Quoted message said:1st
You say Cancell is useless because it has no anti cancer properties in the
human body.
By your 'credulous methods' simply put you cannot assert that because it
hasn't been through clinical trials.
I hear you quoting science a lot but you have a rule for others and a
different rule for yourself.
Hence hypocrisy you are not practicing what you preach.
2nd
Anyone who doesn't apply to your one sided methodology is alienated simply
put you are a bigot."Ilsa9" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
Anth, you are treading dangerously close to John "Sodomy" Bain's line about
testing everything that might possibly be alleged to do something or other, in
some sense of a word, somehow.
In the USA, there is actually quite a bit of money available for the testing of
alt-meds. I believe you were following a thread wherein Orac mentioned just
how much easier its to get pro-alt studies funded. One of the reasons was that
the standards are lower. More importantly, and truly disappointing, is that
few people are applying, despite the money ear-marked and the relatively ease
with which to get it.
The sad fact is that the money to test Cancell exists but the owner wants
NOTHING to do with serious research. That would expose the product for what it
is and end its production run. Proving that Cancell works reliably, even on
just a few cancers, would put the inventor at great risk of winning a Nobel
Peace Prize, earn him tons of money, would save many lives and lots of money.
So, given the current state of affairs, which is more likely? Is it more
likely that Cancell works but the inventor doesn't wish to clearly establish
that? That he wants to withhold it from the overwhelming majority of cancer
patients by keeping it obscure? That he does not want the research money
because Cancell works so well that testing it would be unnecessary?
Or, is it more likely that the product doesn't work and any real scrutiny would
show it to be ineffective and likely a scam?
This is a pretty clear cut case, Anth. Its either all of the first paragraph
or the second. Which do you believe?