 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / April 2008Breast Cancer - Alternative therapy-Mexico update
As promised, I visited the lady that had been diagnosed with Breast Cancer in March 2007. Apparently according to her doctors she had had the cancer a good length of time. It effected 7 lymph nodes. She had surgery on April 2, 2007, she was to start chemo at the end of April, instead she researched the information looking for other options, and decided to go to the clinic in Mexico. When she returned from the clinic 4 months later, she was cancer free, and she is still cancer free. She did not go with the blessings of her conventional doctors (they had no data), but that's what her and her husband decided would be the best for her, and they wanted to give it a shot. I know you probably thought I forgot to stop by and get the information--but today a friend of mine was with me, and we both made time to stop. There you have it. > As promised, I visited the lady that had been diagnosed with > Breast Cancer in March 2007. Apparently according to her doctors she [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > time to stop. > There you have it. With so many of these individuals being so "successfully" treated in these Mexican clinics, you'd think they would be paraded on the Oprah show! Where are they all??? > With so many of these individuals being so "successfully" treated in > these Mexican clinics, you'd think they would be paraded on the Oprah > show! Where are they all??? Let's see, conventional medicine does not support these treatments, you've seen the discussion in this newsgroup when these kinds of treatments have been brought up, can you imagine what would happen to these women if they went on television? Besides, who would want to "parade" themselves on t.v. to gain attention to the fact that they had cancer? > > With so many of these individuals being so "successfully" treated in > > these Mexican clinics, you'd think they would be paraded on the Oprah [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > themselves > on t.v. to gain attention to the fact that they had cancer? Well Debbee we seen quite a number of people go public with the fact they've had cancer. The most recent and memorable figure, is Good Morning America's Robin Roberts, who underwent breast cancer, chemo, lost all her hair, and participated in a fashion show without her wig. Katie Couric publicized her husband's colon cancer. Movie stars share with the media their lives with cancer. I can understand not all would wish to share publically their cancer battles. But survivals from unconventional means, ought to be something to shout about - if they exist. So where are they all???? On Apr 4, 7:31 pm, Bee <Butterflies2...@gmail.com> wrote: > As promised, I visited the lady that had been diagnosed with > Breast Cancer in March 2007. Apparently according to her doctors she [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > time to stop. > There you have it. With so many of these individuals being so "successfully" treated in these Mexican clinics, you'd think they would be paraded on the Oprah show! Where are they all??? Hawki:...likely they are dead or dying we still don't have the whole story.... were the lymph nodes removed during the "surgery"...if so...it likely merely slowed down the progression not to mention that it has been only 11 months...what do you mean by "cancer free"....?? perhaps that there is no additional spread to this time...this does not imply cancer free by any stretch of the imagination look at what they said about Farrah Fawcett when she returned from Germany?? supposedly she was also "cancer free"...funny that within a few months more cancerous growths were removed.. "cancer free" used to imply 5 years from date of original diagnosis/treatment....thus 11 months is far far too early to say that not to mention...surgery alone can render one "cancer free" for a period of time...sometimes forever.. the snake oils and potions of Mexico...render one's checkbook empty... sorry I don't buy it... way too soon to predict this lady's prognosis On Apr 4, 8:18 pm, <Hawk...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > sorry I don't buy it... > > way too soon to predict this lady's prognosis You didn't buy it, she did. :>) Write down your questions here. I see her every now and then. I'll ask those questions and she is really open about it, and we will see what the answers are. Very simple, instead of insulting isn't it? On Apr 4, 8:18 pm, <Hawk...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > sorry I don't buy it... > > way too soon to predict this lady's prognosis You didn't buy it, she did. :>) Write down your questions here. I see her every now and then. I'll ask those questions and she is really open about it, and we will see what the answers are. Very simple, instead of insulting isn't it? reply:...didn't mean to insult you..or her...you sound like a reasonable person... my comment referred to what she told you...that she is cured...since it has only been 11 months since diagnosis and surgery...it is premature to make that statement...if she wants to believe it...that is her choice...and I wouldn't want to remove that hope... but NO one can state they are cured ..almost forever...all it takes is ONE tiny little malignant cell to start up housekeeping...recurrence or the presence of it can take many many years to make its presence gee...my mother was told she was "cured" if she made the 5 year mark (also breast cancer..positive nodes..she had surgery and chemo)...she had five wonderful years...and died 5 years and 10 months later sorry ...the truth is often not polite either but folks...believing..or assuming that one can say they are "cured" of cancer 11 months after surgery..is well..not borne out by the evidence good luck to her > On Apr 4, 7:31 pm, Bee <Butterflies2...@gmail.com> wrote: >> As promised, I visited the lady that had been diagnosed with [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > way too soon to predict this lady's prognosis Way too soon to say that the Mexican treatments did not work. >> On Apr 4, 7:31 pm, Bee <Butterflies2...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> As promised, I visited the lady that had been diagnosed with [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >> > Way too soon to say that the Mexican treatments did not work. good point also way too soon to say that she is "cured" if only On Apr 5, 8:18 am, <Hawk...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > On Apr 4, 7:31 pm, Bee <Butterflies2...@gmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > way too soon to predict this lady's prognosis > As promised, I visited the lady that had been diagnosed with >Breast Cancer in March 2007. Apparently according to her doctors she [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >time to stop. > There you have it. So she had surgery. You do know that surgery if curative in many cases and that chemo is only given to kill off any tiny remainders of the cancer to prevent recurrance in just a few cases? In other words, whatever she did in Mexico didn't do a thing as far as curing her was concerned. Another case of the Incredible Shrinking Claim. > On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 19:31:12 -0700 (PDT), Bee > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > whatever she did in Mexico didn't do a thing as far as curing her was > concerned. Another case of the Incredible Shrinking Claim. Excuse me, A "therapy" which ONLY needs to kill off TINY remainders of cancer to prevent re-occurrence is NOT impressive. This is an de facto admission that the original treatment was insufficient, misguided and/or inadequate. Citizen Jimserac >> On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 19:31:12 -0700 (PDT), Bee >> So she had surgery. You do know that surgery if curative in many cases >> and that chemo is only given to kill off any tiny remainders of the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > ONLY needs to kill off TINY remainders of cancer > to prevent re-occurrence is NOT impressive. Tell us that after you've been prescribed an antibiotic after having foreign matter removed from a wound. By your reasoning, the antibiotics which "ONLY need(s) to kill off TINY remainders of (pathogens) to prevent (infection) is NOT impressive." So skip the antibiotics by all means. > This is an de facto admission that the original treatment > was insufficient, misguided and/or inadequate. Or for that matter don't bother removing the stuff from the wound. Third alternative: accept that in an imperfect Universe, defense in depth may be a good idea: airbags AND seatbelts. | The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" | | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | +---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+ > In message <e97351a6-3c75-4f14-9876-7e7802f88...@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Citizen Jimserac wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | > +---------- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ----------+ Neoplasms are fundamentally different from wounds. The analogy fails. Citizen Jimserac >> In message <e97351a6-3c75-4f14-9876-7e7802f88...@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Citizen Jimserac wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Neoplasms are fundamentally different from > wounds. The analogy fails. ... but not, in this case, materially different from infections. You do your best to remove the main body of the <dangerous stuff> and then you do something to get what may have escaped. As noted, it's basically a defense in depth approach where you don't want to gamble your life on a single point of possible failure. Basic risk management. As Hawki points out, the efficacy of the original surgery is not on the table; the only comparison is between the backstop chemicals used. Since in the majority of cases surgery is sufficient, it may not matter what her choice of second-line treatments was. | The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" | | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | +---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+ Off-topic + diversion >> On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 19:31:12 -0700 (PDT), Bee >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Citizen Jimserac if the original treatment included chemo that she refused??? no...tho it surely is the patient's choice to choose their "poision"...calling the "original treatment insufficient,,misguided and.or inadequate"...is moot...since this lady did not choose the "original treatment"..beyond surgery..which is not defined as to its extent... please explain On Apr 5, 1:02 pm, <Hawk...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 19:31:12 -0700 (PDT), Bee > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > please explain The original treatment was surgery. If postoperative chemotherapy is needed, even to kill off "tiny remainders" of cancer, then the original treatment, the surgery, was insufficient, misguided and/or inadequate. The woman chose to avoid the chemo, something a GREAT MANY people are deciding to do. Citizen Jimserac > The original treatment was surgery. > If postoperative chemotherapy is needed, > even to kill off "tiny remainders" of cancer, > then the original treatment, the surgery, > was insufficient, misguided and/or inadequate. Postop chemo (or Laetrile, or whatever) may or may not be needed -- there's no way to know /a/ /priori/ whether it is or not. Your fallacy is to presume that all protections are either 100% guaranteed effective or worthless. We don't live in such a Boolean world, else you would not have two redundant hydraulic systems for your car's brakes. | The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" | | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | +---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+ > Postop chemo (or Laetrile, or whatever) may or may not > be needed -- there's no way to know /a/ /priori/ whether [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > such a Boolean world, else you would not have two redundant > hydraulic systems for your car's brakes. Please cite where you got this information from. Thank you. >> Postop chemo (or Laetrile, or whatever) may or may not >> be needed -- there's no way to know /a/ /priori/ whether [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> such a Boolean world, else you would not have two redundant >> hydraulic systems for your car's brakes. > Please cite where you got this information from. > Thank you. 1969 Datsun Roadster maintenance manual. | The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" | | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | +---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+ More Off-topic diversions. <snip> >On Apr 5, 1:02 pm, <Hawk...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >then the original treatment, the surgery, >was insufficient, misguided and/or inadequate. Oh my, this is even more stupid. The standard treatment is surgery and chemo. Neither of those is sufficient on their own. Radiation therapy is sometimes also recommended for initial tumor shrinkage. What you are saying here is that because neither surgery, chemo or radio therapy is curative on their own, they are insufficient etc. The stupid really burns here. >The woman chose to avoid the chemo, something >a GREAT MANY people are deciding to do. And lucky for them, surgery on its own IS enough in many cases. If it weren´t, they´d all end up dead. >Citizen Jimserac >>The woman chose to avoid the chemo, something >>a GREAT MANY people are deciding to do. > > And lucky for them, surgery on its own IS enough in many cases. If it > weren´t, they´d all end up dead. Will you provide proof that your assumption is correct? Thank you. > On Sat, 5 Apr2008 11:25:23 -0700(PDT), Citizen Jimserac > [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > >Citizen Jimserac >> On Fri, 4 Apr 2008 19:31:12 -0700 (PDT), Bee >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >This is an de facto admission that the original treatment >was insufficient, misguided and/or inadequate. The original treatment, you idiot, was surgery. And because surgery, in a few cases, does not remove all cancer, chemo is given as additional therapy, just in case. You can take chances with hangnail, but not with cancer. Since this patient did NOT get chemo, the original treatment (the surgery) was clearly sufficient, well chosen and adequate. You might want to educate yourself on a subject (and simply learn to read, for ffs) before commenting. >Citizen Jimserac > Since this patient did NOT get chemo, the original treatment (the > surgery) was clearly sufficient, well chosen and adequate. > You might want to educate yourself on a subject (and simply learn to > read, for ffs) before commenting. Not necessarily. It's been 11 months, and that's not really enough time to know one way or another. I recall to your attention the rather famous "cancer cure" cases who were paraded as visible proof -- and died shortly thereafter. | The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" | | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | +---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+ >>This is an de facto admission that the original treatment >>was insufficient, misguided and/or inadequate. