The Leader of the GOP Field Calls for the Cold-Blooded Murder of Women and Children

The Leader of the GOP Field Calls for the Cold-Blooded Murder of Women and Children December 2, 2015

This man is the most popular candidate in the GOP:

“And the other thing is with the terrorists,” he continued, “you have to take out their families. When you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don’t kid yourselves. They say they don’t care about their lives. But you have to take out their families.”

The response of FOX & Friends to this call for murder from the Leader of the Party of Respect for Human Life?

Silence and changing the subject.

Any person who calls himself “prolife” while cheering for this man is a liar. Any Christian who cheers for this man brings the gospel into disrepute among the Gentiles.

"People aren't born evil, but some (just binge watched Ted Bundy on Netflix) have something ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"Needless hostility. Goodness, you don't even know me.I have never called the Pope a heretic. ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"Sorry. I can't hear you over the screams of thousands of the Greatest Catholics of ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."
"Unless you are blessed with the spiritual gift of reading hearts, I suggest you refrain ..."

Where Peter Is has a nice ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Stu

    I don’t blame Trump for being Trump. He is what he is. He certainly isn’t someone I would ever support, but I put blame for his rise on the establishment politicians of both parties who haven’t been able to move forward on many key issues over the last 20 or years. Their ineptitude set the stage for a guy like this.

    http://guyodom.com/AMOHindex.html

    • Re_Actor
      • Pete the Greek

        And when the GOP is… ashes… then you have my permission to cry.

    • Neko

      What utter nonsense. Trump appeals to the xenophobia, racism, tribalism and resentment that has long enabled the GOP’s unnatural coalition. You reap what you sow.

      • Stu

        I’ve long since dismissed points of view that simply throw around “-isms” as a cause.

        But you do reap what you sow. And as problems are left unaddressed, it sets the stage for more extreme “answers” as people begin to become impatient or even angry.

        • Neko

          How convenient to “dismiss” some of the major forces coursing through American politics. You must sleep like a baby.

          • Stu

            I dismiss people who throw those terms around so much that they don’t mean anything any longer. It’s vapid labeling.

            • Neko

              Ah! But they are meaningful. That’s why people “throw those terms around.”

              • Stu

                No, they throw them around because it’s easy. Name calling has always been easy.

                • Neko

                  It pleases you to think so.

                  • Stu

                    It pleases you to have your name calling schickt. Let’s you avoid real discourse.

                    • Neko

                      Are your platitudes about incompetence in Washington supposed to pass as “real discourse”? Uh, OK.

                    • Stu

                      Someone is touchy is about their beloved party being caught up in any criticism.

                    • Neko

                      I have no great love for my party. But it is certainly the lesser of the evils.

                    • Stu

                      You are a party man. You clearly bleed for them.

                    • Neko

                      LOL! I’m a woman, buster.

                    • Stu

                      Then you are a party woman. Still bought and paid for.

                    • Neko

                      You seem to have a intense need to clutch your own straw about me. What’s a girl to do? It’s the Catholic blogosphere.

                    • Stu

                      Call everyone names. It always works and it’s “meaningful”. Right?

                      You guys always walk into that.

                    • Neko

                      Bye, “Stu.”

                    • Stu

                      Smart move.

                    • antigon

                      Buy another cat for company?

                    • antigon

                      Granted it’s a close race, but all those black folk getting killed in the abortion extermination camps – ‘niglets’ as the folk in your party are often fond of calling them – might argue against Dems being the lesser evil, not to say the more cleverly racist.

                    • Neko

                      You wrote:

                      ‘niglets’ as the folk in your party are often fond of calling them

                      I call bullshit.

                      Of course, African-Americans overwhelmingly vote Democratic. So, unlike the angry white conservative base, African-Americans apparently aren’t convinced the Democrats are crypto-Nazis.

