It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
that doesnt justify it as productive in anyway
Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
I sir, am a member of the British media. Insults and having them turned are not something that surprises me in the least. I am also a product of English culture, and the insulting if idiocy is in fact something that is highly expected here.
That said, again, my mother is an oncologist, that is a doctor who specializes in treating cancer. I come from a long line of scientists, and government officials, I am well aware of how the system works and I do still stand by my assert that the vast majority of doctors, nurses, medical researchers and, in my country at least, administrators, do genuinely enter the field and practice their craft for a desire to help their fellow human being.
I understand the process by which a discovery is turned into a treatment. The idea of a "cure" as you put it does not really enter into this debate as even the idea of the so-far quack doctor in the OP is not a universal cure but instead a treatment. Even if you wish to look at this from a profit motivated standpoint, there is great potential in treatments for income.
As the quack is in fact flying in the face of current medical understanding here, the burden of proof rests with him, not the established, peer-reviewed and tested methods currently in use.
As such, I will reiterate my call for him to publish his findings for peer-review. I must also question why you, are in fact so defensive about him not doing so? What is your agenda here and your issue with medical professionals in general? I have found that usually and distrust of doctors or their methods mostly comes from a lack of knowledge rather than any actual mistreatment.
Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
So your defense here is that you are merely presenting his information and I shouldn't shoot the messenger so to speak?
I'm sorry but that does not hold weight
(was that polite enough for you?).
In doing so you are presenting an alternative treatment
potentially very dangerous and has not been published in any accredited medical journals.
This action can give false hope to cancer sufferers and their families, that is quite a nasty thing to do in my opinion.
Also to say then that the burden of proof is not placed upon the doctor in question because you arbitrarily say so
when there is a history of cancer treatment dating back to the 1940s in accepted medicine is laughable.
When one can simply do an hour's research on something such as Wikipedia and come up with a better understanding of cancer and the treatment thereof than this man's site would provide to give such information may prove quite lethal at worst and and best worthless.
In regards to your view on my tone and responses
I would then ask if according to your view on decorum I should then treat someone saying for example "the Moon is made of cheese and it will solve world hunger" with the same level of intellectual respect that I would someone making a fully rational and well reasoned argument?
Curing cancer wouldn't lead to big money? Are you serious?
...why isn't he publishing his findings in peer-reviewed medical journals and spreading this knowledge on something more mainstream than Coast 2 Coast AM/?
In an open letter to the editors of major scientific journals published last year, a group of 14 researchers, including Smith, argue that "papers that are scientifically flawed or comprise only modest technical increments often attract undue profile. At the same time publication of truly original findings may be delayed or rejected." Read more: Peer review trickery? - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences www.the-scientist.com...
Nature editor Philip Campbell denied that "there's some privileged clique" mistreating the review process, and Monica Bradford, executive editor of Science, told the BBC that they "have not been convinced to switch" to a system involving the open review of the quality of peer-review feedback. Read more: Peer review trickery? - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences www.the-scientist.com...
Medical Hypotheses is currently Elsevier's only non-peer-reviewed journal. Its mandate is to publish interesting theoretical papers, including radical, speculative and non-mainstream scientific ideas. But a hubbub surrounding the publication of two AIDS denialist papers last July has the publisher considering adopting a peer review system for the journal -- a change that the journal's editor-in-chief sees as a travesty that will destroy its value. Read more: Radical journal's fate at risk - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences www.the-scientist.com...
Our review identified and focused on two factors associated with under-reporting: failure of hospitals to report and failure of hospitals to take action on questionable physicians. For example, a HRSA funded study reported in the American Journal of Public Health noted that, to avoid reporting, hospitals imposed disciplinary periods of less than 31 days thereby avoiding the need for reporting physicians to the NPDB;
a medical board official informed Public Citizen that some hospitals avoid reporting by changing their bylaws or by having physicians take a “leave of absence.” In one of the most egregious recent examples of the breakdown of hospital peer review, two physicians at Redding Medical Center in Redding, California performed clearly unnecessary bypass and valve surgeries between 1992 and 2002 on hundreds of patients.
...our analysis of the NPDB Public Use File found that almost 1,000 physicians who had at least two adverse clinical privilege reports to the NPDB did not have any subsequent licensure board disciplinary action. One physician had nine adverse clinical privilege reports but no licensure board actions.
In October 2005, the California legislature, because of concerns about under-reporting to the state medical board, requested an independent review of peer review in the state. The final report, issued in July 2008, involved a sample of 245 California health care entities (hospitals, health plans, professional societies, medical groups) and was based on the following methodology: on-line survey, analysis of peer review minutes, peer review cases, interviews and site visits. The report noted the following:
The issue of 805 (peer review) reporting is one of the most important and most misunderstood Medical Practice Act requirements. Over the past year we have noted a deterioration in the cooperation required between hospitals and the Board in protecting consumer/patient safety. We have experienced incomplete reports […] and, on some occasions, excuses for not reporting at all.
Peer review is not all it is cracked up to be. Indeed, the very nature of the term gives some insight into how the process works, or at the very least how one would imagine it should work, and that is a process where peers review each others work.
And for the record I do use some alternative therapies for my Brain Tumour, just not allowed to talk about it on ATS if you know what I mean