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > You might want to educate yourself on a subject (and simply learn to > read, for ffs) before commenting. Can you provide proof that the surgery was sufficient? >>>This is an de facto admission that the original treatment >>>was insufficient, misguided and/or inadequate. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> read, for ffs) before commenting. >Can you provide proof that the surgery was sufficient? Yes, the fact that the patient has survived the cancer. Proof - pudding - eating, y'know. (please note I'm being generous here, I'm assuming the story happened as told. Since were are talking alt-med and alt-med proponents are notorious liars, that does not have to be the case) >>>>This is an de facto admission that the original treatment >>>>was insufficient, misguided and/or inadequate. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > only to be nasty. THAT is something you do very well. But for anyone to > take your postings as fact or worthy advice would be supremely foolish.> >>>>>This is an de facto admission that the original treatment >>>>>was insufficient, misguided and/or inadequate. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> as told. Since were are talking alt-med and alt-med proponents are >> notorious liars, that does not have to be the case) > I'm sorry Martin, but your standard of "proof" is childishly insufficient. You mean the fact that the patient is cancer free (like the story says) is not proof the cancer was cured? Can you please tell me what would constitute proof that the cancer was cured for you? > You have not provided any proof. You're right, *I* did not provide anything. The story about a woman being cancer free after only surgery and no chemo was provided by someone else. I based my comment on accepting that story at face value, but with the caveat that I do realize these stories are sometimes totally made up by alt-med proponents. If you don't believe the story, don't talk to me, talk to the person who posted it. > You have provided your opinion, which > going back in the archives, is worth nothing at all. You seem to be here > only to be nasty. Only to people who ask for it. >THAT is something you do very well. Thank you, I aim to please. > But for anyone to take your postings as fact or worthy advice would be supremely foolish. >>>>>>This is an de facto admission that the original treatment >>>>>>was insufficient, misguided and/or inadequate. [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >> But for anyone to take your postings as fact or worthy advice would be >> supremely foolish. You missed or skipped the point. Not surprising. >>>>>>>This is an de facto admission that the original treatment >>>>>>>was insufficient, misguided and/or inadequate. [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >>> But for anyone to take your postings as fact or worthy advice would be >>> supremely foolish. > You missed or skipped the point. Not surprising. Are you tools, the urolagnist, with a new alias? Because you are just as bad with quoting. Anyway, what was the point that I missed? - standard of proof - didn't skip that - provided proof - didn't skip that - I'm nasty - didn't skip that So, what point did I skip? Or do you have that problem that so many alties seem to have, the inability to read? "Martin" <idnontwantno@spam.com> wrote in message >>>>> >>>>> Yes, the fact that the patient has survived the cancer. Proof - > So, what point did I skip? Or do you have that problem that so many > alties seem to have, the inability to read? > Or do you have that problem that so many > alties seem to have, the inability to read? Ahh, that why you are here. Feel free to leave. Hop right over to mypace and look for some sweeties. >>>>>>This is an de facto admission that the original treatment >>>>>>was insufficient, misguided and/or inadequate. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > says) is not proof the cancer was cured? Can you please tell me what > would constitute proof that the cancer was cured for you? let's try reality again the original "story" claims this lady is cancer free only 11 months after her original diagnosis and presumably surgery...then her trip to Mexico for the potion there is NO way to make a statement that broad...11 months is wayyyy too soon that "no cancer remains"...cuz the little malignant buggers may at this moment be setting up housekeeping in some remote location...but it takes significant SIZE to find these buggers...."cured" at 11 months is...in my h.o. ...a dream...hopefully it comes true...but it is a dream..not reality if I were a breast cancer "victim"...as my mother was (she lived 5 years 10 months...after being declared "cancer free")...I would never consider myself out of the woods and would always be looking behind the next tree I hope this lady is indeed cancer free...but 11 months tells very little..if not nada...about her prognosis >> You have not provided any proof. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> But for anyone to take your postings as fact or worthy advice would be >> supremely foolish. >>>>>>>This is an de facto admission that the original treatment >>>>>>>was insufficient, misguided and/or inadequate. [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] >>> But for anyone to take your postings as fact or worthy advice would be >>> supremely foolish. Good Lord! Hawki, I agree with you. >>>>>>This is an de facto admission that the original treatment >>>>>>was insufficient, misguided and/or inadequate. [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Only to people who ask for it. Who here has asked you to be nasty? >>THAT is something you do very well. > > Thank you, I aim to please. By being nasty................ I feel sorry for Mrs. Rady >> But for anyone to take your postings as fact or worthy advice would be >> supremely foolish. > On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 08:42:42 -0700 (PDT), CitizenJimserac > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > >CitizenJimserac "You can take chances with hangnail, but not with cancer". -> Thank you for validating the stated position that cancer surgery is inadequate. "Since this patient did NOT get chemo, the original treatment (the surgery) was clearly sufficient, well chosen and adequate." -> A clearly fallacious and unproven assumption AND it contradicts your "hangnail" remark. Conversation terminated while respondent attempts to regain his composure. Citizen Jimserac >> On Sat, 5 Apr 2008 08:42:42 -0700 (PDT), CitizenJimserac >> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >cancer". -> Thank you for validating the stated >position that cancer surgery is inadequate. I didn't and don't validate that position. And try to get it through your thick skull that real doctors have what is called a treatment *plan* to battle cancer, not just one single remedy. For certain types and stages of breast cancer, surgery then chemo is the plan. And looking at the survival rates, that is quite adequate. In fact, surgery is adequate in most cases, but not in some. Since we can't tell which cases those are, chemo is given to on the safe side. >"Since this patient did NOT get chemo, the original >treatment (the surgery) was clearly sufficient, well chosen >and adequate." -> A clearly fallacious and unproven >assumption AND it contradicts your "hangnail" remark. Snce the patient only got surgery (and some non-effective crap in Mexico), this patient was clearly in the group for which the surgery was sufficient and adequate. If it wasn't, she would not be free of cancer. Of course it is possible that