The Danger of Science Denial - "Alternative Medicine"-Split

Homeopathy, Chiropractic and similar "alternative" views

Discussions on astrology, homeopathy and superstition etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: The Danger of Science Denial - "Alternative Medicine"-Sp

#141  Postby generalsemanticist » May 27, 2010 6:27 pm

Moridin wrote:
What other kinds of evidence? What other kinds of data? You merely assert it, but you do not provide any rational argument for it.

For example, from here; http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/329/7457/79#87089
I hope this is "rational" enough for you.

As a contact lens pratitioner I was in the unique position in 1998 of using the first of the electronic fundus cameras in a practice routinely dispensing sodium ascorbate for (a) reduction of infection risk - mainly Post- Adnoviral Keratitis (PVK) (b) allergy seen as Giant Papillary Conjunctivitis (GPC) and (c) diabetic complications, all in a patient base returning unusually except in contact lens practise, for 6 monthly eye examinations. Diabetic need for extra vitamin C is little dealt with in textbooks of management of diabetics (Cheraskin E - Vitamin C Who needs it? Pub 1993.) (1)

Although the fundi were not imaged at every visit it had become obvious from anterior segment examinations that scurvy (any state in which supplemental vitamin C improves the pericorneal vasculature) was leading to reductions of vessel lumen, congestion and hyperaemia in almost every case. Microaneurysms and incipient microaneurysms were gradually eliminated as dosages increased. It was judged that over 90% of patients could be improved but some needed over 10,000mgs/day supplemented with vitamin E. According to the received wisdom, the physicians consulted by these patients continued to doubt the necessity for such large doses and a degree of friction existed.

Serendipitously, two years later, when comparing optic disc images to detect primary open angle glaucoma (POAG) in the procedure I had earlier named Sequential Photometric Overlays Alerting Glaucoma (SPOAG)in 'Optometry Today'it was noticed that those patients taking supplemental ascorbate were showing reductions of retinal arterial cholesterol, typically seen at stressed points e.g. bifurcations.

CardioRetinometry appears to confirm the original work by Paterson (1939/40) and later, Willis & Fishman (1955)(2-8) – all naming low Vitamin C as being associated with death from Coronary Heart Disease (CHD). Pauling/Rath theory (Lipoprotein alpha is a surrogate for vitamin C) appears also to be well confirmed (9-14)

It was decided to research this and a company was formed (AntiCoronary Clinics (UK) Ltd) both to explore the possibilities of a study aided by local physicians and to determine if it could be financially viable as no grant could be anticipated from competing sources of funding especially as the method apppeared to have advantages over electron beam tomography (EBT) and angiography. The method appeared to be demonstrating more atheroma than EBT and it is confidently anticipated that CardioRetinometry will prove to be a better surrogate outcome predictor of reduced CHD risk than any current diagnostic procedure.

CardioRetinometry has already also demonstrated reductions of cholesterol in the retinal venules and it is believed by the author that cholesterol in the firt post capillary venules and veins, deposited against the current received wisdom, is the precursor of arterioscleosis and essential hypertension.

A research grant application is now in the pipeline.

Sydney J Bush PhD. DOpt. (IOSc London)

References and End Notes:

1.) Cheraskin E MD. DMD. - Vitamin C Who needs it? Pub Arlington 1993. Five textbooks on diabetic management fail to mention vitamin C.p98.

2.) J. C. Paterson (1939 - 1940) CAPILLARY RUPTURE WITH 2. INTIMAL HEMORRHAGE IN THE CAUSATION OF CEREBRAL VASCULAR LESIONS,

3.) J. C. Paterson (1940) Arch Path, Vol 29, 1940, Pg 345-354 : SOME FACTORS IN THE CAUSATION OF INTIMAL HEMORRHAGES AND IN THE PRECIPITATION OF CORONARY THROMBI,

4.) J. C. Paterson (1941) Canad. M. A. J., Feb 1941, Pg 114-120

5.) G.C. Willis, An Experimental Stdy of the Intimal Ground Substance in Atherosclerosis, Canad. M. A. J. Vol 69, 1953, p. 17-22

