Alternative Cancer Treatment - An unbiased discussion on the basic theories behind.

[MikeAparicio]

The language barrier!

I am finding something amazing!

Skeptics and SOME people involved with science speak a different English! Not Shakespeare, not modern American English!
Now I am learning why my arguments are invariably twisted! Because most guys here use their "own" English to read me!

Sadly (or happily?) the "alternative" word came in to prove it!

I am amazed skeptics pro orthodox med. think Alternative means "no good"!
I guess Lord Byron might be twisting or jumping up and down in his grave!

I really present my excuses for being so dumb as not knowing "Alternative" means "not working"!

Now I know! My old computer is "alternative"... Yea! It does not work!
My neighbor marriage is an "alternative marriage"... You know why? I guess you guess!... It does not work either!

Thanks for pinpointing EXACTLY what I meant for "UNBIASED"... Not twisting ideas, words or personalities!

NOW I am really skeptic about skeptics! They live in their own parallel wording!

 

[MikeAparicio]

Science thinking is one thing - Subjective personal is another!

Once I know we will NEVER understand each other (do to language barriers) I am really moved to laughter!

The interesting and noticeable phenomena is, Science oriented mental process thinks of humans as "machines". Perfectly predictable, homogeneous, automatically bound to common reactions and responses. For Science minds there is no individual; just a number of subjects, part of a trial, highly blind!

Blind because they do not account for the subtle and highly influencing variations in individual characteristics, both physical and mental. Even worse, for the scientific mind (but not all thanks Heaven) humans have no power on their physique.

Similar to testing cars in a production line! But cars of the same brand, model and year! Never consider they are testing cars of totally different sources, years and models!

On the other hand, the individual HAS THE RIGHT to think, search and question by himself. Follow his or her intuition to make decisions, using his OWN reasoning to take action. If we would be ruled by science we would end up doing the same and "only one thing"!

"Alternatives" would be banned. There should be only ONE option. Life would be so easy. Nothing to make a choice. No problems! Just ask mother Science ; "she" knows it all! what to do, what to take, what to think, what to accept, what to reject, what to eat, what to say... Just one thing... No alternatives!

 

[MikeAparicio]

The greatest flaw in scientific observation.

Please visit this link and CAREFULLY read it all!

The Observer changes or alters the observed subject, by plain OBSERVATION

This phenomena keeps scientific observation to ever get to the "truth" of something.

Those wanting to argue should first read some books on Quantum Physics and see how this findings affect ALL activities where there is an observation process.
At every level of course; chemical, biological, mechanical, electrical...

Should we be skeptic of science as well? I am already!

 

[JDC]

You're doing the classic "misunderstanding the observer in quantum mechanics".

You are quickly slipping into BINGO card territory (i.e. not being taken seriously)

Oh, and contrary to being "the greatest flaw in scientific observation", Quantum Mech is one of the most successful theories in science and has shown us extraordinarily precise limits and conditions on those scientific observations.

 

[JDC]

Yes it does. You need a better dictionary.

Alternative medicine. Alternative lifestyle. Alternative rock.

This was a joke!

 

[ConspicuousCarl]

Now he's throwing quantum physics into the mix out of nowhere after refusing to give coherent answers to simple questions. I think he's one step away from word salad and it might not be healthy for us or him to keep at it.

 

[PixyMisa]

The interesting and noticeable phenomena is, Science oriented mental process thinks of humans as "machines".

Humans are machines.

Perfectly predictable

No.

homogeneous

No.

automatically bound to common reactions and responses.

In broad cases, yes. Cut off someone's oxygen for long enough, and they will "automatically" die. Give someone any amount of sodium bicarbonate, and it will never "automatically" cure their cancer.

Sorry if reality intrudes on your dreams, but that's what reality means.

For Science minds there is no individual; just a number of subjects, part of a trial, highly blind!

And no.

 

[PixyMisa]

Please visit this link and CAREFULLY read it all!

The Observer changes or alters the observed subject, by plain OBSERVATION

This phenomena keeps scientific observation to ever get to the "truth" of something.

Also no.

Those wanting to argue should first read some books on Quantum Physics and see how this findings affect ALL activities where there is an observation process.

We have. It doesn't. Unless you're a subatomic particle, or maybe a Bose-Einstein condensate.

 

[PixyMisa]

This was a joke!

Well, partly a joke.

 

[Pixel42]

I am amazed skeptics pro orthodox med. think Alternative means "no good"!

Alternative medicine that works is just called medicine. If those who promote a particular type of medical treatment are still having to use the prefix 'alternative' it generally means they haven't managed to produce any scientific evidence that it works, and hence that it is almost certainly no good. That it's no good is the most sensible default assumption, until shown evidence otherwise.

Testimonials are not that evidence, because the fact that B followed A does not necessarily mean that A caused B. To assume it does is a logical fallacy (the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy, to be precise). This is how our ancestors were able to convince themselves that doing a raindance made it rain, and letting a sick person's blood made them better. After all it did sometimes rain after they did a rain dance, right? People did sometimes get better after being bled?

How would you find out if doing a raindance really does make it more likely to rain?

 

[Mojo]

I do swear: Whenever I will do "scientific research" I will take only data, data, data...
When I have to pick my treatment, buy a car, build a home, seek a doctor or healer I will Ask, ask, ask. There is the value of of testimonial information.

