Re: Breast Cancer - Alternative therapy-Mexico update

In message <501bbef3-4c89-4883-b993-f4c9354f4fe9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Citizen Jimserac wrote:
On Apr 6, 7:39 pm, "D. C. Sessions" <d...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In message <9b192fa4-8b44-447e-b0be-bcee85a8f...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, CitizenJimseracwrote:

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.

Have you ever done any work in reliability decision
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?

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
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.

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"
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:

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ----------+
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: look at this, teflon breaksdown with PFOA found in blood of most Americans
    ... Especially from Texas where guns and murders are ... cancer research is immature and inaccurate. ... Iraqi war ensued but bin Laden is still free after all these years. ...
    (rec.food.cooking)
  • Re: In Vietnam . . .
    ... More Americans died yesterday heart disease than have died in both ... Because the war on cancer doesn't pointlessly murder people. ... I think this President is telling them that in so many words. ...
    (alt.politics)
  • Re: Hezbollah is the equivalent of Al Qeada in lebanon and their destruction is necessary
    ... Occupying downtown, starting a war with Israel, ... another 50 years for the sake of the Arab Israeli conflict. ... While a handful of people may be a cancer, ...
    (soc.culture.lebanon)
  • Re: We Fought and Lost
    ... Fighting Cancer: A Timeline ... and 200 billion dollars (1 year of the war in Iraq). ... could uncover the mystery of a single living cell, ... that we are building a cathedral of knowledge, stone by stone, and it ...
    (alt.support.arthritis)
  • Re: In Vietnam . . .
    ... More Americans died yesterday heart disease than have died in both ... Because the war on cancer doesn't pointlessly murder people. ... Vietnam, I was there. ...
    (alt.politics)