that conclusion is too early, but let's hope not. >Conversation terminated while respondent attempts >to regain his composure. > >Citizen Jimserac You better terminate this conversation untill you're actually comprehend what I'm writing. "Martin" <idnontwantno@spam.com> wrote in message > Snce the patient only got surgery (and some non-effective crap in > Mexico), this patient was clearly in the group for which the surgery > was sufficient and adequate. If it wasn't, she would not be free of > cancer. Martin, > you have provided not one shred of proof to back up your strongly > opinionated statements. Seems that is your style though. >"Martin" <idnontwantno@spam.com> wrote in message >> >> Since the patient only got surgery (and some non-effective crap in >> Mexico), this patient was clearly in the group for which the surgery >> was sufficient and adequate. If it wasn't, she would not be free of >> cancer. > Martin, > you have provided not one shred of proof to back up your strongly > opinionated statements. Seems that is your style though. The statement that a woman was cured from breast cancer - not my statement. The statement that she had surgery but no chemo - not my statement. The statement that she went to Mexico and got some alternative treatment - not my statement. The statement that surgery is very often enough to cure breast cancer - not my statement, that is from the medical literature. The statement that the alternative treatment she got in Mexico was useless crap - that one is mine, but I'm far from the only one who says so. None of the remedies given in those Mexican clinics has ever been proven to work, some have even been proven to be harmful. And whatever can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. So, there we have it. The statements were either not mine, or backed up by plenty scientific evidence or they didn't need any evidence. > So, there we have it. The statements were either not mine, or backed > up by plenty scientific evidence or they didn't need any evidence. You know Marty, I think most of us that post here could really give two sh.ts if you agree or disagree-. Instead of insulting the information, and asking questions that I could bring to her next I'm out in that area, there is always this strange cult like thinking between individuals here that enjoy engaging in bullying. You really need to read the charter; no one has to prove jack sh.t about anything--it is a consumer newsgroup----you asked me to get more information; I did. Then you claim it doesn't work---how would you even know? You wouldn't. > > So, there we have it. The statements were either not mine, or backed > > up by plenty scientific evidence or they didn't need any evidence. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > you even know? > You wouldn't. He has actually done some pretty good skeptical postings but in this thread resorts to hysteria and insults, even after clearly being proven logically wrong regarding the efficacy of "surgery" for cancer followed by the necessity of "chemotherapy" (sic) to ensure that no "tiny" bits of cancer are left - a clear and present indication of the inadequacy of the surgery in the first place. Surgery and chemotherapy for cancer are what bloodletting was to previous centuries. History will be as unkind to those of the present that espouse these "treatments" as they were to those of the past. The time has come to accept the search for better ways. HINT: I would not expect too much from the "cancer research" industry, they seem to be looking for solutions in about the same manner as Bush is pursuing the hunt for Bin Laden. Citizen Jimserac > He has actually done some pretty good skeptical postings > but in this thread resorts to hysteria and insults, even after [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > are left - a clear and present indication of the inadequacy > of the surgery in the first place. Have you ever done any work in reliability decision matrices? For that matter, are you either a pilot or technical climber? > Surgery and chemotherapy for cancer are what bloodletting > was to previous centuries. History will be as unkind > to those of the present that espouse these "treatments" > as they were to those of the past. Well, except for a few difference -- such as the fact that the physicians of the 18th century didn't keep track of differential outcomes, and the current set do. You might note the results there. Surgery for a great many types of cancer is all it takes. Then again, most climbers never need to use a prussik. > The time has come to accept the search for better > ways. HINT: I would not expect too much from the "cancer research" > industry, they seem to be looking for solutions in about the same > manner as Bush is pursuing the hunt for Bin Laden. And you know what they're doing ... how? | The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" | | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | +---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+ > In message <9b192fa4-8b44-447e-b0be-bcee85a8f...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimseracwrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > matrices? For that matter, are you either a pilot > or technical climber? Have you ever worked on a real live sick person and tried to help them get better? For that matter, are you a cost accountant or in advertising, or perhaps in quality control checking for imperfections in potato chips? > the physicians of the 18th century didn't keep > track of differential outcomes, and the current set > do. You might note the results there. The physicians of the 18th century did not have to keep track of differential outcomes - most of the patients died. > Surgery for a great many types of cancer is all it > takes. Until the cancer comes back again. > > The time has come to accept the search for better > > ways. HINT: I would not expect too much from the "cancer research" > > industry, they seem to be looking for solutions in about the same > > manner as Bush is pursuing the hunt for Bin Laden. > And you know what they're doing ... how? I'm so glad you asked! "The Secret History of the War on Cancer" by Devra Davis. (Devra Davis, Ph.D., M.P.H., is the Director of the Center for Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute and Professor of Epidemiology, Graduate School of Public Health.) "The War on Cancer was run by leaders of industries that made cancer- causing products, and sometimes also profited from drugs and technologies for finding and treating the disease. Filled with compelling personalities and never-before-revealed information, The Secret History of the War on Cancer shows how we began fighting the wrong war, with the wrong weapons, against the wrong enemies--a legacy that persists to this day." (from Editorial Review of the book at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Secret-History-War-Cancer/dp/0465015662 Some of the research articles used for her book are at: http://www.devradavis.com/documents.php Citizen Jimserac >> In message <9b192fa4-8b44-447e-b0be-bcee85a8f...