Shrunk wrote:monkeyboy wrote:kyrani99 wrote:Don't presume to tell me what serious illness is about. I have known serious illness, stage 4 ovarian cancer with metastasis to the uterus, cervix, bowel and both lungs. And I had been told by doctors that there is really no treatment other than palliative. That I should get my things in order because I had six months to a year to live. That was in 1993. In mid 1994 about a year later the medical tests confirmed NO EVIDENCE OF DISEASE. I could have given up hope and died but instead I investigated how I could survive and I had the first spontaneous remission.
Wow! That sounds truly amazing. I don't suppose there's a shred of credible evidence for this. A recovery like that is no everyday event, it's the kind of event often referred to as 'miraculous'. I've been reading medical journals routinely since around 1992 and don't remember seeing anything about this sort of thing happening. I would have thought oncologists would have been all over it.
kyrani99 has been asked to provide the medical records to substantiate this claim. She has said she will not. Notice, she did not say she is unable to provide them for some reason. It was an outright refusal. Protection of personal privacy could not be an issue, because she would only be confirming information she has already voluntarily divulged. Taking all this into account, then, the mostly likely conclusion is that this is a lie. She is not mistakenly making claims that she believes to be true, but is making claims she knows to be false.
The other cancers she claims to have recovered from were, according to her, never actually diagnosed. She just says she knew they existed by viewing them in her own body thru some supernatural, immaterial means. On those claims, I'm willing to concede she may have just been honestly mistaken.
What's so very strange about this then is that medical journals are totally used to and proficient in protecting privacy. It's an issue we in the trade call confidentiality (i know you know that, writing for the wider audience). I always struggle with people who claim some sort of knowledge/insight the rest of us don't have on issues like morality who seem so reluctant to let everyone in.
Take something like cancer. I genuinely lack the words to adequately describe the way the arse falls out of your world when the diagnosis is delivered. It didn't happen directly to me, just the mother of our (at the time) 6yr old and our 5mth old. If we had discovered a way of curing her by simply thinking differently instead of having her uterus, fallopian tubes, cervix and a sizeable portion of surrounding tissue removed, of course we would have used it. We would have been daft not to obviously. She's now sterile and struggles with hormones. She is not the first nor sadly, will she be the last. If I had the ability to make a non surgical cure available, I guarantee I would not be floating the idea here.
If I had evidence that would demonstrate that I had achieved full remission of such a serious case of cancer as she describes but withheld it, evidence which would lend serious credibility to claims of a psychosomatic intervention for cancer capable of achieving total remission but kept it to myself, well what sort of person would I be? Not sure that lack of compassion or altruism involved in denying such a treatment to others equates to a position of high morality, far from it.
Perhaps Kyriani99 would argue we should accept her testimony as evidence it worked. All well and good but I'm all too familiar with tales of people dying of medically treatable conditions because they preferred faith over evidence based medicine. If her case was published, her technique put to clinical trial and found to be reliable and repeatable method for treating cancer, thousands of people might be spared losing chunks of their bodies or undergoing chemotherapy, none of which is remotely pleasant nor guaranteed to offer much more than time in a lot of cases.
I would suggest that there are only a few reasons this hasn't happened:
1. The cancer and subsequent remission tale as told never happened in the first place. The "bullshit" reason.
2. It happened as described but Kyriani99 lacks any empathy towards other sufferers and is content for them to receive uncertain treatments which are the best current medicine can offer, leaving them deformed by surgery and/or receiving awful chemotherapy treatment. The "cold hearted psychopath" reason.
3. Kyriani99 enjoys playing power games with people's lives for some reason. The "being a morally reprehensible shit" reason.
If it's not a bloody good reason I haven't been able to think of, it kind of points to someone either willing to lie about having had cancer or being unwilling to share a cure responsibly. That's not the sort of person I can have an iota of respect for when it comes to dishing out lectures on morality!
The Bible is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.
Mark Twain
by 