                    • antigon

                      Like I said, the racists in your party are cleverer, tho of course most Americans of African heritage are smart enough not to vote either for the GOP racists or your more effectively lethal ones.
                      *
                      And since you say it’s bullshit to call the human beings being killed in the extermination camps either human or killed, it is perhaps not wholly surprising you wish also to hide from the ubiquitous contempt for the black unborn, as for the unborn generally, that your folk like so regularly to express.
                      *
                      And just in passing, do you join your fellow Democrats in rejoicing that in NYC more blacks are killed in the abortion extermination mills than are born alive in that city as, you know, but another expression of Planned Parenthood’s thrilling contribution to freedom? Or would you prefer calling that bullshit or tinfoil too, despite that, as with all the rest from which you choose to hide, it’s simply a fact?

                    • Neko

                      Again, African-Americans overwhelmingly vote Democratic. That’s a fact, Jack.

                      And don’t pretend not to understand what I called you on.

                      Democrats no more “rejoice” at abortion than anyone else. I have always been morally opposed to abortion, both in atheist and Catholic modes, as are many, many supporters of choice. Your inflammatory rhetoric is merely designed to gratify your self-righteousness, as it certainly does not describe reality.

                      It is well-known among those even superficially acquainted with the abortion issue that abortions are disproportionately performed on low-income minorities. It is indeed tragic. However, (practically) no one is forced to undergo an abortion, and it is no mystery why the poor seek abortions.

                    • antigon

                      Also a fact, Cat, that the majority of blacks don’t vote for Democrats or, wisely, at all.
                      *
                      So don’t pretend again, Cat.
                      *
                      Either about what I called you on, or that your side will get very far trying to dismiss facts as the kind of rhetorical pose that – never self-righteously of course – is all your side’s got.
                      *
                      But we agree it’s no mystery – why help the poor when a meat cleaver will do?

                    • Neko

                      Yet more meaningless cant from you.

                      I called you on your own racist bilge. Own it. As for the rest of your junk, I’ve already wasted enough of my time.

                    • antigon

                      Wise of you to flee period, Cat, since – on the subject of meaningless cant – you’re liable to run out of ad hominem shibboleths by which you’ve been steadily fleeing from reality.
                      *
                      Not to say the above forage into calumny, since, as you are aware, there is nothing remotely racist in anything I’ve written; nor, God grant, in me soul.
                      *
                      But we agree you’ve wasted time, albeit not only your own.

          • Artevelde

            Perhaps Stu, and I’m sure he’ll correct me if I interpret his words wrongly, not so much dismisses those currents in American politics and society, but rather thinks simply labeling and cursing them don’t make them go away, and that only good policy can accomplish that. In that case I’d have to agree with him.

            • Neko

              It’s not a matter of “labeling and cursing,” but of identification and history. Good grief. One could start with the Southern Strategy and take it from there.

              • Artevelde

                Alright then. Indentification and history. You misunderstand me. I am not arguing that those -isms are ”meaningless”, merely that those forces you mention will not go away because you disapprove of them.

                • Neko

                  Really! And I thought if only I uttered the magic words…

                  • Artevelde

                    I see you have switched to a mood less suitable to debate since yesterday. Stu and Antigon got to you? Oh well, miao, rawr and all that. Do come back.

                    • Neko

                      🙂

    • Dave G.

      I don’t know. If it was just looking for that outsider, I’d think his support would slowly drop with each horrible, stupid, false statement. Even at first some who had a major beef with Washington might overlook a couple things, but by now, you’d think it would be eating away at his support, rather than actually building it. I’m beginning to think his supporters don’t follow him despite the outrageous and frightening things he says. I’m beginning to think they follow him precisely because of the outrageous and frightening things he says. Why they do, of course, is another issue. But that they do seems increasingly the likely reason behind his popularity among a set group of the GOP.

      • Stu

        I’ve thought about that too. The longer I think one has been invested with Trump, the more leeway they will give him with his outrageous statements. And perhaps each successive outrageous statement moves their tolerance just a bit farther beyond what would have previously been a boundary.

        Ultimately, those who end up supporting him will be to blame for that support. But right now I simply am pointing out that bad leadership and inability to address problems only leads to people looking for the “easy” answer.

        I’ve long ago given up being associated with any party. I’d suggest the same for anyone and especially for Catholics.