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimseracwrote: >> > He has actually done some pretty good skeptical postings >> > but in this thread resorts to hysteria and insults, even after [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Have you ever worked on a real live sick person > and tried to help them get better? Yes -- and I notice you didn't answer the question. It was not a diversion. When the stakes are high, one is wise to avoid a "single point of failure." Unless your plan for treating cancer has less chance of failure than a rope or carabiner (both of which have extremely low failure rates), or for that matter your brake hydraulics, it's foolish to bet your life on it always working. This is *extrmely* basic engineering reliability math. I learned it in primary grades with the Mercury program as the lesson example. > For that matter, are you a cost accountant > or in advertising, or perhaps in quality > control checking for imperfections in potato chips? No, I'm an engineer whose work ends up controlling things like auto systems (among many other things). I find it very curious that you are willing to take greater chances with human lives than my customers are with their audio systems. >> the physicians of the 18th century didn't keep >> track of differential outcomes, and the current set [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to keep track of differential outcomes - most of > the patients died. Of course not -- that would have been too obvious. Most of the time their patients lived and recovered, perhaps despite their physicians, but they recovered none the less. As always, "confirmation bias" taught the physicians that those who recovered did so thanks to the treatment and those who didn't were in spite of the treatment. Until you systematically test your ideas in a way that defeats self-deception, that's going to be how it works. >> Surgery for a great many types of cancer is all it >> takes. > > Until the cancer comes back again. Which, most of the time, it doesn't. Lumpectomy for breast cancer has a very high rate of nonrecurrence (which is why the present practice is much less aggressive than it was in the past: paying attention to results and learning from them.) However, nothing is perfect. Just as with brake systems, when lives are at stake a "belt and braces" approach is prudent. >> > The time has come to accept the search for better >> > ways. HINT: I would not expect too much from the "cancer research" [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > that persists to this day." (from Editorial Review > of the book at Amazon: So you have one source promoting a book with a sensationalist theme, and that's all the information you need. Pardon me for not accepting her as the Ultimate Authority. (Not least because I personally know cancer researchers, what they're working on, and their sources of funding.) | The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" | | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | +---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+ > No, I'm an engineer whose work ends up controlling > things like auto systems (among many other things). An engineer!! Excellent profession. > I find it very curious that you are willing to take > greater chances with human lives than my customers > are with their audio systems. I find it very curious that you regard people as a collection of mechanical parts or electromechanical subsystems. The excision of cancer in one part of the body does not necessarily imply that the disease has been cured or the cancer wholly eliminated. Certain alternative medicine modalities attempt to take a more unified view of a person as more than a collection of parts some of which may be diseased - among them Homeopathy, Acupuncture, Chinese Herbology, Chiropractic Medicine and many others. > >> the physicians of the 18th century didn't keep > >> track of differential outcomes, and the current set [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > to the treatment and those who didn't were in spite of > the treatment. Ah! Just as in Homeopathy? > Until you systematically test your ideas in a way that > defeats self-deception, that's going to be how it works. > However, nothing is perfect. Just as with brake systems, > when lives are at stake a "belt and braces" approach is > prudent. People are not brake systems. The analogy fails. > >> > The time has come to accept the search for better > >> > ways. HINT: I would not expect too much from the "cancer research" [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > (Not least because I personally know cancer researchers, > what they're working on, and their sources of funding.) You are pardoned. Citizen Jimserac >> No, I'm an engineer whose work ends up controlling >> things like auto systems (among many other things). [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >not necessarily imply that the disease has >been cured or the cancer wholly eliminated. Yes indeed, *not necessarily*. That's why there are things called treatment plans/ protocols, where a whole number of things are done. Radiation to shrink a tumor to make it operable, surgery the remove the bulk, chemo to clean up, additional hormone therapy etc. Unlike people who believe in alt-med, real doctors know there is no *one cure* for cancer. There isn't even one cancer. >Certain alternative medicine modalities attempt >to take a more unified view of a person as >more than a collection of parts some of which >may be diseased - among them Homeopathy, >Acupuncture, Chinese Herbology, Chiropractic Medicine >and many others. The fact they don't work but the other view does should tell you something about who is right and who is wrong. BTW, you're idea that science views humans as only a collection of parts is wrong, but I'm going along here for the sake of argument. >> >> the physicians of the 18th century didn't keep >> >> track of differential outcomes, and the current set [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >People are not brake systems. The analogy fails. Your understanding of analogies is what fails. >> >> > The time has come to accept the search for better >> >> > ways. HINT: I would not expect too much from the "cancer research" [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > >Citizen Jimserac "Martin" <idnontwantno@spam.com> wrote in message> I'm going along here for the sake of argument. > We all know that about you. > Yes indeed, *not necessarily*. That's why there are things called > treatment plans/ protocols, where a whole number of things are done. > Radiation to shrink a tumor to make it operable, surgery the remove > the bulk, chemo to clean up, additional hormone therapy etc. Unlike > people who believe in alt-med, real doctors know there is no *one > cure* for cancer. There isn't even one cancer. I am sorry, but this is so absurd I felt compelled to respond. Radiation to shrink a tumor....to make it operable???? What absolute nonsense. Surgery to remove the bulk and chemo to clean up the left overs. Is this medicine or mumbo jumbo? What absolute nonsense. Then we have "additonal hormone therapy ( for what only God knows ) followed by etc. Real doctors ( who ever in the heck they are ) have absolutely no idea of what cancer is and is not. All the "real doctors" know is what they have been programed to believe and how to profit greatly by the poisoning, mutalation, and falsification of data known as the "war against cancer", ha, ha, ha , ha, ha , ha laughing my arse off. DrCee You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons. On Apr 7, 4:35 pm, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: > > Yes indeed, *not necessarily*. That's why there are things called > > treatment plans/ protocols, where a whole number of things are done. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > DrCee > You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons. Thank you for presenting your view. While I do not agree with everything you say, I find no need, unlike others in this newsgroup, to insult anyone. Keep posting, your views and everyone's views are of interest! Thanks Citizen Jimserac > On Apr 7, 4:35 pm, drcee...@insightbb.