Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 1047
Location: California
DarkKobold wrote:
It looks like people are finally (in the last 3 years) actually testing his 'drug' and finding that it works well on some cancers, most of which looks like breast cancer (ironically, the most curable of all cancers).
I'm directing this quote at Truncated.
DarkKobold wrote:
Also, sonicpacker is just out of high school, so he'd have no concept of doctoral level statistics.
Lol, I just finished my junior year. I'm 17. However, I have taken some college courses (none related to this subject) and a test (CHSPE) to get me out of high school early (though I'm still taking some HS courses due to social reasons).
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Well if you plan on going into any field of medicine (or even any profession which relies on published data to guide decision making) I hope some of the stuff that's been talked about will help give you a better idea of why us in the medical and research professions are necessarily doubtful about citing evidence without sources or original research/methods.
FYI, I earned a B.S. in Exercise and Sport Science, and a Doctorate in Physical Therapy (7 years of college, essentially), while D.K. is a Ph. D. candidate with a heavy emphasis on medical research. So, we're not just full of shit, I promise.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
sonicpacker wrote:
DarkKobold wrote:
It looks like people are finally (in the last 3 years) actually testing his 'drug' and finding that it works well on some cancers, most of which looks like breast cancer (ironically, the most curable of all cancers).
I'm directing this quote at Truncated.
Sigh, and now I'm just convinced that you're being stubborn. Truncated was right in everything that he said. Shoddy research is no replacement for high quality studies, even if the original hypothesis is shown to be correct.
Edit: Just for posterity, here's the steps of the scientific method:
Define a question
Gather information and resources (observe)
Form an explanatory hypothesis
Perform an experiment and collect data, testing the hypothesis
Analyze the data
Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
Publish results
Retest (frequently done by other scientists)
See the last two points? They're important, because they allow other like minded people to critique and verify your results.
Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 1047
Location: California
mmbossman wrote:
sonicpacker wrote:
DarkKobold wrote:
It looks like people are finally (in the last 3 years) actually testing his 'drug' and finding that it works well on some cancers, most of which looks like breast cancer (ironically, the most curable of all cancers).
I'm directing this quote at Truncated.
Sigh, and now I'm just convinced that you're being stubborn. Truncated was right in everything that he said. Shoddy research is no replacement for high quality studies, even if the original hypothesis is shown to be correct.
I stated that there was other evidence besides what was in the documentary. I read elsewhere multiple articles on the subject. I recall 2 of them saying that Japan specifically had been working with antineoplastons and been getting some good results (in recent history). I guess that statement of "other evidence" got ignored somewhere along the line.
Edit: Yes, I know all about the scientific method. Thank you.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
So in essence this whole argument has been about one guy doing poor research and blaming the FDA for not accepting the data from his flawed experiments, but now there is some research being done which better supports his hypothesis. That's good news, especially for people with cancer, if it turns out to actually be a viable treatment.
Joined: 9/21/2009
Posts: 1047
Location: California
I'd like to clarify that when I said:
sonicpacker wrote:
DarkKobold wrote:
It looks like people are finally (in the last 3 years) actually testing his 'drug' and finding that it works well on some cancers, most of which looks like breast cancer (ironically, the most curable of all cancers).
I'm directing this quote at Truncated.
I was referring to Truncated calling me crazy:
Truncated wrote:
sonicpacker wrote:
Let me just say, I'm not some crazy conspiracy theorist. *looks at nfq*.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Point clarified. However, it could have saved about 5 pages of posts if you'd actually cited that other research you mentioned, instead of relying on a conspiracy theorist YouTube clip as your only reference.
That the truth is just a thought, even if it's written with a capital letter...
mmbossman wrote:
A) Morality is a non-scientific, emotional construct.
Why are emotional constructs like morality non-scientific? Senses like vision and hearing can be used for doing science, so I think other senses like emotion could be used too, even though they may be less objective. Vision and hearing are somewhat subjective too, but they are used in science. Feelings at least can be used to do scientific research, and emotions are closely related to physical feelings.
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_of_moralitymmbossman wrote:
FYI, I earned a B.S. in Exercise and Sport Science, and a Doctorate in Physical Therapy (7 years of college, essentially), while D.K. is a Ph. D. candidate with a heavy emphasis on medical research. So, we're not just full of shit, I promise.
Some argue that the more educated you are, the harder it is to understand the truth because you become less openminded to ideas that are outside the education: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=49150
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Well if you're more educated, you're at a lower risk to [URL=http://www.kansascity.com/2011/06/16/2955844/cancer-death-rate-gap-widens-based.html]die from cancer[/URL]
So I guess I just can't win.
I am fully aware that the article says the researchers don't think its a causative effect, but a corrolation. So, now I'm done with this whole pointless discussion and am off to eat some volcano meat.
Well, there have been other cases of cancer being cured by means not exactly understandable (or at all identifiable), this may well be one of them. Not sure about its systematic efficiency.
But either way, cannabis is actually a pretty versatile and easy to cultivate plant. It was in widespread use (in larger part non-recreational, that is) pretty much all over the world before the mid-twentieth century ban. Nowadays the quantities required for non-recreational use are subject to numerous complications that make it not worth bothering with for the most part. That also limits the medical research into it to a large degree, for shame.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Normally I contribute to threads like this by not posting in them, but here's one totally off-topic comment:
I briefly misread the topic title as containing "SDA" instead of "FDA", since I had recently seen some of an SDA charity marathon where the proceeds were donated to a cancer prevention foundation, and speedrunning is closer to the topics that usually come up on this site.
DCA has been found to kill cancer cells by a newly discovered mechanism that appears to be common to several types of cancer. DCA works by turning on the natural cell suicide system (called apoptosis) which is suppressed in cancerous cells, thus allowing them to die on their own.