Can you see the difference?

Yes: you might get reliable results if you do "scientific research", but when it comes to buying things you are likely to be taken for a ride.

 

[Mojo]

Testimonials might not be "relevant" for scientists. I understand that, no matter how "silly" I am by the skeptics opinion!
But relevancy for scientists is not the same as relevancy for ill or suffering people.

Speak for yourself. When I am ill or suffering I want a treatment that works.

 

[jli]

Testimonials might not be "relevant" for scientists.

Scientific journals are full of case reports/small case series. The problem with the testimonials you can find on websites promoting various types of alternative (to) medicine for is, that they aren't good enough. Here is a few things to look for documentation of when viewing these testimonials:

1) Was there really cancer - diagnosed by a reliable method.
2) Was the alternative therapy the only one used
3) Did the cancer really go away - and stayed away (Again verified by a reliable method).
4) Does the testimonial describe interaction with medical staff, that is unrealistic (Can be difficult to assess for laypeople).

Here is a site explaining the above in further details.

 

[catsmate]

Testimonials might not be "relevant" for scientists. I understand that, no matter how "silly" I am by the skeptics opinion!
But relevancy for scientists is not the same as relevancy for ill or suffering people.

Alas sick and desperate people will waste time and money on quack cures. This doesn't mean that those cures have any benefit.

It is very usual to account for good testimony to make up our mind. to choose a doctor, a lawyer or any professional we ask. We ask people, we ask friends, relatives. We make our minds on others advice and recommendations.

So what? This isn't relevant to medicine in particular and science in general.

If this thread would be visited by patients under treatments, you would see how many would endorse my words. Of course it is of "no value" for those perfectly sane, who know NOTHING about being really sick with the illness under discussion.

People's unverified anecdotes are of little value.That's why we use the scientific method.

Skeptics will deny Experience as a proof mainly because is not THEIR experience.

That is why I am so skeptic about skeptics and skeptic about skeptic scientists which do not consider, evaluate or weight living experience and witnessing from actual ill people.

Rubbish. Medical science is about applying scientific methodology to medicine. Verifiability, repeatability et cetera.

Sorry Pixy but "Alternative" does NOT mean "it does not work" !

Yes it does. If a practice works it becomes medicine. The dregs left over, the crap like homeopathy, that don't work remain "alternative" medicine.

Please visit this link and CAREFULLY read it all!

The Observer changes or alters the observed subject, by plain OBSERVATION

Irrelevant. You'll find that people here tend to understand quantum effects far better than you (and other woosters) do.

Speak for yourself. When I am ill or suffering I want a treatment that works.

A good idea. Avoiding homeopathy and similar crap is a good start.

 

[Akuma Tennou]

I conclude we both are speaking the truth. Orthodox medicine works and fails. Unorthodox medicine also works and fails.

Further, we CANNOT reject one in favor of the other for particular instances.

Those wanting to argue should first read some books on Quantum Physics and see how this findings affect ALL activities where there is an observation process.
At every level of course; chemical, biological, mechanical, electrical...

Oh my... I was wrong saying you're prejudiced about science, you just don't know what it is, lest understand it.

Or, even more horrible, a Nicolas Cage movie.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

I am amazed skeptics pro orthodox med. think Alternative means "no good"!
I guess Lord Byron might be twisting or jumping up and down in his grave!

That's not "alternative" you should look in the dictionary, but "euphemism". I'm sure Byron knows this word, and understands that in plain English "alternative medicine" means mostly "crap medicine", sometimes "so-dangerous-it-kills-you medicine" and always "not-a-bit-of-science-in-it medicine'.

 

[Wolrab]

Why is it that testimonials are always positive? Where are the testimonials of the people that didn't find relief and/or eventually died? Funny that.

Is alternative medicine 100% effective? I think we all know the answer to that.

 

[MikeAparicio]

Bye now!

To me it is impossible to keep a conversation with people who twists the language upon convenience.
Again and again my words are twisted an converted into its reciprocal.
I think it is a waist of time for all.
I am very thankful to all for participating. You helped me a lot but NOT the way you think. I learned what the skeptic mind is, how you consider yourselves wise machines and others just machines.
I also learned to distrust even more your way of thinking by your weird language interpreting disabilities.
Several of my topics were evaded plainly while others were attacked systematically.
All this will help me avoid becoming a stiff skeptic with my students because I want to keep their respect and warm feelings for me.
There is no need to respond to this post as I won't be back.
Thanks again.
Thread is closed.

 

[Pixel42]

I'm very sorry you haven't got anything from this discussion. Unless you consider the points that have been made to you, even only those that have been politely made, you are almost certainly going to end up gravely misleading any students for whose education you are responsible.

 

[Capsid]

Another one bites the dust. Why do they come here? Why do scientists fail to convince the altmed crowd that there are flaws in their evaluation of treatments?

Yet again we end up arguing over semantics rather than having a proper discussion about the data and how it is evaluated/analysed.

 

[jli]

Several of my topics were evaded plainly while others were attacked systematically.

You asked for an unbiased discussion on the basic theories behind some alternative cancer treatments. These ideas were challenged on a rational basis - agreed more or less politely (harsh remarks went both ways though). An unbiased discussion goes both ways. I haven't seen any indications that you were willing to view these theories without bias yourself. I think you personally would have gotten more benefit from the discussion if you were.