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > - Show quoted text - One of the problems is Jimserac that current, modern medicine, etc, will fight you every step of the way until it is undenialbly proven that what you said was correct. They will then claim it as their own and deny that you ever existed. I am sorry, I have suffered too much myself, seen too many die from the lunacy of modern medicine, to allow the medicos to sweep their lies under the rug and pretend that they had the answer all along. My views are based upon science, experience, and a medical theory that puts so called modern medicine into the realm of psuedo-science, witchcraft, and voodoo medicine. I refuse to bow to, or honor, their god. DrCee You cannot secure nor restore health with pus or poisons. > On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 09:35:47 -0700 (PDT), CitizenJimserac > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > people who believe in alt-med, real doctors know there is no *one > cure* for cancer. There isn't even one cancer. First of all, get control of yourself, stop the insults and recover your reason. If you find my views incorrect, then refute them with logic not insults. Now you say alternative medicine does not work but then you give us, in the above paragraph, statements about "Radiation to shrink a tumor to make it operable, surgery to remove the bulk, chemo to clean up, additional hormone therapy etc.." You think THIS works??? Fine. I know it is the accepted treatment but do you have any idea how many people are being harmed by the surgeries, radiation, hormones?? So it works for some but for many other, I submit that it DOES NOT WORK. There must be better ways and people are flocking to alternative medicine in the hope of finding those ways. You can deny people choice and insist that they undergo the "standard" torture... er treatment, OR you can join me in seeking those alternative systems which show progress, may work or do work and those that do not. To blindly deny efficacy of ALL alternative medicine is to block progress. Don't you think when a non-standard procedure becomes validated that standard medicine will embrace it quickly. Look at Vitamin C supplements - once dismissed as nonsense by standard medical doctors 30 years ago but gradually they came to agree on its value. I think good doctors of all systems of medicine are motivated by a desire to help their patients get better. Right now surgery and chemotherapy are about all that standard medicine has to offer. I think there might be alternatives out there. To find out, we must look. I repeat, we MUST look. Thanks Citizen Jimserac > To blindly deny efficacy of ALL alternative medicine > is to block progress. Don't you think when a non-standard [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Thanks > Citizen Jimserac- I agree with much you have said here. The practice of alternative medicine which actually has some merit, eventually finds its way into standard medical doctors regimines. Kaiser Permanente seems really progressive in that way. My own doctor, is very focused on fittness and diet as the front line of health. And I agree with her 100%. I have also been helped in the past by chropractic treatments, and have a friend who was significantly helped by acupuncture. Yesterday, I made a small trip with a couple grandkids, and while traveling, my 12 year old grandson was telling me about all the different kinds of pines, cedars, and trees. From scouting, he had learned that the light green new growth areas of the Douglas Firs, are loaded with Vitamin C. Like he said though, "Nana, you probably wouldn't want to try it, if you could get oranges instead." > Now you say alternative medicine does not work > but then you give us, in the above paragraph, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > hormones?? So it works for some but for many > other, I submit that it DOES NOT WORK. Are they alive afterwards? Your argument is the "counsel of perfection:" if it's not perfect, it's worthless. Often called "making the perfect the enemy of the good." | The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" | | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | +---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+ If you value your life, do NOT take advice from DC and friends. >If you value your life, do NOT take advice from DC and friends. Instead, take it from some anonymous clown who posts one-liners? -- David Wright :: alphabeta at copper.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "There are two kinds of Republicans: millionaires and suckers." -- John Dolan >>If you value your life, do NOT take advice from DC and friends. > > Instead, take it from some anonymous clown who posts one-liners? > > > And, do not take any advice ever from Troll David Wright who has been posting anti - alternative crap for years here. > > people are being harmed by the surgeries, radiation, > > hormones?? So it works for some but for many > > other, I submit that it DOES NOT WORK. > > Are they alive afterwards? Maybe. Citizen Jimserac >> > people are being harmed by the surgeries, radiation, >> > hormones?? So it works for some but for many [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Maybe. Then by your standard, and I quote, "it DOES NOT WORK." | The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" | | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | +---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+ > >> Are they alive afterwards? > > > Maybe. > > Then by your standard, and I quote, "it DOES NOT WORK." You got it! It's all we have right now but they are not even sure if the cancer is entirely eliminated until later testing. A year or two later? Who knows. Now... let me clarify this for you: IT DOES NOT WORK. There! Citizen Jimserac >> On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 09:35:47 -0700 (PDT), CitizenJimserac >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >and recover your reason. If you find my views >incorrect, then refute them with logic not insults. But I don't find your view that in most cases surgery alone is insufficient to cure breastcancer incorrect. But you keep acting like I do, even after I told you so several times. If someone is that dense, no amount of logic is going to work. Ridicule and insult are the only appropriate response. >Now you say alternative medicine does not work >but then you give us, in the above paragraph, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >to alternative medicine in the hope of finding those >ways. yes, they hope to cure a horrible disease with an easy cure. I wish it were possible, but right now, it isn't. > You can deny people choice and insist >that they undergo the "standard" torture... er treatment, No no no no no, and a thousand times more no. I insist that the purveyors of those magical cancer cures either prove it works or stop lying. If they honestly tell people that they can take their stuff for their cancer, but that research has shown it doesn't work, that there is zero reason to even think it works and that it hasn't yet cured anybody, then I am perfectly ok with it. >OR you can join me in seeking those alternative >systems which show progress, may work or do work >and those that do not. There aren't any. The only thing that has recently shown some promise is DCA, and that ain´t alt/med. >To blindly deny efficacy of ALL alternative medicine >is to block progress. Don't you think when a non-standard [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >might be alternatives out there. To find out, >we must look. I repeat, we MUST look. We must look to things that show some plausibility. Some guy picking random herbs from his pasture because he thinks it cured his horse´s cancer and that it will do