        • Dave G.

          I certainly don’t disagree that the deplorable state of leadership we’ve seen in recent years would push the best of people to a willingness to go mad with frustration.

        • Neko

          Independents are nonetheless ideologically affiliated. But it is gratifying to feel that one is above the fray.

          Things aren’t getting done in Washington because of ideological gridlock. The GOP threatening to blow up the government if it didn’t get its way became the new normal during Obama’s administration. So it actually shouldn’t come as much of a surprise that a demagogue like Trump has the base in thrall.

          • Stu

            I didn’t claim not to be ideologically affiliated. Nor do I talk about being above the fray.

            • Neko

              Of course not.

          • Doyle

            Halting the government is not blowing it up. They needed to shutdown the government. If the house does NOT have the purse strings, we don’t have an America. The fact they didn’t have a spine, gave us Mr. Trump.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_shutdown_in_the_United_States

            • Neko

              Thanks for making my case…

            • Ken

              Halting the gov just gives a boost in the polls to Democrats. It’s pointless and hasn’t gotten the GOP anything other than more face time for Ted Cruz on TV. It’s been a negative for the GOP.

          • Ken

            I’m becoming convinced his followers really don’t care if he wins. It’s more important that he causes chaos. It seems that some people have become so frustrated with gov they just want to see it thrown off the rails. Cruz also gets the same attention. The reason he read Green Eggs and Ham in Congress did nothing except making gov look stupid. I think most people rolled their eyes but his followers seemed to think it was great that he was sticking it to the establishment.

            • Stu

              There is definitely something there. I have confessed before that I enjoy Trump spinning up the GOP establishment. Though obviously, I don’t care at all for many of his recent musings.

            • Neko

              If they’re so frustrated with government why do they elect candidates committed to making government dysfunctional?

              I do think economic insecurity has exacerbated the bloodlust and scapegoating.

              • Ken

                There are people, I have one in my family, that are very conservative and to seem to be so frustrated with gov they have given up. They are angry that Democrats keep winning and they know that their very far right views, outside of specific congressional districts, just aren’t getting elected anymore and certainly won’t be on a national scale. Knowing they can’t win they just want people to clog up the machine and stick it to the establishment. The gov shutdown was cheered by them because it made the establishment on both sides appalled. Trump is their hero, he isn’t going to win but he’s pissing off everyone. I was reading the comments of a news site that was critical of Trump and his followers loved it. There was more of a virtue of upsetting the political structure than actually doing anything of value.
                I agree the economy is pulling people into his camp as well. I do think a lot of people who poll as supporting Trump probably are just picking his name out of recognition. At least I hope so. I’m curious to see what happens when people actually have to cast a vote. Will his supporters really vote for him? His core group will for sure but I’m curious about the people who are on the fence and aren’t 100% behind him.

                • Neko

                  Thanks for this. I don’t know. Trump’s candidacy is a bit unprecedented. I never expected him to last this long. Nothing seems to affect his popularity. One would think after the terrorist attacks in Paris that conservatives might reconsider whether it’s all that awesome an idea to elect a boor who knows nothing about policy and governance. But it didn’t put a dent in his numbers. And now after this horrible terrorist/disgruntled employee attack involving Muslim Pakistani immigrants, I expect his supporters will become even more numerous and delirious.

      • Neko

        You wrote:

        I’m beginning to think they follow him precisely because of the outrageous and frightening things he says.

        Apparently being a nasty, bigoted blowhard passes for getting real with the Republican base.

      • antigon

        No defense of wacky Don here, but he’s popular largely because of the equally pathetic alternatives.
        *
        And because, in the words of the folk song, too much of nothing makes a man feel at ease.
        *
        Of course the blowhard offers nothing either besides – to many – his attractive contempt for the nothing offered by his opponents.

        • Dave G.

          There is truth to that. Bread and water may be an old way of saying lousy eating, but if there is nothing else around, bread and water can start to look mighty appealing.

  • AJGSyc

    Ya’ know, I took your headline to be a little hyperbolic, but then I clicked the link.

