5 ms·

The burden of proof is not on me here. I am certainly in favor of more medical studies about alternative approaches to cancer treatment. More science is a wonde

by rms 18y ago

The burden of proof is not on me here. I am certainly in favor of more medical studies about alternative approaches to cancer treatment. More science is a wonderful thing.

rarrrrrr 18y ago
Absolutely. The trouble is mainly research funding, and then publishing and marketing the research that's already happened (there's more scientific research on alternative treatments than is commonly known.) Pharmaceutical companies aren't likely to invest millions studying turmeric, spirulina, chlorella, sunlight, etc. There are credible studies if you intentionally go looking for them, though.
trapper 18y ago
You made a claim that changing your lifestyle cannot possibly cure cancer. Surely the burden of proof is on the claimant? How do you reconcile the growing body of evidence to the contrar?
- rms 18y ago
  My intended claim, which I admit could benefit from more precise wording, is that lifestyle changes are not more effective than conventional treatment.
  - trapper 18y ago
    Shouldn't you have to back up a bold claim like that with proof though? Conventional treatment is often marginally better than placebo.
    - deleted 18y ago
      [deleted]
    - rms 18y ago
      No, I don't have to back up it up. That's the whole point.
      - deleted 18y ago
        [deleted]
      - trapper 18y ago
        Explain?
        rms 18y ago
        Decades of the scientific method have established the status quo. You, as the outsider of convention, have the burden of proof. You intuitively know this -- if there was such compelling proof, you would be able to convince a lot of people of the potential, rather than saying "no, I don't have to prove it, you need to prove science." Science is already proven. I'm not denying the potential of alternative treatments, but for now, I expect you and I both would take the chemotherapy over making ourselves guinea pigs.
        trapper 18y ago
        Saying that something is better than something else would surely merit a single clinical trial, showing large effect low p outcomes in favor of chemo vs lifestlye? Can you point to a single study since it is already proven? :) Here are a few that may change your mind: http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/137/1/233S http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/137/1/233S http://www.annieappleseedproject.org/lifchancline.html http://www.annieappleseedproject.org/lifchancline.html http://bastyrcenter.org/content/view/913/ http://bastyrcenter.org/content/view/913/ Surely you must admit that your claim that lifestyle change cannot reduce mortality rate is premature. It's only recently being studied, and with the great early results we will see many more such papers investigating the effects. My money would be on a combination: Lifestyle change + aggressive supplementation + chemo.
        rms 18y ago

by rms 18y ago

The burden of proof is not on me here. I am certainly in favor of more medical studies about alternative approaches to cancer treatment. More science is a wonderful thing.

rarrrrrr 18y ago

Absolutely. The trouble is mainly research funding, and then publishing and marketing the research that's already happened (there's more scientific research on alternative treatments than is commonly known.) Pharmaceutical companies aren't likely to invest millions studying turmeric, spirulina, chlorella, sunlight, etc. There are credible studies if you intentionally go looking for them, though.

trapper 18y ago

You made a claim that changing your lifestyle cannot possibly cure cancer. Surely the burden of proof is on the claimant? How do you reconcile the growing body of evidence to the contrar?

rms 18y ago
My intended claim, which I admit could benefit from more precise wording, is that lifestyle changes are not more effective than conventional treatment.
- trapper 18y ago
  Shouldn't you have to back up a bold claim like that with proof though? Conventional treatment is often marginally better than placebo.
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
  - rms 18y ago
    No, I don't have to back up it up. That's the whole point.
    - deleted 18y ago
      [deleted]
    - trapper 18y ago
      Explain?
      - rms 18y ago
        Decades of the scientific method have established the status quo. You, as the outsider of convention, have the burden of proof. You intuitively know this -- if there was such compelling proof, you would be able to convince a lot of people of the potential, rather than saying "no, I don't have to prove it, you need to prove science." Science is already proven. I'm not denying the potential of alternative treatments, but for now, I expect you and I both would take the chemotherapy over making ourselves guinea pigs.
        trapper 18y ago
        Saying that something is better than something else would surely merit a single clinical trial, showing large effect low p outcomes in favor of chemo vs lifestlye? Can you point to a single study since it is already proven? :) Here are a few that may change your mind: http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/137/1/233S http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/full/137/1/233S http://www.annieappleseedproject.org/lifchancline.html http://www.annieappleseedproject.org/lifchancline.html http://bastyrcenter.org/content/view/913/ http://bastyrcenter.org/content/view/913/ Surely you must admit that your claim that lifestyle change cannot reduce mortality rate is premature. It's only recently being studied, and with the great early results we will see many more such papers investigating the effects. My money would be on a combination: Lifestyle change + aggressive supplementation + chemo.
        rms 18y ago