the same in humans is not something that shows plausibility. >Thanks >Citizen Jimserac > But I don't find your view that in most cases surgery alone is > insufficient to cure breastcancer incorrect. But you keep acting like > I do, even after I told you so several times. If someone is that > dense, no amount of logic is going to work. Ridicule and insult are > the only appropriate response. OK OK, relax will you, there are times when I have too much stuff going on and probably assumed you meant something without reading carefully. Here, try this to relax: Why did the amnesiac not do well with his Homeopathy remedy? Answer: He forgot to take it and died of an overdose! > >There must be better ways and people are flocking > >to alternative medicine in the hope of finding those > >ways. > > yes, they hope to cure a horrible disease with an easy cure. I wish it > were possible, but right now, it isn't. Yes, it isn't, true, at least for most but that should not stop us from looking. > > You can deny people choice and insist > >that they undergo the "standard" torture... er treatment, > No no no no no, and a thousand times more no. I insist that the > purveyors of those magical cancer cures either prove it works or stop > lying. If they honestly tell people that they can take their stuff for > their cancer, but that research has shown it doesn't work, that there > is zero reason to even think it works and that it hasn't yet cured > anybody, then I am perfectly ok with it. Well that's fine with me, a perfectly reasonable viewpoint. My problem is that I am having an inordinate amount of trouble trying to find out one way or the other what works and what does not and both in standard medicine and in alternative stuff it is not always easy to find this out. In standard medicine, they have evolved what seems to be some pretty reasonable and rigorous testing procedures even before they get to human trials. I'm not at all sure these testing procedures are appropriate or fully applicable for alternative medicine. I'm still researching on this. There is a Greek Homeopathy doctor who seems to be far more scientific than the "modernists", he finds the Benveniste results worthless and does not think much of the water memory idea either. We must accept that, just like the mysterious electron slit experiment which remains unsolved in quantum mechanics, the human body and human life still contain a huge number of unknowns about which we know nothing and quite possibly do not even know of the existence of unknowns. So more research, AND openmindedness, is needed by everyone. > >OR you can join me in seeking those alternative > >systems which show progress, may work or do work [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > cancer and that it will do the same in humans is not something that > shows plausibility. Yes, dammit, exactly, but we'd be fools not to pursue research on did the horse really have cancer and, if so, then why he was cured... and if not, what did the horse have and did the herb have something to do with it getting better. Citizen Jimserac > We must accept that, just like the mysterious electron > slit experiment which remains unsolved in quantum mechanics, We must be thinking of different "electron slit experiments" because the behavior of electrons diffracting through a slit is one of the best-modeled [1] phenomena in physics. [1] As in, the theory predicts actual results to a degree greater than that of ANY other theory, ever. | The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" | | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | +---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+ > In message <848fcee9-f13f-402b-bb8b-5c1008fa6...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimseracwrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > because the behavior of electrons diffracting through a > slit is one of the best-modeled [1] phenomena in physics. Now D.C., you know I mean the famous unsolved double slit experiment of Quantum Mechanics. Don't make me provide a link, you are an engineer and surely know about this. Citizen Jimserac : Now D.C., you know I mean the famous unsolved : double slit experiment of Quantum Mechanics. : Don't make me provide a link, you are an engineer : and surely know about this. The only problem with your description is that the problem is not unsolved. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." > > : Now D.C., you know I mean the famous unsolved [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The only problem with your description is that the problem is not unsolved. I'm guessing that this is a case of someone rejecting QED on ideological grounds and thus rejecting the solution. However, until he stops playing guessing games we can't really know. | The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" | | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | +---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+ Very telling Chicken Douglas Charles Session did NOT post to Citizen Jimserac >> In article >> <02fff9bc-6887-4831-9cb2-dc622e5e5963@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | > +---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+ :> : Now D.C., you know I mean the famous unsolved :> : double slit experiment of Quantum Mechanics. :> : Don't make me provide a link, you are an engineer :> : and surely know about this. :> The only problem with your description is that the problem is not unsolved. : I'm guessing that this is a case of someone rejecting QED : on ideological grounds and thus rejecting the solution. My guess (not having at this point read any posts in the thread beyond the one to which I am replying) is that he considers the apparent inconsistency between "wave-like" and "particle-like" behavior to be an "unsolved problem." ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience" >: Now D.C., you know I mean the famous unsolved >: double slit experiment of Quantum Mechanics. >: Don't make me provide a link, you are an engineer >: and surely know about this. > >The only problem with your description is that the problem is not unsolved. Perhaps he's talking about the homeopathy slit experiment where pure water is forced through a slit and the stuff that comes out the other side takes on the appearance of medicine. (And water has waves - I have seen and surfed them.) I believe that this experiment was the origin of the slang term homeopathists use to describe the proportion of active ingredient - "de fraction".  SignaturePeter Bowditch aa #2243 The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com >> In message <848fcee9-f13f-402b-bb8b-5c1008fa6...