Re: Cancer "curers" miss out again
- From: Citizen Jimserac <Jimserac@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 06:39:56 -0800 (PST)
On Feb 1, 3:52 am, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So on the evidence i have seen I cannot completely
exclude the possibility of occasional patients with superficial cancers
deriving some benefits from it, but there is not enough for it to be offered
as a routine publicly funded treatment method and it is certainly not true
that large numbers of incurable cases of cancer were being cured by Holt...
PM
Maybe that's part of the problem. I mean your approach.
You seem to be trying to find reasons to EXCLUDE that his treatment
helped their cancers.
Should it not be the other way around - how about you finding reasons
to INCLUDE
or confirm that the treatments helped. Such an approach would then
lead you to research
going back to the 1920's and earlier (diathermy, radio frequency
therapies, microwaves ... etc.).
A re-examination of this research then might identifiy the trends -
frequencies, power levels, depth of penetrations,
type of cancers helped or not helped. You could write a research
article that would be
of genuine use to everyone in evaluating these types of approaches.
Citizen Jimserac
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cancer "curers" miss out again
- From: Peter Moran
- Re: Cancer "curers" miss out again
- From: Richard Schultz
- Re: Cancer "curers" miss out again
- References:
- Cancer "curers" miss out again
- From: Peter Bowditch
- Re: Cancer "curers" miss out again
- From: Carole
- Re: Cancer "curers" miss out again
- From: Rod
- Re: Cancer "curers" miss out again
- From: Peter Moran
- Cancer "curers" miss out again
- Prev by Date: Re: No oncologist can match my results
- Next by Date: Re: Cancer "curers" miss out again
- Previous by thread: Re: Cancer "curers" miss out again
- Next by thread: Re: Cancer "curers" miss out again
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading