Re: And keeps repeating itself

 No, you didn't mention my name - you just said the Cancer Forum moderator, which is widely known to be me. 

You said previously that you were not the only moderator there.  I guess the story is going to change as usual to whatever fits your needs.

What everyone should be aware of, as you surely are, is that it was the WM who banned you and he posted the reasons why he did so. He also explained that I had attempted to prevent you from being banned.  I saved  the WM's post if you would like to have everyone see it again.

What happened is really irrelevant.  Bottom line is that is was YOU that kept starting the attacks and debates that I got blamed for.  And the WM totally ignored all the facts including the PMs you sent to encourage to attack me.  But the WM apparently felt he needs to kiss your a** for some reason so I was banned even though I was the real victim to begin with.

As a matter of fact, I have never banned you from any forum and have in fact given you several R ratings - incuding on my own private forum.  I have likewise never brought any disagreements with you, much less personal attacks where I list your actual name, into my private forum.  Can you say the same? 

Great example of how you play games.  Who was it that dug through other internet sites to find some post from a yahoo group criticizing me and also exposing who I am in order to make me a target.  Oh, that's right, it was you again!!!!!!  Constantly attacking me then doing something nice once in a while to make your self look like less of a _______ is nothing more than manipulative game playing.  And just more proof that you don't think the rules apply to you as well.

I think not, and note that you have just today made a post against me and used my actual name in your private forum - where you have also conveniently banned me so that I cannot reply to your false accusations.

First of all they are not false accusations.  Secondly you were banned because you were constantly starting attacks and debates in violation of TOS. Not fun being banned is it?  Yet I get banned for defending myself against your constant games!!!

Now, as to your contention about viruses and cancer: If it were a fact that the vast majority of cancer were caused by viruses, how do you explain the fact that a Google Search for "cancer virus" does not return link after link which lists viruses as a major cause of cancer?

Oh, gee, I did not realize that Google was the almighty source of knowledge.  Maybe you should try actually going to a medical library and researching the subject instead of guessing that I am wrong.  Or another novel idea.  You can actually read some of the medical abstracts that come up when you do Google cancer viruses so you can see how much research has been done on the subject and see how many viruses have been linked to cancer!!!

  The number of hits for a search for "cancer virus" prove nothing other than that there are lots of links to the term.  A search for "cancer fungus" returns 4,400,000 hits.  A search for "cancer toxins" returns 6,900,000 hits.  A search for "cancer sunlight" returns 12,300,00 hits.  A search for "cancer cigarettes" returns 19,500,000 hits.  A search for "cancer alcohol" returns 77,000,000 hits.

That is why you have to actually read some of the studies linked to the search.  It is a concept called DOING RESEARCH, something clearly alien to you.

And still, where is the proof that oleander soup works for cancer.  I would like to see where the majority of the medical establishment agrees with your claim since you discount in your words "minority opinions".   It is pretty clear that you are trying to divert attention away from the fact that your claims about oleander are much much more of a "minority opinion" than the well known cancer viruses.  Especially when you want my posts erased on the topic of cancer viruses since you do not accept "minority opinions".  So I really think you should start erasing all the posts on oleander since not only is it a very minority opinion, but it has already been discussed more than enough, and that was your excuse for erasing my post on the Cancer Support forum when it was only brought up twice on there that I recall.  And as a moderator you should be treating posters with the same rules.  So get to erasing the unproven oleander soup posts.

If number of searches were a criteria, then just those searches alone would put viruses as a distinct minority cause of cancer.  In a great many instances, hits turn out to have little to do with the two connected terms and in fact may state just the opposite of what one might try to infer.  I would propose that number of hits of cancer and any other given item is not a criteria for determining whether or not viruses were considered to be the cause of the vast majority of cancers.  However, a search for "cancer causes" would be much more indicative of what is believed to be that major causes of cancer.  The vast majority of hits from such a search indicate that viruse are not believed to be a major cause, much less the cause of the vast majority of cancers.

Again, YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO READ THE STUDIES!!!!!  Making an OPINION that cancer viruses are not well known or accepted simply because you did not research the topic is ludicrous.  How did you ever manage to write a book when you apparently don't have a clue how to do real research? Did you base the whole book on those few faulty studies that were discredited?