    *sigh*

    • iamlucky13

      Same here. Oh well. Hopefully he’s getting close to convincing his supporters that he’s not the savior they’re looking for.

  • Chris M

    He keeps finding bigger sharks to jump.. eventually he’ll have to start jumping whales.. then oceangoing vessels. One can only hope eventually he’ll do us all a favor and jump off the face of the Earth..

  • Ken

    We need to think bigger like knocking the earth of it’s axis and send it into the sun destroying every living thing. This would ensure that we got every single terrorist because with these crafty terrorist you just don’t know who to trust.

    • Chris M

      that’s JUST what a terrorist would say!

  • Neko

    You’re right, and you were right to decry violence in the name of “pro-life.”

    Credit where credit is due.

  • Elmwood

    meh, not surprised.

    does it really matter what he says? why even bother to vote at this point.

    • He’s “the fact of” American Christians in a big way in general, not to mention American conservatives specifically, and so what he says matters a lot.

      There’s quite a huge drop from the likes of Billy Sunday and Billy Graham to now Trump. Gigantic drop. Compare to, say, what one has been hearing from Pope Francis.

      • Neko

        Is he? I thought the evangelicals, anyway, gravitate toward Carson and Cruz. I doubt Trump has much support among Catholics.

        • IRVCath

          Trump’s main support is among the disaffected and the unaffiliated.

    • iamlucky13

      Because even if our best intincts lead us to vote for another corrupt idiot, we can at least make sure it’s somebody neither as corrupt nor as idiotic as either Trump or Clinton.

  • The man is a Fascist, a Bigot and should have been run out of the political theater long ago by both the party he has signed on with and by the press. The fact that neither haven’t means they value volume and exposure over integrity.

  • Artevelde

    Better take a look at where the grapes of wrath are stored again.

  • Sadly, this is nothing new. The disgusting far right loons that parrot the “these attacks just show that the Arab race is inferior and should be targeted, all of them” / “that Muslim individuals are inferior and should be wiped out” extremist kind of lines have been gaining ground in the GOP for years and years. Look at how Ted Nugent talked about using nuclear weapons in the Mideast after the 9/11 attacks as another example. It’s very sad.

  • Doyle

    It’s a bit funny hearing this condemnation from Mr. Shea who is plenty hyperbolic himself just on the other side. The fact is supporters are ignoring the media including what he is saying, because after the betrayal of the base by the GOP in the midterms, many place zero faith in the pols and their media reporting (as they should).

    But look at his positions. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions
    They reflect the fears and concerns of Red State Americans that were betrayed in the midterms.

    It’s not uncatholic to defend yourself. It’s not uncatholic to ask for Caesar to back off the taxes. It’s not uncatholic to ask that the laws of the US regarding immigration be followed.

    UNFORTUNATELY, history has some pretty awful precedence of politicians saying crazy stuff, voters ignoring them and then they go ahead and get in office and do those things (Obama and HHS I’m looking at you – and a certain 1930’s dictator who will go unnamed.) Last two terms have been so vile for Christians around the world, I cannot imagine it getting worse. But we did elect the most pro planned parenthood pol in the Senate TWICE. America sowed the field for Trump.

    Convert fast, America, or reap it.

    • Stu

      I think we are going for option 2, unfortunately.

    • Neko

      Aww, how were you betrayed in the midterms? It’s true Christians have suffered horrible persecution elsewhere in the world but not in the Christian-dominant U.S.A.

      • kenofken

        In the American Conservative Christian narrative, American Christians are practically in the same boat as Syrian Christians because, you know, gay marriage….

        • Neko

          Ha! Yes. It’s obscene.

      • Sue Korlan

        Unless you consider not being able to have health insurance unless you are willing to violate your faith, which could very well prove deadly.

        • Neko

          So you think the Catholic Church should be able to dictate to the state the terms on which it receives taxpayer dollars?

    • richardgrabman

      Huh? The U.S. health care system is modeled on one developed in Germany in the 1880s, not the 1930s. Blame Christian Democrats and Otto von Bismark for it, but Catholic social teaching has always supported universal health care. Would be nice to see the U.S. adopt it.