6.) G. C. Willis, A. W. Light, W.S. Cow, Serial Arteriography in Atherosclerosis Canad. M. A. J. Dec 1954, Vol 71, 1954, p. 562-568

7.) G. C. Willis, S. Fishman, Ascorbic Acid Content of Human Arterial Tissue. Canad. M. A. J., April 1, 1955, Vol 72, Pg 500-503

8.) G.C. Willis, The Reversibility of Atherosclerosis, Canad. M. A. J., July 15, 1957, Vol 77., Pg 106-109

9.) Pauling L. Rath M. Hypothesis: Lipoprotein(a) is a surrogate for ascorbate.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1990 Aug;87(16):6204-7Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine, Palo Alto, CA 94306. Cardiologist Matthias Rath. M.D.) Joint worker with Linus Pauling co- writer of Unified Theory of Human Cardiovascular Disease Leading the Way to the Abolition of This Disease as a Cause of Human Mortality. J. of Orthomolecular Medicine 7:5-15 (1992a)

10.)Rath M. Pauling L. Solution to the Puzzle of Human Cardiovascular Disease: Its Primary Cause is Ascorbate Deficiency Leading to the Deposition of Lipoprotein Alpha and Fibrinogen/Fibrin in the Vascular Wall. J. of Orthomolecular Medicine 6:125-34(1991a)

10.) Rath M. Pauling L. Apoprotein(a) is an Adhesive Protein. J. of Orthomolecular Medicine 6:139-43(1991b)

11.) Rath M. Pailing L. Plasma Induced Proteolysis and the Role of Lipoprotein alpha, Lysine and Synthetic Lysine Analogues J. of Orthomolecular Medicine 7:17-23(1992b)

12.) Rath M. Lipoprotein alpha Reduction by Ascorbate. J. of Orthomolecular Medicine 7:81-82(1992c)

13.) Rath M. Reducing the Risk of Cardiovascular Disease with Nutritional Supplements. J. of Orthomolecular Medicine 7:153-62(1992e)

14.) Rath M. Cationic-anionic and Anionic-cationic Oligopeptides in Apoprotein(a) and Other Proteins as Modulators of Protein Action and of Biological Communication. J. of Applied Nutrition 44:62-9(1992f)
Always and Never are 2 words you always remember never to use.
User avatar
generalsemanticist
 
Posts: 169
Age: 65
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Danger of Science Denial - "Alternative Medicine"-Sp

#142  Postby MedGen » May 27, 2010 6:29 pm

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
Shrunk wrote:
generalsemanticist wrote:
I guess its hard for you to believe that some people are actually interested in helping others without making tons of money from it.

Like Andrew Weil or Deepak Chopra, for instance?

W-e-i-l-l ...

I'd not mention these two gentlemen in the same breath. They are light years diffierent in philosophy, approach, and method. I'm not privy to the financial standing of either but I expect that Dr. Weill manages to earn a fairly decent living from his practice and his teaching.

Chopra is a preacher, Weill is a practitioner who has an MD, big difference there.

To mention these two gentleman together shows a deep lack of knowledge about them.


And to use personal experience and an argument from authority is a logical fallacy. One must stand on their own scientific merits, and by the sounds of things this man has been found wanting in that regard.
The nature of reality is not subject to the decrees of human institutions

User avatar
MedGen
 
Posts: 753
Age: 36
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial - "Alternative Medicine"-Sp

#143  Postby prschuster » May 27, 2010 10:52 pm

I'm new here and I just happened upon this thread. All I have to say is that it's unbelievable that anyone would claim that double blind studies or pathogenic microbes are not essential to the understanding of medical science.
prschuster
 
Name: Philip Schuster
Posts: 140

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial - "Alternative Medicine"-Sp

#144  Postby Shrunk » May 28, 2010 12:38 am

prschuster wrote:I'm new here and I just happened upon this thread. All I have to say is that it's unbelievable that anyone would claim that double blind studies or pathogenic microbes are not essential to the understanding of medical science.


