Re: Back to a discussion

http://www.landemaine.com/resume.rtf
alt.support.cancer
Topic: Does anyone have witnesses regarding the efficiency of Graviola
Some guy is asking about the effectiveness of Graviola in curing cancer.
When you look on his CV you see he's basically into eCommerse.
I doubt he has any interest in the science behind it, just the profits he
can make.
(Fair enough he might be looking into this because some relative has
terminal cancer - maybe he would like to respond?)
Until he does he's a potential [censored] in my books.

How's about some people in here getting together and monitoring the
activities of people like this?
Anth

"Peter Moran" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I intended to start a new thread with this----

"Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Now, when did alternative medicine supporters ever get together to stop
seriously ill patients being scammed?
Why do they tolerate a marketing
system wherein you can scarcely ever know whether ANY treatment, even

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

cancer, really works, let alone is safe?
Why do they favour a
testimonial-based method of treatment validation, when that is clearly
throwing up endless claims but negligible useful treatments, a fact

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

then has to be obscured by allegations of a ridiculous global

conspiracy?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I have seen all kinds of scams, diet, body wraps, rebirthing, rings that

claim

Quoted message said:

you can live forever, anti-aging. I believe steps are taken to get these
stopped.

But another will pop up immediately.

Good for you, anyway! I am so proud of you. Do you think it likely
that at
least some of the cancer or AIDs treatments on offer are also scams?

Quoted message said:

The problem is, you believe anything alternative is a scam, you are

wrong.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Let's get this straight.

I have never held or expressed such an opinion, nor have I heard it from
other skeptics. The promoters of many alternatives are obviously quite
sincere: Pauling, Hoffer, Gerson. Some are hard to be sure about and
others are clearly recognisable as frauds if you have a grasp of the
science. Being sincere, of course, does not protect you from error.

Similarly with treatment claims. Skeptical opinion about them ranges

from

Quoted message said:

"utter nonsense", through "dubious or unsubstantiated", to "maybe, but

the

Quoted message said:

evidence looks weak". AM claims are typically put with an absolute
certainty that is rarely seen within proper science. Skeptics react to
that, but it is not quite the same thing as the "outright dismissal" that
we are commonly accused of.

I think our differences stem from the fact that AM supporters like

yourself

Quoted message said:

are working
from conventions and standards that might be quite appropriate for you

when

Quoted message said:

you select treatments for personal use, on a trial and error basis, and

at

Quoted message said:

your own risk, as is your right.

But testimonial and anecdotal evidence of usually poor to mediocre

quality

Quoted message said:

have become a kind of de facto standard for a massive industry, governing
the marketing, the theory, the knowledge base, and even the selling of
high-priced treatment to seriously ill patients.

They are clearly not proving discriminatory of which treatments work

better,

Quoted message said:

most often or for what. Sorting that out happens to be the sole

objective

Quoted message said:

of medicine at every other time and in all other cultures.

They are supporting far too much wild and improbable theory.

Worst of all they are easily exploited by any old fool or villain. .

Do you see what I am getting at? Putting it another way, there is no

such

Quoted message said:

thing as "sufficient evidence" within medicine without a practical

context.

Quoted message said:

Greater standards of evidence shoudl be required depending on the purpose
(from low to high) --

Willingness to try a treatment for personal use.
Willingness to try a treatment instead of one of known benefit.
A practitioner trying a treatment on a patient where no other effective
treatment exists.
Ethically market a treatment for anxiety or other conditions with strong
placebo responsiveness.
Ethically market a treatment for AIDS or cancer, or other serious

conditions

Quoted message said:

that don't respond to placebo. .
Claim to have adequate support for a working hypothesis.
Claim to have absolute scientific proof of a proposition.

This list could be expanded nedlessly. I am not sure where "Claim that a
treatment 'worked for me'" should go, since so much depends upon context,
and whether the level of certainty expressed takes into account all

possible

Quoted message said:

alternaitve explanations for the facts. We do not need to doubt the

facts

Quoted message said:

themselves to have reservations..

Thus your personal standards may be fine for you. You should respect

the

Quoted message said:

wider concerns of others, and the different standards that they must

apply.

Quoted message said:

Most of all you might consider that nothing will change, and alternative
medicine will never get any better, unless its supporters and users start
demanding better information about methods before trying them.

(I like peeing into the wind, it helps clear the mind).

Peter Moran