@a23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, CitizenJimseracwrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Don't make me provide a link, you are an engineer > and surely know about this. We're still not on the same page, because the ones I know of have all been solved long, long ago and match theory and practice very nicely. | The most important exclamation in science isn't "Eureka!" | | The most important exclamation is "What the BLEEP?" | +---------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ----------+ >> But I don't find your view that in most cases surgery alone is >> insufficient to cure breastcancer incorrect. But you keep acting like [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >too much stuff going on and probably assumed you >meant something without reading carefully. I'm relaxed. >Here, try this to relax: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Yes, it isn't, true, at least for most but that should not >stop us from looking. Absolutely not. But just look at the progress in scientific medicine. Just look at modern breast cancer surgery and the old surgery. Look at targeted radiation therapy, with much less side effects than how it used to be etc. And compare that to the 'progress' of alt-med. >> > You can deny people choice and insist >> >that they undergo the "standard" torture... er treatment, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >medicine and in alternative stuff it is not >always easy to find this out. I'm assuming you are healthy. Can you imagine how to do this when you are not? When you have a disease like, say, cancer, you can not shop around to try different approaches like you can shop around for new sneakers. You'll be dead soon. That's why we need proven therapies, not some claptrap that only has anecdotes as support. > In standard medicine, they have evolved what seems to be >some pretty reasonable and rigorous testing procedures >even before they get to human trials. I'm not >at all sure these testing procedures are appropriate >or fully applicable for alternative medicine. They are. The reason the alt-med folks say they are not is because their remedies always come up negative when properly tested. And note that whenever a scientific study seems to show a positive effect for their wares, they never ever denounce such studies because science does not apply. The inconsistency is very revealing. > I'm still researching on this. There is a Greek Homeopathy >doctor who seems to be far more scientific >than the "modernists", he finds the Benveniste results >worthless and does not think much of the water >memory idea either. Ah, the Greeks. The Greek homeopaths had recently agreed on an acceptable scientific test protocol for homeopathy. That is, one that is properly blinded and takes into account the individual approach of homeopathy. But alas, they reconsidered and backed out. I think the reason is that they just know homeopathy doesn't work and the test was going to show just that. And a test that agreed on was a fair and proper test of homeopathy! Just ask yourself why they would back out of a testprotocol they helped set up and they agreed that was fair and proper. >We must accept that, just like the mysterious electron >slit experiment which remains unsolved in quantum mechanics, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >of unknowns. So more research, AND openmindedness, >is needed by everyone. With the double slit experiment there are observable testresults that have no explanation as of yet. With homeopathy there are no results that need explaining. >> >OR you can join me in seeking those alternative >> >systems which show progress, may work or do work [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >Citizen Jimserac It's been looked at. That's the whole point. Hoxsey doesn't do a thing. Leatrile has been looked at. Not only does it not cure cancer, it's even dangerous. And so on. But none of the alt-med folks stop claiming it works. Also, we have limited resources for research. What we use those for? Some guy who knows nothing about cancer who claims he cured his horse from cancer and therefor, he can cure humans as well, or a team of scientists, who have a plausible biological mechanism for a remedy, have done some basic in vitro and in vivo tests that came out positive and whose ideas are based on existing knowledge. Take your pick. "Martin" <idnontwantno@spam.com> wrote in message Martin, you are so full of crap. How bout this, YOU use whatever you want to call medicine, and leave other people to do what they want. It is obvious that you are not here to express your compassion for humanity. Why do you want to crap in other peoples yards anyway? . Why do you want to crap in other > peoples yards anyway? Agree--especially when it comes to trying something different than what the conventional medicine wagon is dispensing today. Last mammogram was 2 years prior to 2007---and she had to re-take the mammogram because the first one showed something happening. She retook the mammogram in April 2005, and was given the "all clear" sign. She didn't have another one until February 2007. It wasn't until March 2007 was the diagnosis given. The surgery allegedly removed all of the signs of the "C" word. In other words, they thought they got it all. However, that was not the case---and she was advised to start having chemo at the end of April 2007 because of what they found after surgery, and that's when she started researching other alternatives. All of the alternatives were discussed with her doctors, and although they could not be supportive of her decision, they have been very supportive of learning more about what took place in Mexico, and learning more about the alternative options available to patients. She was re-checked this year, and so far there are no signs of the "C" word. And she will be re-checked in 6 months. I will follow up at that time. > >We must accept that, just like the mysterious electron > >slit experiment which remains unsolved in quantum mechanics, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > have no explanation as of yet. With homeopathy there are no results > that need explaining. OK, thanks. Someone needs to tell D.C. and Shultz about the double slit experiment, they don't seem to know what it is about. > It's been looked at. That's the whole point. Hoxsey doesn't do a > thing. Leatrile has been looked at. Not only does it not cure cancer, [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > and whose ideas are based on existing knowledge. > Take your pick. Points will taken, understood. I will make one addendum. A lot of people back in the 70's, Steve McQueen and others included, tried Leatrile with no results other than eventual death. There is, however, one big difference between that era and the present one. The Internet dramatically speeds up information flow both as to the potential of new speculative cures and of their failures, shortcommings and limitations. Even obscure scientists (but GOOD ones) in countries without big research budgets can make contributions and hook up easily with scientists from different places rather than needing to go to expensive scientific conferences several times a year. This liberation in the flow of information will have (already has) have a major impact in speeding up the uncovering of potential cures (or speeding word of their failure). Likewise, accessing the research literature, now almost obviates the necessity of time wasting trips to University libraries and dealing with the well known "librarius stupidus" species, once the bane of researchers everywhere. Despite the interference of special interests on different sides of the issue with vested commercial interest, a good search engine and some hours on the Internet can contribute to the saving of lives and/or to the avoidance of a false cure. It is a liberating effect whose ramifications have only begun to be felt. Citizen Jimserac : OK, thanks. Someone needs to tell D.C. and Shultz [sic] : about the double slit experiment, they don't seem : to know what it is about. I daresay that both of us know a good deal more about it than you do. Just because *you* can't do the math, it does not mean that the math cannot be done. And when someone like Feynman says that no one understands why the universe should be constructed such that the correct answer has the mathematical form that it does, he does not mean that the double-slit problem is unsolved. ----- Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University ----- "You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing." Internet clean up crew here, returning this thread to the subject matter. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message