      • Franken55

        During the Kulturkampf and its aftermath, Bismark had to deal with the Centre Party, which was largely Catholic and with whom he had to compromise to get things like what we would call “social security” programs. The Centre, like every other political party save one, was destroyed in 1933. After the war, The Centre party came back, but most of its members became Christian Democrats and it went defunct. The CDU/CSU did not exist in Bismark’s time.
        Universal health care? My heart says yes(!); my analytical mind says how do we get there – without all the HHS baggage?

        • richardgrabman

          Thanks. My German history is spotty (and largely non-existent) and I appreciate the corrections. My point was just that blaming Hitler (and/or Obama) for policies and programs the rest of the planet takes for granted is rather silly.

    • Ken

      Seriously? Hitler? You can make a better argument than this. Going for the Hitler reference is lazy and absurd.

  • Michaelus

    I just cannot get my head around a leading Presidential candidate talking like a movie mafioso – worse really – on the same day that there is a running street battle in San Bernardino with Mohammedan terrorists and a 4 year old boy in Detroit was mauled to death by semi feral dogs.

    De profundis clamavi….

  • johnnysc

    “Any person who calls himself “prolife” while cheering for this man is a liar”

    As well as any person who cheers for ‘climate change believing’, anti death penalty (except for the unborn), anti gun rights politicians who are determined to lay waste to the Catholic non negotiables….. abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, cloning, and so-called homosexual “marriage”.

    • capaxdei

      Those are not “the Catholic non negotiables.” They are what an eleven year old pamphlet from Catholic Answers asserted were the key moral issues at play in the 2004 US general election.

      • johnnysc

        Actually I believe the teaching came from the pastoral letter Living the Gospel of Life which Archbishop Chaput quotes from in this article here…..

        http://catholicphilly.com/2015/08/think-tank/archbishop-chaput-column/there-is-no-equivalence/

        Any politics of human dignity must seriously address issues of racism, poverty, hunger, employment, education, housing, and health care … But being ‘right’ in such matters can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life. Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the ‘rightness’ of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community.

        • Heather

          STILL on about that? That pastoral letter rightly claims that other prudential concerns cannot overrule the right to life. But it nowhere states that all Catholic teaching can and should be boiled down to five specific culture war points that happened to be hot button issues in the 2004 US election and that only these five specific issues are THE non-negotiable important life matters.

          I mean, grave matter is grave matter, but well, there is grave matter and then there is grave matter. Do you REALLY think that bombing children or torturing prisoners are less grave offenses against human life than gay marriage? And yet bombing children and torturing prisoners are mysteriously absent from that “5 non-negotiables” list.

          • IRVCath

            Exactly.At least, they’re equal in that both are sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance.

          • Artevelde

            mysteriously missing? I used to lean towards suspiciously once, but settled for duplicitously long ago.

        • Ken

          Advocating dropping bombs from Drones on unsuspecting people, including children, is attacking innocent, vulnerable and many times poor people.

        • capaxdei

          I don’t say there aren’t any non-negotiable principles. I say there is no canonical, complete list that can be called “*the* Catholic non negotiables.” The list you provided comes from the Catholic Answers 2004 voter’s guide. “Living the Gospel of Life” does not refer to “non-negotiables,” though it does condemn abortion, euthanasia, and human cloning.

    • Andy

      The real non-negotiables – the Nicene Creed, the Seven Sacraments, the Spiritual and Corporal Works of Mercy. The “five” seem generated to allow the GOP to confuse Catholics.

  • Tom G

    In the absence of comboxes, would we have cured cancer by now? Thoughts?

    Said the guy who comments in the comboxes and is thus admittedly a hypocrite.

    • Alma Peregrina

      No, we would not.
      Signed: an oncologist.

      • Tom G

        Interesting! How dost thou know this?

        • Alma Peregrina

          Because “Cancer” isn’t *a* disease, but *a set* that includes several different diseases.

