Why are we here?

If this is the case then why did the court award him 10 million in damages
damages?
Anth

"Peter Bowditch" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Anth said:

Quoted message said:

If these "alternative" treatments were as effective against cancer as
claimed by their proponents, it would be trivially easy to prove it in
even a relatively small randomized clinical trial

I disagree http://www.nexusmagazine.com/irt1.html
Where are these randomised trials?
It seems to me that most of the treatments are rail roaded in the

politics

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and arrogance of the 'elite'

Bad example, Anth, for two reasons.

Reason one is the messenger. I know Nexus well and I even did a check
for accuracy in the printed version once. There was total accuracy in
the page numbering and the year of publication. The rest of the
magazine consisted totally of fabrication and invention. The editor
would have it no other way.

Reason two is the doctor involved. When you say that there is no money
available for research, please be aware that Chachoua has $11 million
dollars that a court stole from Cedars Sinai Hospital and gave to him.
As this amount of money can buy a lot of publicity and research, his
"cure" should be well known and widely used by now.

Another thing. Chachoua says "Australian Medical Board representatives
attempted to chastise me for what they believed were obvious lies and
deception.". There is no such thing as the "Australian Medical Board".
Chachoua knows that, but he also knows that the sort of people who
might believe his lies will not know it and will not bother to check.

--
Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight
and The New Improved Quintessence of the Loon with added Vitamins and

C-Q10 http://www.ratbags.com/loon

Quoted message said:

To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

"Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
[...]

Quoted message said:

Conspiracies, dishonesty and the almighty love of money are the American

way.

Quoted message said:

Uh, Jan, please remember that you're talking about 90% of God Believers.

And...uh...if you don't love your money anymore...you could send it to me...
I'll be happy to take it off your hands.
You still have my address, right?

Orac <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

problematic. I once got into an argument with a self-proclaimed
"anti-fascist," asking him why he considered it racism when whites
proclaimed "white power" and "white pride" and the superiority of the
white race but considered blacks proclaiming "black power" and "black
pride" and the superiority of the black race to be acceptable. His
answer was that the power differential make it OK. Because whites had
more power than blacks, black racism was not racism at all, but an
acceptable reaction to being marginalized. I assume that means that to
him, if blacks were the powerful group, then it would be OK for whites
to proclaim "white power."

What a pity, since there's a much better explanation of the non-equivalence
of the two phrases: "power" has several meanings and the meanings invoked
in the two phrases are quite different, so in equating the two one commits
the fallacy of equivocation. In "black power," at least as the phrase was
originally used back in the 60s, "power" meant "the ability to control
one's life and circumstances," what we'd commonly call "empowerment." In
"white power," though, "power" means "control over others and everything
that's important," in other words *domination*.

So essentially "black power" translates to "blacks should be a political
force who can make a difference" whereas "white power" translates to
"whites should make the rules for everyone else and run the world for their
own benefit." A complication is that some people, especially of a
postmodernist bent, would argue that there's no difference between the two
kinds of power, but I think that says more about their personality
structure than anything else. Some people can't see the world in terms of
anything but dominance and submission and zero-sum games. And since
Foucault was one of them (somebody once wrote that most of his philosophy
followed from his desire to get beaten up during sex), a lot of "critical
theory" takes the position that all power must come at the expense of
someone else.

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

I was reading about the asprin trial vs heart attacks and the effect
was 0.8% and they said that was significant!
Anth

That's a perfect illustration of why you can't make hard-and-fast rules
about what effect size to consider clinically significant (which is
something completely different from what's statistically significant). A
0.8% reduction in mortality doesn't sound like much, but when you're
talking about a disease that kills about 950,000 people a year in the US
alone, it translates to saving at least 7600 lives per year, well over
twice the number of Americans who have been killed by terrorists in all of
history.

If, OTOH, that 0.8% was the reduction in mortality for SARS, then it would
hardly be clinically important; we'd be talking about at most 7 lives saved
last year. Nor would it be considered significant if it represented a
reduction in severity of the symptoms of a very common but self-limiting
condition like the common cold.

"Jan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Subject: Re: Why are we here?
From: Eric Bohlman [email hidden]
Date: 12/6/2003 10:01 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

[email hidden] (Jan) wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

>We've gone from believing

IN GOD, to man made rules where *anything* goes.

Therfore doing away with the bible and Christian principles.

Since 1947, when Gallup started doing polls that asked people whether

they

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

believed in God, the percentage of Americans who so believe has never
fluctuated more than a few percentage points from 95%.

Maybe.

In 1947, there were no kids carrying guns to school, playing gross video

games

Quoted message said:

of violence and playing heavy metal music, telling how to commit suicide,
watching HBO, and no gay marriages.

We've come a long way baby, and it is the wrong direction.

Clue for the debunkers to start spouting off about intolerance and
self-righteousness,

Which you demonstrate so well.

Quoted message said:

which is an accepted lie.

Which you demonstrratre so well.

You are so intolerant of other religions and POV's it is testimony to the
evils of your beliefs.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

I C
Well with something like Gonzalez the effect from his pilot study was put
down to selection bias.
The NCCAM are currently doing a study of Gonzalez/Keley's
It's a waste of time if you ask me.

I was reading about the asprin trial vs heart attacks and the effect was
0.8% and they said that was significant!

I'm not familiar with that particular study. It would take a huge number
of patients (many thousands, at least) to detect a 0.8% treatment effect.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

Orac <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

I was reading about the asprin trial vs heart attacks and the effect
was 0.8% and they said that was significant!

I'm not familiar with that particular study. It would take a huge
number of patients (many thousands, at least) to detect a 0.8%
treatment effect.

IIRC, it was one of those big long-term prospective studies involving
physicians, and did in fact include thousands of subjects. Again IIRC, it
was actually studying aspirin as prophylaxis.