart surgery was looked on as one of the walking dead, waiting for the ticker to quit. Now, quadruple bypass is routine. People are living normal lives after surgery, for years. Unheard of, when I was young. The strides made in heart care have been fantastic. Unfortunately, it hasn't been the same for cancer. Cancer attacks all parts of the body and attacks them all differently. They have different causes, different pathologies, even different cures. What works for testicular cancer doesn't seem to matter with pancreatic cancer. Yes, there are those who get rich treating cancer. There are those who get rich treating heart problems. Why can the heart patients live normal healthy lives after treatment but cancer patients have so many more problems. Are heart doctors more competent, more compassionate than the cancer doctors? Why would that be? Anyone, no matter who he is or where he lives, that can cure cancer, every time will become a billionaire and there is no way the pharmaceutical companies can stop it, even if they wanted to. You see, even drug company executives get cancer, they die from it, lose loved ones to it, are afraid of it...just like we are. There is a surface logic to the idea that people get rich off cancer but dig underneath and you'll find the same frightened people in the pharma boardrooms that you find on the street.
2
Jason Rasset Of course, the insurance companies love to pay out large sums of money for medical procedures that obviously don't work. That's how they make money...by giving it away. A great business plan.
2
@cbxxb4841 Of course, it's our job to figure it out. How are we going to know if our elected officials are corrupt or not and to know who to vote for in the next election? The only way to keep the politicians and bureaucrats honest is to know what it is they're doing and calling them out when they do something wrong. Those politicians would love it if the voters don't bother to understand what it is they're doing. Politics would attract every scoundrel in the country. It's how politics work. Information is the only way to hold them to account.
2
@justinancheta4843 If the US were ONLY a Constitutional Republic, then any President could, with a majority in Congress and in the Supreme Court, could change the very nature of the country. Without the Democratic process, there would be nothing to stop him. It's why they have elections. It's to prevent the avenues a dictator could use to usurp power. A populace that can't vote, has no power. That's why it's SO important to stress the importance of the Democratic process in any real and viable Republic. Without the input of the people, Constitutional Republic is just a fancy name.
2
2020 Dem Fraud I know. This voting scandal is stupid, isn't it? Why would you be worried about the vote when you're NOT a democracy? Elections......why do they even do it?
2
Jason Fella Your statement about the medical methods is true. People could have died from forms of cancer but the medical establishment had no way of knowing what it was that killed their patient. Another factor is the death rates by other factors in those times. That was in the days before penicillin and antibiotics. An infection, that we cure today, could, and quite often did, kill you. People weren't living long enough to contract cancer because they were dying of other causes. Infant mortality rates were far higher than they are now. My grandfather sired 23 children. 7 seven of them died before their 5th birthday. How many of those who died in 1900 from other diseases and reasons would have died later in life from cancers? Something that we can never honestly answer.
1
StigmataBob2 I'm not sure I'd believe anything that comes out of Iran. They're a Muslim Theocracy. They're liable to say that they're success rate (dubious claim) was due to their faithfulness to Allah. Not very compelling. Germany, on the other hand, is an interesting example. How do they do it? How does their treatments differ from American treatments? What is their success rate compared to the United States? Do the surrounding countries, the Netherlands, Denmark, Austria for example, use similar treatments and have similar success rates. How does Germany, a capitalist country, avoid the cash-for-cure system of the United States? I googled cancer death rates by country and I didn't find any evidence that Germany's record was that much better than the United States. Iran was way down in the death rate column, but it was stated that their numbers were not that reliable. I did read in many sites that the survival rates were affected by how strident the successful countries were in testing for cancer. Early detection is an important factor is survival rates and some countries have better programs in place in order to detect the cancer in its earliest stages. Nowhere did I read that the countries with the more successful rates of cancer used different methods of cures than the United States.