          Saying “a cure for cancer” is like saying “a cure for infection”. But you don’t use the same medication to cure a cold, a urinary tract infection, tuberculosis, HIV, a candidiasis or an intestinal worm.

          On the other hand, many cancers today are already curable. Some are more curable than others and many are diagnosed in a stage that allows for cure. Comboxes have had nothing to do with that.

          • Tom G

            Is the following an accurate summation of your comment here?

            (1) There is no such thing as a “cure” for cancer because cancer by definition cannot be “cured”, but can only, in some of its many forms, be rendered “curable”.

            (2) Comboxes, without question, have not gobbled up any particular individual’s energies where such energies could have otherwise been used to render another of cancer’s many forms “curable.”

            (3) The quest for a cancer treatment that eliminates all forms of cancer is a waste of time.

            • Alma Peregrina

              (1) *Cancer* can’t be cured, because there’s no such thing as *Cancer*. There’s *cancers*, and each cancer in a different stage. Some cancers in some stages are curable, and other cancers in other stages are not.

              (2) I don’t think so.

              (3) Precisely.

              • Tom G

                (1) Hmmm, what is the best and/or most accurate way for a layman or laywoman to word his or her hopes for the discovery of a universal treatment of cancer’s many forms?

                (2) “I don’t think so” as in “I don’t think Tom G. has accurately summarized my prior comment”? Or “I don’t think so” as in “I don’t think comboxes have gobbled up any particular individual’s energies where such energies could have otherwise been used to render another of cancer’s many forms ‘curable'”?

                (3) How can one possibly know that the quest for a cancer treatment that eliminates all forms of cancer is a waste of time?

                • Heather

                  As admittedly not an oncologist, just someone who has listened to the audiobook of The Emperor of All Maladies several times, the futility of the search for the holy grail of the universal cancer cure is because while “cancer” in general is basically what happens when mutations in our DNA cause abnormal cell growth, each particular form of cancer is caused by a particular pattern of mutations that disrupt specific aspects of normal cell regulation. And so a treatment that inhibits a specific step in the cell growth/division process, or binds to a specific mutant protein on a cell membrane, or whatever, might work brilliantly on one kind of cancer cell but be totally ineffective on another kind. But because you want your treatment to attack the cancer cells but leave healthy cells as healthy as possible, you actually WANT that level of specificity. So you can’t just create one magic bullet – you need a whole arsenal.

                  • Alma Peregrina

                    A very accurate comment. Thank you.

                  • Tom G

                    How is this understanding of “the cure” for “the cancer” a substantial point under my original question? Does anyone think I’m opposed to this line of research? If so, is it because I didn’t phrase the hope for “the cure” as artfully as an oncologist? If so, does that matter under the original question? I admit I didn’t know most of the above, and am glad to learn it. However, under the original question, who cares?

                  • Ken

                    You like that book? I saw it on several best books of 2014 but I didn’t buy it. Do you recommend it?

                    • Heather

                      If you’re at all a fan of popular science and the “micro-history” sub-genre, it’s a fascinating look at cancer, our understanding of what causes it, the breakthroughs that led to the first effective treatments and subsequent developments, and the rise of the politics surrounding cancer. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

                    • Ken

                      Thanks. I’ll check it out.

                • Alma Peregrina

                  (1) You may word that hope as you like it, but it will be a misdirected hope. Such a treatment is unlikely and, in light of recent advances, not desirable. We’re better at treating cancer than some decades ago and we have been advancing in the opposite direction of what you want. Instead of finding “The Cure” for “The Cancer”, we’re evolving into tailoring our approach to each individual cancer.

                  So, in the future, we will colect a sample of the tumor and trace its genetic signature, so that we will be able to predict which of the available treatments will be more effective to that specific cancer on that specific patient.

                  In fact, nowadays, some cancers already have treatments that are at least partially tailored, namely colo-rectal, gastric, breast and lung.
                  **********************************
                  (2) I don’t think comboxes have gobbled up any particular individual’s energies where such energies could have otherwise been used to render another of cancer’s many forms ‘curable’
                  **********************************
                  (3) See point (1). Also, see Heather’s comment down bellow.
                  The *only* thing that *every* cancer has in common is uncontrolled celular growth. The causes for that uncontrolled celular growth are legion.

