• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Quacks & Pseudoscience

JPBB said:
I guess you think I am not listening to you and I think you are not listening to me. I guess first we should seek to understand each other.

As i understand it, she did not take chemo, then she did, then she died.

1. My understanding is that because you have a link to a study by a pharma company that says she has a better chance of survival if she takes their expensive product she should do it. That Pharma's view over rides her own wishes. And that she should be forced to have chemo for her own good.

2. I say, she has choice. She does not have do what a pharma company tells her to do. (except in California where you have to buy vaccines)

At the end of the day whatever route she takes, she dies.
Click to expand...

You understand that cancer is a disease where the sooner you start effective treatment, the better chance you have of survival right? Had she started chemo earlier she would have stood a better chance of survival than doing what she did. She may still have died, but she stood a better chance. This is literally supported by thousands and thousands of clinical studies. These studies have been run by big pharma, by littler pharma, by universities, by charities.

To answer your points;

1 .Of course she has a choice. Everyone does.

My point is that with a choice so important as this one, it should be an informed one. Actual evidence and fact informs you, hearsay and conjecture does not. At some point a doctor has advised her to go with Chemo and someone or something (internet or other sources) else has advised her to go with Chinese medicine. She was convinced that she stood as good a chance of survival with Chinese medicine without any of the nasty side effects of chemo and therefore chose Chinese medicine. This is not supported at all by scientific literature. Therefore the person/people who convinced her are unethical. They are either deceitful and stand to make money (she still has to pay for the Chinese medicine), completely ignorant, or completely brain washed by generation upon generation of flimflam. Two of these three things can be fixed by proper education.

2. She doesn't have to do anything anyone tells her to do. She always has a choice as does everyone. My point is her choice was informed by unethical people who spread non supported information for a variety of different reasons (listed above). This influenced her to make the wrong choice.

There is very little difference between the people who convinced her to treat herself with Chinese medicine and you in the vaccine debate.

Do you understand my point now?
 
Last edited:
OK. I think you are saying.

1. Chinese medicine is invalid and dangerous

2. People who do not believe this are unethical

3. It is tantamount to murder if you do not tell her that chemo is her only choice.
 
JPBB said:
OK. I think you are saying.

1. Chinese medicine is invalid and dangerous

2. People who do not believe this are unethical

3. It is tantamount to murder if you do not tell her that chemo is her only choice.
Click to expand...

No.

1. Chinese medicine has not been proven as efficacious for treatment of cancer.

2. People who claim it is efficacious for treatment of cancer in order to convince people suffering from actual cancer to choose it over other proven methods are unethical

3. It is tantamount to murder if you take a treatment not proven to be efficacious for cancer and advise someone it is a better option than another treatment that is proven to be efficacious. That person then selects your treatment based on your advice and dies because the treatment doesn't work. It's even worse if you are aware of all the evidence available at the time of advising the treatment.
 
So you say the only treatment option that would have saved her life was chemo?

But it might not?

So she was entitled to take the view that she was fudged anyway so instead of taking chemo with its disgusting side effects she managed her condition with methods which had fewer effects.

I know of several people who took the same view. Oddly everyone of them was supported by people in the medical profession. Are they murderers too?
 
JPBB said:
So you say the only treatment option that would have saved her life was chemo?

But it might not?

So she was entitled to take the view that she was fudgeed anyway so instead of taking chemo with its disgusting side effects she managed her condition with methods which had fewer effects.

I know of several people who took the same view. Oddly everyone of them was supported by people in the medical profession. Are they murderers too?
Click to expand...

Which part of having the correct information to make an informed decision don't you understand?
 
Come on all your Pharma apologists. What do you say about these trolls at the BMJ suggesting that "rather than discount a widely observed phenomenon [adverse effects], we should ask why there is such a mismatch with reporting in the trials.” My brackets.

And outrageously criticising drug trials because they were funded by drugs companies who make the drugs and that individual patient data is not made available.
 
JPBB said:
Come on all your Pharma apologists. What do you say about these trolls at the BMJ suggesting that "rather than discount a widely observed phenomenon [adverse effects], we should ask why there is such a mismatch with reporting in the trials.” My brackets.

And outrageously criticising drug trials because they were funded by drugs companies who make the drugs and that individual patient data is not made available.
Click to expand...

If you provide a link, maybe we'll be able to comment.
 
milo said:
If you provide a link, maybe we'll be able to comment.
Click to expand...

Oh come on. Play, its Friday.

It is being widely reported.

You could say that it has nothing to do with the science and the BMJ are being emotional about their fight with the Lancet

You could say it doesn't count because they don't understand science

You could say they are liars

You just deny it and say it is not happening (your current strategy)

You could say they are saying the complete opposite of what they are saying

You could just change the subject

You could say it is just a coincidence

You could say it is a statistical anomaly.

You could send lots of self serving links

You could blame Wakefield

You could call them murders of babies

You could say it is meteorites or unicorns

You could say yes of course it is happening but so what

You could say the risks outweigh the benefits

You could call them irresponsible

You could just say it does not count.

You could question the BMJ credibility

You could repeatedly demand more sauce (pun intended)

There is so much you could do to protect your Pharma gods from the tinfoil hat phalanx at the BMJ.
 
Last edited:
JPBB said:
So you say the only treatment option that would have saved her life was chemo?

But it might not?

So she was entitled to take the view that she was fudgeed anyway so instead of taking chemo with its disgusting side effects she managed her condition with methods which had fewer effects.

I know of several people who took the same view. Oddly everyone of them was supported by people in the medical profession. Are they murderers too?
Click to expand...

No (again).

I'm saying that out of the two treatment options that we have discussed (Chemo and Chinese medicine) only one has been shown to be efficacious for cancer. Therefore of these two choices it would have been the better option if her wish was to survive cancer (I can only assume that was her wish).

She is entitled to take whatever view she wants. How she was informed previous to taking this opinion is what we are concerned with here.
 
Millsy_Yiddo said:
How she was informed previous to taking this opinion is what we are concerned with here.
Click to expand...

I have no idea. The first I knew of it is when you showed me the link.

i think it is rather unfair you are charging me with murder of over her death.
 
scaramanga said:
That's handy - @JPBB has shown us that the peer review system is working well, that scientists are happy to admit when they believe other scientists are wrong, and that there are discussions between various groups of scientists (in the public domain) to ensure everyone gets to the right answers.
Click to expand...

So you say that if there is significant anecdotal evidence that the adverse effects are more significant than those recorded in the trials which were paid for by the drug companies who manufacturer these drugs then there should be Independent third party scrutiny including sharing individual patient level data?
 
JPBB said:
So you say that if there is significant anecdotal evidence that the adverse effects are more significant than those recorded in the trials which were paid for by the drug companies who manufacturer these drugs then there should be Independent third party scrutiny including sharing individual patient level data?
Click to expand...
If there are significant differences (as measured by a professional) then there's good reason to run more trials. Actual data from well-run clinical trials always trumps anecdotal evidence though.

This actually happened in the case of vaccines again and again. The trials have repeatedly shown no link between vaccines and autism.
 
scaramanga said:
If there are significant differences (as measured by a professional) then there's good reason to run more trials. Actual data from well-run clinical trials always trumps anecdotal evidence though.

This actually happened in the case of vaccines again and again. The trials have repeatedly shown no link between vaccines and autism.
Click to expand...

Like this one, which was funded by a bunch of anti vaccine folks.

Incidentally the first few paragraphs of this article describe @JPBB to a tee.

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.or...ines-cause-autism-it-backfires-spectacularly/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back