Remember, they're not talking about medicine. It's homeopathy and other complementary "treatments". That its practitioners are allowed to call themselves "doctors" doesn't mean they know anything about medicine. Someone who did a PhD thesis on, say, the cultural significance of Lady Gaga would also be able to call himself "doctor", and would be no less qualified to practice medicine than a homeopath. Likely more qualified, in fact, if this thread is anything to go by.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 55
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial - "Alternative Medicine"-Sp

#145  Postby Shrunk » May 28, 2010 1:24 am

generalsemanticist wrote:
Moridin wrote:
What other kinds of evidence? What other kinds of data? You merely assert it, but you do not provide any rational argument for it.

For example, from here; http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/329/7457/79#87089
I hope this is "rational" enough for you.

As a contact lens pratitioner I was in the unique position in 1998 of using the first of the electronic fundus cameras in a practice routinely dispensing sodium ascorbate for (a) reduction of infection risk - mainly Post- Adnoviral Keratitis (PVK) (b) allergy seen as Giant Papillary Conjunctivitis (GPC) and (c) diabetic complications, all in a patient base returning unusually except in contact lens practise, for 6 monthly eye examinations. Diabetic need for extra vitamin C is little dealt with in textbooks of management of diabetics (Cheraskin E - Vitamin C Who needs it? Pub 1993.) (1)....(SNIP)



That's an interesting post. However, I don't see why you think it supports your position. As far as I can tell thru the technical terms, he's made an observation that a drug seems to be effective for a certain condition, and also that observations of the retinal vasculature can give diagnostic information about a patient's overall cardiovascular status, and that he plans to investigate these hypotheses further, presumably thru controlled clinical trials. That's exactly the kind of evidence we're talking about, and I don't see what's "alternative" about it.
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 55
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial - "Alternative Medicine"-Sp

#146  Postby Darwinsbulldog » May 28, 2010 2:12 am

@ generalsemanticist:-

Let's see if we can clear up some of your misunderstandings about cancer. To be sure, a lack of proper nutrition would oblige a organism's immune system to fight with one hand tied behind it's back. So, intuitively, we can recognize the general efficacy of good nutrition [including Vitamin C sources] in fighting any disease.

However, fighting cancer is rather different than -say- fighting off a case of the flu. As Medgen said, cancer is undisciplined cell growth. So one way to fight cancer is to produce local conditions that inhibit cell growth. This is the rationale behind radiotherapy: a focused attack on the multiplying cells [the tumour]. This is not without side-effects, as it can also kill off growth/replacement in normal tissues that need to replace themselves, such as skin, gut and so on. Oncologists have got pretty good at calibrating the doses of radiotherapy and chemo-therapy to minimize this "friendly-fire".

It is also clear that natural selection has made the immune system pretty good at detecting and defeating potential cancers on it's own, although the system is far from perfect. Thus there are childhood cancers, but not all that many in terms of the whole population because any organism that did not keep childhood cancers to a minimum would go extinct.

Driven by natural selection, there is a continual "Red Queen" or "Arms Race" between mutations that deliver cancer risk factors, and the genetics and epigenetics of the host system to defeat those initiators. [So-called] Oncogenes [or rather their harmful alleles] are rogue genes that do not play nice with the rest of the gene team. Of particular interest is the role of the TP53 gene, which I have posted earlier on this forum. Not every interaction of the p53 protein [coded by TP 53 gene, of course] is known, but it appears to act as both a detector of cancer "signals" and seems to switch on other genes that tend to knock the rogue genes out. Interestingly, the most incurable cancers seem to have worked out a way [via natural selection in the somatic cells] to inactivate the expression of TP 53.

Whatever the ultimate answers come to be, your thesis that Vitamin C is the cure-all by over-extrapolating from the [alleged] success of Vit C to treat certain conditions that are unrelated to cancer, is extremely weak [at best].