                  But we have a treatment for uncontrolled cellular growth. It’s called chemotherapy.

                  However, by targeting cellular growth, chemotherapy also targets *healthy intensive* cellular growth. So tissues where cells normally divide at a faster pace are affected. It affects follicle cells, and then you have hair loss. It affects bone marrow cells, and then you have anemia and blood disorders. It affects the gastrointestinal tract and then you have mucositis.

                  By broadening the spectrum to encompass all cancers, you also lose specificity and inevitably target non-cancer cells. And side effects from those treatments become far worse than with the recent, tailored, biological pharmaceuticals.

                  You’re moving on the wrong direction. You need to narrow the spectrum and increase specificity. You’ll increase your effectiveness and decrease side effects.

                  Also: scientific evidence has shown that chemotherapy, even though is broad-spectrum, doesn’t cure (*most*) cancers if they are disseminated. And has also shown that different cancers respond to different chemotherapies. So, again, a universal treatment isn’t likely.

                  • Tom G

                    (1) If I can word that hope as I like, why did you take issue with it in the first place? What was the point of taking issue with the verbiage of the expressed hope?

                    (2) Would you admit it is at least possible that “comboxes have gobbled up any particular individual’s energies where such energies could have otherwise been used to render another of cancer’s many forms ‘curable'”? Would you admit that perhaps such has happened outside your sphere of knowledge?

                    (3) See (1) above.

                    • Alma Peregrina

                      Sorry for the delay in my response.

                      (1) “If I can word that hope as I like, why did you take issue with it in the first place?”

                      For 3 reasons:

                      a) Because I didn’t just say you could word it as you like. I also said, on the same sentence: “it will be a misdirected hope”. I didn’t take issue with the wording, but with the idea underlining it.

                      b) You said, on a previous comment: “In the absence of comboxes, would we have cured cancer by now? Thoughts?”

                      So, I gave you my thoughts. In fact, I even thought you said “Discuss”.

                      c) Because, as an oncologist, it is my work to try to dispell many of the popular myths that people today believe about cancer. The Cure for Cancer implies many things that are erroneous, namely that cancer, as a general rule, is incurable. I can’t say how many times I had to reassure patients with easily curable cancers because of those misconceptions. I must spread knowlegde to dispell those myths everytime I can.
                      *************************************
                      2) Since I am not omniscient, I can’t guarantee that there was never, ever, a case in which a person couldn’t find a cure for any cancer because of comboxes. But I find it unlikely.

                    • Tom G

                      No problem. I’m happy to see an oncologist delayed in responding 😀

                      (1)(a) While the idea underlying my hope may cause it to be misdirected in the particular, I still think my hope counts. And helps in prayer. But tomayto tomahto.

                      (b) True, true. I had initially said “discuss”, but changed it to “thoughts” because I didn’t want to sound like I was mocking the original author. No deception intended. And fair to provide your thoughts based on my original comment. I’m sorry, AP.

                      (c) I understand. And I appreciate the information.

                      (2) That’s kinda what I was trying to get at.

                      Always a pleasure, AP. Sincerely.

              • kenofken

                I’m not sure how things got on this track, but it’s more interesting than the underlying culture war issue, so I’ll have a go at it. Cancer indeed won’t be cured in the sense that we now understand the word. There is not likely to ever be any one “compound x” that just shrivels all tumors (though there will always be a candidate in alternative health scams and conspiracy theories).

                Cancer in all it’s forms is, however, a failure or set of failures of cell cycle regulation. If and when we come to a substantially complete understanding of how those systems work and how to manipulate them, you have something that reasonably approaches “The Cure” to cancer. That’s not going to roll out any day soon, but it’s also not absurd sci-fi fantasy either.

                • Alma Peregrina

                  See my reply to Tom G.
                  Current research is not heading that way. And is producing fruits by not heading that way.

    • Stu

      Hypocrite.

      • Tom G

        True.

        • Stu

          Welcome to the club.