Blair P. Houghton said:tert in seattle said:In general alternative
medicine has not been taken seriously enough to go up against
standard surgery/chemo/radiation in double blind phase 3 clinical
trials.
That's because voodoo doesn't have a thing to do with biochemistry.
Quoted message said:Definitely. I do think
alternative therapies should be studied more aggressively and I
definitely think there should be a lot more serious consideration
given to the affect a person's mind has on the body, and to
integrating mind into the model of medicine far more than it is in
Western medicine today.
Cripes. New-age woo-woo cancer cures. Are you going to fix a flat
tire with your mind, too? Your mind won't cure your cancer. The best
it can do is reduce your stress level and in the small chance that
your condition is on the verge, where the stress-related chemicals
would
have pushed you over the crisis and into mortality, that could make
the difference.
Quoted message said:I truly wish there were natural, noninvasive ways to treat cancer --
I know what chemo, radiation, and surgery do to people. But I'm
also a rational thinker and I understand science and statistics (I
also understand cultural bias and take that into account) and in the
balance I have to
say that there's a reason why standard therapy for cancer is what it
is, and while there are holes in that reason, it's a better reason
than, for example, why 90% of computer desktops run Windows.
It's clear you're not a rational thinker, you're more credulous than
even the salmon thing hinted at.
Cancer is an induced error in the encoding of genetic mechanisms.
Throwing random junk at it hoping something will work magically is
19th-century medicine. The therapies that work do their work by
destroying the cells that have the erroneous code without harming the
rest of the body as badly as the cancer does.
What's needed is fewer eye-of-newt trials eating up research money and
more chemical engineering directed toward defining a proper means of
stopping the growth of and repairing broken cells. By now we should
be designing these drugs, not hoping we'll find them lying around in
the forest.
Think about it this way: you have a puzzle, and you're missing one
piece to complete it. You can buy a random box of puzzle pieces on
eBay and hope that one is the right piece. Or you can find the right
piece of cardboard and cut it to fit. Which one is more certain?
Which one is not certain at all?
Until we start doing deterministic engineering on cancer, which may
require having a specific tool for each kind of cancer, or may result
in a means of resetting all our cells at once (now that'd be a hell of
a thing), we're going to have cancer as a major problem.
--Blair
Finally you are making a little sense.
are you involved?
If you are not running the program mentioned in my sig line please consider
doing so. It mat be a small thing but it has the potential to make a
difference.
Ken.
--
Volunteer your idle computer time for cancer research
http//www.grid.org/download/gold/download.htm
Return address courtesy of Spammotel http://www.spammotel.com/