The only cure for this condition is to keep on reading, and to be more catholic about it, rather than just reading stuff which seems to confirm your point of view. In this thread, and in others, you have shown a consistent refusal to acknowledge papers and evidence and reasons presented which have demonstrated quite conclusively, of your willful ignorance about medicine in particular, and science in general.
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 7440
Age: 65

Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial - "Alternative Medicine"-Sp

#147  Postby generalsemanticist » May 28, 2010 11:30 am

Darwinsbulldog wrote: In this thread, and in others, you have shown a consistent refusal to acknowledge papers and evidence and reasons presented which have demonstrated quite conclusively, of your willful ignorance about medicine in particular, and science in general.

And so have you.
Always and Never are 2 words you always remember never to use.
User avatar
generalsemanticist
 
Posts: 169
Age: 65
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google



Re: The Danger of Science Denial - "Alternative Medicine"-Sp

#149  Postby Shrunk » May 28, 2010 12:31 pm

generalsemanticist wrote:
Darwinsbulldog wrote: In this thread, and in others, you have shown a consistent refusal to acknowledge papers and evidence and reasons presented which have demonstrated quite conclusively, of your willful ignorance about medicine in particular, and science in general.

And so have you.


:lol:

A perfect summation of the type of "evidence" that supports complementary "medicine."
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 55
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial - "Alternative Medicine"-Sp

#150  Postby MedGen » May 28, 2010 12:42 pm

Oh dear indeed. Scientific rigour does not include the use of anecdotes as supporting evidence for personal pet theories. If something cannot stand on the merits of its own evidence, well then, I think that largely speaks for itself.
The nature of reality is not subject to the decrees of human institutions

User avatar
MedGen
 
Posts: 753
Age: 36
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial - "Alternative Medicine"-Sp

#151  Postby natselrox » May 28, 2010 12:52 pm

For a large part of my life, I used to think that alternative medicine filled the niche created by illiteracy and unavailability of mainstream treatment for some diseases. Now I see that, hatred towards evidence-based medicine is also a contributing factor.
When in perplexity, read on.

"A system that values obedience over curiosity isn’t education and it definitely isn’t science"
User avatar
natselrox
 
Posts: 10037
Age: 108
Male

India (in)
Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial - "Alternative Medicine"-Sp

#152  Postby GenesForLife » May 28, 2010 1:34 pm

Baseless disestablishmentarianism has become something of a fad, I must admit
GenesForLife
 
Posts: 2920
Age: 31
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial - "Alternative Medicine"-Sp

#153  Postby Darwinsbulldog » May 28, 2010 3:38 pm

generalsemanticist wrote:
Darwinsbulldog wrote: In this thread, and in others, you have shown a consistent refusal to acknowledge papers and evidence and reasons presented which have demonstrated quite conclusively, of your willful ignorance about medicine in particular, and science in general.

And so have you.


Oh, please! :lol: :lol:

Are we going to be privileged with more of your Nobel-prize winning science :ask: :roll: :lol: :lol:

I can't wait! Please tell us, oh wise one! :) :dopey:
Jayjay4547 wrote:
"When an animal carries a “branch” around as a defensive weapon, that branch is under natural selection".
Darwinsbulldog
 
Posts: 7440
Age: 65

Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial - "Alternative Medicine"-Sp

#154  Postby generalsemanticist » May 28, 2010 4:26 pm

natselrox wrote:For a large part of my life, I used to think that alternative medicine filled the niche created by illiteracy and unavailability of mainstream treatment for some diseases. Now I see that, hatred towards evidence-based medicine is also a contributing factor.

