this post was submitted on 01 May 2025
383 points (96.4% liked)
Showerthoughts
34047 readers
664 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.
Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:
- Both “200” and “160” are 2 minutes in microwave math
- When you’re a kid, you don’t realize you’re also watching your mom and dad grow up.
- More dreams have been destroyed by alarm clocks than anything else
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- No politics
- If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
- A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS
If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.
Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Okay, starting off with a made up fallacy is always a bad sign in science FYI.... And so is going off that bad fallacy with more fallacies for 10 paragraphs.
LOL of course, that actually is pretty consistent w your pyramid conspiracies
LOL
LOL
Please note that "TKS" is a made up thing by the writer, where if the scientific community doesnt like it, then it's real/better by the ampunt they dislike it. It's literally a vulnerable narcissist's main thinking error. This is a vulnerable narcissist.
Let's just move on to the claims you're making:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burzynski_Clinic
See the last line? Now tell me, how is he not ALSO PART of the Turf war your article is talking about?
So it's not just Wikipedia against him, but also medical boards. SO again, no issue with Wikipedia here, or science, he just is grifting people and you dont get what science even is (hint: it's reproducible results).
So we know what it is, and it can indeed be synthesized (how else would the body make it, lol). We also already have people taking grains of thyroid, ovaries, adrenal glands, testes - and those organs are also used to make pharmaceuticals. Nothing stopping people from drinking pee or eating medically relevant foods.
Further, you don't always need a placebo for studies, you need a CONTROL group. Often the control group is given a placebo, but in this case, they could use other chemotherapy treatment as a control. They dont want to be more legitimate though, because their patients' and their families would have better standing to sue them for lying/false advertising/snake oil. So no, it wasnt rejected for not having a placebo group and being too ethical to give cancer patients a placebo LOL
Gee, I dont think Wikipedia is the issue lol my word
The real cancer conspiracy is that corporations wont let us have Medicaid for All. That would detect cancer (and toxins) and allow us to class action sue companies for them. Cant sue if it was never detected. Thats why they find carcinogens and lead in kids' products so much - their products dont have more lead in them, but kids all can be on Medicaid and that catches it. Flint, MI, water poisoning was detected by a kid on Medicaid.
There’s not really any conspiracy except one. Every billionaire and corporation seeks to profit above all other ethical considerations. I don’t know who’s correct regarding Burzynski, and I hope I’m never in a place to decide. But I don’t think it’s difficult for billionaires to brigade and rewrite any narrative that may profit them.
Wikipedia is great, but I don’t think it should be viewed as trustworthy or definitive as a source. In the same way billionaire-owned news corporations cannot be trusted to tell the whole truth. Wikipedia is a great place to start, but we could all use more practice following to source material, and to some extent I think Wikipedia reduces critical thinking.
Chat GPT reduces critical thinking, because it can literally "think" for people. If someone isn't a critical thinker, it's not that they consume Wikipedia, it's that they lack critical thinking skills. They will approach ANY TOPIC or writing the same, because they aren't a critical thinker. Wikipedia is great and doesnt reduce critical thinking.