1
Mike Ivsin Rick Simpson has done no clinical tests, keeps no records and relies on anecdotal evidence to prove his cures. He claims a 70 percent cure rate but offers no documentation to back up this claim. He eyeballs doses, has no idea what compounds in his hemp oil are the active cancer fighting ingredients and can't begin to tell how and why they work. I've no doubt that marijuana can alleviate the discomfort of cancer but I'm afraid that as a cure for cancer it not that likely. It may just be wishful thinking on the part of the legalize marijuana advocates.
1
Mike Ivsin Not any time soon, buddy. If Simpson wants to prove the medical benefits of his hemp oil in fighting cancer, he should have the documentation available to show his success rates. Every one of these guys who claim they have the cure for cancer never have any type of medical files to show for it. If it's as legit as they claim, you'd think they'd only be too happy to meticulously record every facet of each case so the medical community, all of us, can examine them to verify their accuracy. That's why the medical establishments keep those records. To chart the success and failure rates in hopes of establishing patterns.
1
Mike Ivsin I'm not speaking for Canadians. Everyone of us can speak for ourselves. Why doesn't he have the documentation and the stage by stage records for each patient? It's a simple enough question and it's common sense. Why would you or anyone believe a person who doesn't do the simplest requirements to prove his claims? We're all going to die...even you. No need to be ghoulish about it and no need to act as if you have some kind of antidote to death. You don't.
1
Mike Ivsin Typical response of conspiracy theory types. You can't answer the questions asked of you so, instead, you start with the accusations. Answer my question. Engage in an adult conversation. In case you forgot the question...I asked why Rick Simpson doesn't have the meticulous records to show the progress of each patient that he has cured and his failures. Along with that, the reasons he believes each case was a success or a failure. That would show patterns that all researchers and medical people could examine to better understand his methods with the ultimate goal of improving on his methods until he has a 100 percent success rate and that success rate is repeated everywhere on the planet. That would be the responsible thing to do. Why doesn't he do that? I would, if I thought I had a cure, but he doesn't. Neither do any of the other people with their so called cures. All they do is make sullen remarks about how big pharma makes money, yadayadayada. That does nothing to add to the knowledge of how cancer works or how their cures combat the disease. Why doesn't he keep meticulous records and if he does, why won't he share them? I don't expect an answer. I expect you to either disappear or return to make more disgusting comments about my character. Anything but an answer to the question.
1
Mike Ivsin Just as I predicted. You didn't answer the question. You just went after me and my family. My prediction "I don't expect an answer. I expect you to either disappear or return to make more disgusting comments about my character. Anything but an answer to the question." I called it.
1
Mike Ivsin And I said that it would be logical and responsible of Simpson if he carefully documented every case. Meticulous records kept of every patient so patterns could be shown and dosages be realized that would be of maximum benefit to future patients. Records that could be examined by other researchers and healers so his methods could be improved upon. Yet, he doesn't do this. Why? Why won't he keep records like any other medical specialist? That for me is a red flag. He just flies by the seat of his pants, professional ethics be damned and it would be the logical, responsible and ethical thing to do...keep records of his patients. Please tell my why he won't. Once again, you won't have an answer for me. You'll either disappear or make your sickening remarks about my family dying. You're really not a nice person at all.
1
+veganath When, in all of human history, in all of the history of every living thing, has anyone or thing escaped the inevitability of their death? Ever. I can't think of one The one thing doctors and pharma companies know for a fact is that there will always be lots of customers. Cure them of one thing, they'll be back for another reason. If you don't cure them and they die, they're not coming back. They've lost a customer. If you live, you'll be back. There's no escape. I've got nothing against people smoking pot. However, what does this Rick Simpson have to lose with his claims. He's not forced to do any tests, has no requirements that he must meet, no meetings with the FDA or drug administrations in other countries, has no set dosage requirements, has no idea what component of marijuana is the deciding factor in curing cancer, no idea of the pathology of specific cancers and how that agent acts on it. He's got nothing except some anecdotes about how buddy got cancer and started a pot treatment and is now cured. I've got mine, too. A good friend has been smoking pot for over 30 years now and he's dying....dying of cancer. How is it going to cure what it even couldn't prevent? I'm not saying that pot isn't useful in alleviating the horrible symptoms of cancer which could have a positive effect on stopping its progress. I'm pretty sure it does. However, to advise some one to not see his doctor and follow Simpson's "cure" is irresponsible and self serving. Use yourself as a guinea pig if you want but don't sacrifice others because of a personal opinion.
1
Saying that mammograms contribute to breast cancer is like saying x-rays contributed to my broken ankle.
1
Maggie Byrne What!!! X-rays did cause my broken ankle. Jaysus!!!
1
Maggie Byrne I don't know....but I never trusted those x-ray technicians.
1
docstowatch The average person in North America is exposed to an average of about 3 mSv of radiation a year. That is just ordinary background radiation. A mammogram exposes a woman to about .4 mSv of radiation in one visit. That is two views of each breast. That is minimal exposure and raises the average of those women from 3 mSv to 3.4 mSv. That is an average. I'm sure there are overlapping exposures involved between those who have a mammogram and those who don't. The risks are minuscule compared to what could happen if the cancer isn't detected at an early stage.
1
Give a reference to this supposed admission. What's the guy's name? When did he say it? Where was he when he said it? Who did he say it to?
1
Jason Fella There is no way that we will find a cure for cancer without research. Research means money. Money for labs, equipment, support staff and researchers. No one works for free. You wouldn't...even for something as noble as a cure for cancer. You're not going to live in a cardboard box, eating out of dumpsters, all the while looking for that elusive cure. The cure will not be something that some guy accidently stumbles upon. Cures will come from intensive studies into the basic structure of the living cell and it won't be cheap. Economics dictate that a drug company has to make money to continue to make the product. If manufacturing the cure is a guarantee for bankruptcy, the cure won't be manufactured. There is no way around it.
1
chprofits guan Is that a peer reviewed youtube video? Lol. Direct me to a study that's been submitted to an internationally recognized peer reviewed journal. Some guy giving testimonials on a news cast is what is known as anecdotal evidence. Interesting but not even close to conclusive. If hemp oil is a cure, there must be studies done, double blind tests and meticulous patient records kept. I don't see any of that yet.
1
@SANDSOFTRUTH Trump inherited a war. What did you think would happen? Trump wanted to withdraw but wouldn't because he wanted to be sure that the Taliban wouldn't take over the country. Biden didn't care. He kept pulling out as the Taliban became stronger and stronger. Taliban fighters were at the gate of the American gates while people were desperately trying to leave, fearing for their lives. Biden didn't care. Not only did he keep telling the military to leave, he left billions in weapons for the Taliban to use. Also, more than Americans were killed that day. Afghan allies were killed, a lot of them that day. The rest of them knew that they were going to die that day as the American deserted them to the Taliban. They were so desperate that they were hanging onto the outsides of planes as the planes were taking off. There is no telling how many Afghans died in the aftermath of that withdrawal. Now the Afghanistan is the most restrictive nation on the planet, comparable to North Korea....and you have the nerve to criticise Trump and compare Biden's shame to what Trump was forced into. Trump wanted out but he sure didn't do what Biden did. Also, why didn't Biden show up for this ceremony. Oh....I forgot. He had to go to the beach.
1
@giordanobruno1333 I will if it indicates the left wing mindset. "Know thine enemy" to quote Sun Tzu. If you don't understand them, it's difficult to defeat them. It's probably why Trump isn't going away. The radical left of the Democrat party doesn't understand him or his supporters. They think that their hate is enough.
1
If that's the Democrat strategy, it's going to fail this time and fail miserably.
1
@BarronShouldEnlist BS. There were 65 combat deaths during Trump's administration. 45 of those deaths were in Afghanistan. This is from Newsweek, a publication that has never been friendly to Trump and was being very critical of him in this article. Your number is a bald faced lie and you know it.
1
@sunshinehoward9649 He didn't give his opinion. He lied. I googled it and that number doesn't come up anywhere. He pulled it out of his backside, pretending he had some authority. It wasn't an opinion.
1