I do not hate conventional medicine, although I have very little use for it. My point is that there is a great deal of alternative treatments that are scoffed at by conventional medicine. IMO, the medical establishment is in no position to belittle alternative medicine because it needs a drastic overhaul itself. Doctors have actually successfully treated infectious diseases with IV ascorbate over 50 years ago and yet virtually no doctors use that treatment now. Why does the profession ignore these important results? You do not need a double blind study to see if you can stop an infectious disease like hepatitis in 4 days. :crazy: That is just unadulterated bullshit.
Always and Never are 2 words you always remember never to use.
User avatar
generalsemanticist
 
Posts: 169
Age: 65
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial - "Alternative Medicine"-Sp

#155  Postby MedGen » May 28, 2010 4:42 pm

An inability to understand the premise of evidence-based medicine, and attempt to replace it with anecdote and woo is unadulterated bullshit.
The nature of reality is not subject to the decrees of human institutions

User avatar
MedGen
 
Posts: 753
Age: 36
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: The Danger of Science Denial - "Alternative Medicine"-Sp

#156  Postby Shrunk » May 28, 2010 4:44 pm

generalsemanticist wrote:
natselrox wrote:For a large part of my life, I used to think that alternative medicine filled the niche created by illiteracy and unavailability of mainstream treatment for some diseases. Now I see that, hatred towards evidence-based medicine is also a contributing factor.

I do not hate conventional medicine, although I have very little use for it. My point is that there is a great deal of alternative treatments that are scoffed at by conventional medicine. IMO, the medical establishment is in no position to belittle alternative medicine because it needs a drastic overhaul itself. Doctors have actually successfully treated infectious diseases with IV ascorbate over 50 years ago and yet virtually no doctors use that treatment now. Why does the profession ignore these important results? You do not need a double blind study to see if you can stop an infectious disease like hepatitis in 4 days. :crazy: That is just unadulterated bullshit.


So why not do the double blind trial, since that remains the accepted gold standard for evidence based medicine?
"A community is infinitely more brutalised by the habitual employment of punishment than it is by the occasional occurrence of crime." -Oscar Wilde
User avatar
Shrunk
 
Posts: 26170
Age: 55
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial - "Alternative Medicine"-Sp

#157  Postby generalsemanticist » May 28, 2010 6:13 pm

Shrunk wrote:
generalsemanticist wrote:
natselrox wrote:For a large part of my life, I used to think that alternative medicine filled the niche created by illiteracy and unavailability of mainstream treatment for some diseases. Now I see that, hatred towards evidence-based medicine is also a contributing factor.

I do not hate conventional medicine, although I have very little use for it. My point is that there is a great deal of alternative treatments that are scoffed at by conventional medicine. IMO, the medical establishment is in no position to belittle alternative medicine because it needs a drastic overhaul itself. Doctors have actually successfully treated infectious diseases with IV ascorbate over 50 years ago and yet virtually no doctors use that treatment now. Why does the profession ignore these important results? You do not need a double blind study to see if you can stop an infectious disease like hepatitis in 4 days. :crazy: That is just unadulterated bullshit.


So why not do the double blind trial, since that remains the accepted gold standard for evidence based medicine?

I don't know why. Whose responsibility is it to investigate these claims? Maybe you should ask THEM why they don't fund a study. If I am a doctor and I discover something that works well in my profession and I publish results but they are ignored why would I undertake to fund an expensive double blind study? I would more than likely just continue to do what I'm doing and say "Oh well, I tried". It is the people in power who have the responsibility to check these things out, especially government run healthcare systems who pay the bills for expensive treatments when less expensive and possibly even better ones exist. Possibly the answer is they are in bed with industry.
Always and Never are 2 words you always remember never to use.
User avatar
generalsemanticist
 
Posts: 169
Age: 65
Male

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial

#158  Postby Dr. Nancy Malik » May 28, 2010 7:07 pm

Darkchilde wrote:
If someone has cancer, homeopathy can do shit about that. if I get appendicitis, I will die if I don't take it out by surgery. If I have tooth ache, I will go to the dentist. If I am depressed or similar, I will seek out professional help from a licensed psychologist.

What can homeopathy do if I have a bad tooth? NOTHING! It will not cure my symptoms or the cause of it. I will need a dentist.

What can homeopathy do for my depression? NOTHING! I will need a licensed psychologist, who will help me get to the whys and hows of my depression, and help me deal with it.

What can homeopathy do for my appendicitis? NOTHING! If I don't get surgery, it will become peritonitis and I will die from it. I will need a surgeon to remove my appendix.

Tell me one real disease that homeopathy can cure. Can it cure AIDS? Cancer? Ebola? The common cold? Homeopathy is crap, it does not cure people, it just gives them a placebo, a false hope. Placebos can be done by real medicine as well, and real medicine can find the actual cause and cure the disease.


Let me list only among those you have listed

Homeopathy treatment for cancer
http://www.homeopatia.edu.pl/index.asp? ... =13&ide=41
http://www.freewebs.com/homeopathy249/c ... iespti.htm

homeopathy treatment for depression
http://www.homeorizon.com/homeopathic-a ... depression

homeopathy treatment of AIDS
http://drptandon.blogspot.com/2008/06/c ... athic.html

homeopathy treatment of cold
http://www.simillimum.com/education/fir ... coryza.php
Evidence-based scientific homeopathy is a modern nano-medicine like Conventional Allopathic Medicine (CAM)
User avatar
Dr. Nancy Malik
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Dr. Nancy Malik
Posts: 289
Age: 42
Female

Country: India
India (in)
Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial

#159  Postby Dr. Nancy Malik » May 28, 2010 7:10 pm

GenesForLife wrote:Stop waffling and post evidence, please. Heard of a localized infectiona and a systemic infection? For instance, take HPV infections, which manifest as warts, locally, it is the region that gets infected which is, um, infected and not the whole person getting sick, so there goes another blind assertion.


According to homeopathy medicine, it is the whole person who is affected by the disease and it is the whole person who responds to the medicine.
Evidence-based scientific homeopathy is a modern nano-medicine like Conventional Allopathic Medicine (CAM)
User avatar
Dr. Nancy Malik
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Dr. Nancy Malik
Posts: 289
Age: 42
Female

Country: India
India (in)
Print view this post

Re: The Danger of Science Denial

#160  Postby MedGen » May 28, 2010 7:13 pm

Dr. Nancy Malik wrote:
Darkchilde wrote:
If someone has cancer, homeopathy can do shit about that. if I get appendicitis, I will die if I don't take it out by surgery. If I have tooth ache, I will go to the dentist. If I am depressed or similar, I will seek out professional help from a licensed psychologist.

What can homeopathy do if I have a bad tooth? NOTHING! It will not cure my symptoms or the cause of it. I will need a dentist.

What can homeopathy do for my depression? NOTHING! I will need a licensed psychologist, who will help me get to the whys and hows of my depression, and help me deal with it.

What can homeopathy do for my appendicitis? NOTHING! If I don't get surgery, it will become peritonitis and I will die from it. I will need a surgeon to remove my appendix.

Tell me one real disease that homeopathy can cure. Can it cure AIDS? Cancer? Ebola? The common cold? Homeopathy is crap, it does not cure people, it just gives them a placebo, a false hope. Placebos can be done by real medicine as well, and real medicine can find the actual cause and cure the disease.


Let me list only among those you have listed

Homeopathy treatment for cancer
http://www.homeopatia.edu.pl/index.asp? ... =13&ide=41
http://www.freewebs.com/homeopathy249/c ... iespti.htm

homeopathy treatment for depression
http://www.homeorizon.com/homeopathic-a ... depression

homeopathy treatment of AIDS
http://drptandon.blogspot.com/2008/06/c ... athic.html

homeopathy treatment of cold
http://www.simillimum.com/education/fir ... coryza.php


How is it that a solution that contains no active ingredient whatsoever can be proposed as a treatment of a condition such as cancer? By what mechanism can water (and that is all it is) cure cancer? Seriously? You have got to be fucking kidding me. As has already been pointed out by a number of people in this thread, cancer is a group of highly complex diseases with complex aetiology, and you truly expect to be able to treat it with fucking water?

Un-be-fucking-lievable. :nono:
The nature of reality is not subject to the decrees of human institutions

User avatar
MedGen
 
Posts: 753
Age: 36
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Pseudoscience

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest