A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The only case you provided involved a child who died after chemo and did not even mention Burzynski. What case are you talking about?

Scroll back. I believe I did mention this child (the one on youtube) in reference to Burzynski. I could be wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What child was saved by whom? The quote you provided said the child died after 3 months on chemo (which, it could have been the cancer that killed him, we don't know the facts). It was in the first two sentences in fact. Did you even read the passage yourself?

And look, right from Burzynski's site

No way, I thought they were forced (at gunpoint maybe?) by doctors to accept treatment????!!!

That was one situation LadyShea. When a child has cancer there's no guarantee that he can be saved by any doctor. But, yes, what happened to Alexander was a use of force (like being at gunpoint). Why the histrionics?

[LadyShea]

You edited the post to include it later yes. I am very happy for that now young man and his family.

It is still merely testimonial and does not provide evidence for Burzynski's treatment being successful. One success out of how many patients with that same type of cancer? 1 out of 1000? 1 out of 2? Without clinical trials and the mountains of data he very well should have after 30 years, there is no way to say that the boy's recovery is due to the treatment, that the treatment has a high success rate, or to rule out an anomaly due to the well known occurrences of spontaneous remission.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That was one situation LadyShea. When a child has cancer there's no guarantee that he can be saved by any doctor. But, yes, what happened to Alexander was a use of force (like being at gunpoint). Why the histrionics?

Alexander's parents were not forced to consent to chemotherapy. The histrionics were used sarcastically.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Your post here and #19577 on 9-24-'12,

Imply that the medical profession and the drug companies have the goal of prescribing drugs for every thing and keeping people on those drugs long term. The more recent trend is to avoid drugs when possible and to address lifestyles as a perminant solution. Your posts also imply that the drugs in question are addictive, or non curitive, so that people will continue to 'need' them. Some conditions can only be maintained at this point in medical science, but many can, and are, cured with current medical treatment.

I have no need to prove Lessans wrong, he has done that very nicely with his book. This current exchange is to show that you are wrong about medicine as it is practiced now, not 50 years ago.

I never said drugs are addictive, although some mind altering drugs can cause major withdrawal symptoms. I said that the trend toward preventive care is beginning to take hold because people are realizing that doctors are not gods and drugs, for the most part, don't cure. Thank goodness that people are finally realizing that nature is the best cure. Drugs can alleviate symptoms and in the case of antibiotics (and vaccines), help the body overcome infection, which has been a lifesaver. But these drugs have been overused and are now being implicated for causing other serious problems.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Alexander's parents were not forced to consent to chemotherapy. The histrionics were used sarcastically.

That's not what I got out of that quotation. Maybe I need my eye's examined.

Since medical orthodoxy has yet to discover a cure for aggressive
pediatric brain cancer, parents should be permitted to use other therapies
prescribed by their medical doctor. The FDA’s policy of not permitting
children to have access to any other therapy except chemo and radiation
must stop. Children who are labeled ‘terminal’ should be allowed access
to any treatment that is safe and could potentially save their life. The
FDA stopped Alexander and continues to stop hundreds of other children
from having access to a non-toxic cancer therapy that has proven to be
both effective and safe. Oncologists must be stopped from using children
for experimentation. In their journal articles, oncologists admit that their
therapies for young children with malignant brain tumors are still
experimental, toxic and relatively ineffective.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not even going to address this. All this is is an assertion with no substance.

Speaking as an actual expert in a relevant field, do you want my opinion regarding your [lack of] understanding of the role of the immune system in cancer?


I'd be happy to give it to you. In detail.


Here's a hint/clue: the reason we have cancer in the first place is because the immune system doesn't recognize and eliminate these abnormal body cells. Or at the very least, because the immune system can't target and destroy them as fast as they reproduce.

So, while it's perhaps a bit of an oversimplification, it's not at all inaccurate to say that "the immune system does not play a large role in getting rid of cancer." There is quite a lot of study in this field, given its vital importance and all.

We actually have quite a lot of understanding regarding what cancer is, and why it represents a failure of the immune system. That's why our ability to treat and even cure cancer is much better today than it was just 10 or 20 years ago -- and far better than it was 40 or 50 years ago.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Burzynski's website indicates he has published specific papers in the Journal Neuro-Oncology. So, I looked up his publication record and found a blogger that had done the same research as I had, trying to verify his publications A look at the Burzynski clinic’s publications | Blag Hag. It seems his site is very misleading...he had published anything at all, he had merely presented abstracts at a conference, which are not peer reviewed publications at all.

Also found this. Burzynski's therapies have been investigated, most doctors do want to help patients you know.

So he agreed to the study parameters, but when the hard evidence went against him, he suddenly started claiming problems with the agreed to parameters. Hmm, does that sound honest or like a huckster moving the goal posts?

Inconclusive after 30 years? NO CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS after 30 years? Why not?

HE IS A LIAR AND A FRAUD.

I disagree. If I were desperate, I would look into his therapy, but cost would probably be prohibitive. You are jumping to the conclusion that this doctor is only out for money, which is not giving him a fair shake. I would feel sorry if you were on a jury deciding this man's fate. You are too quick to judge negatively the tireless effort this man has made to help those who have very few options left. When it comes to the dying, they should have options open to them, even clinical trials. They have nothing to lose. As to whether anything will help someone in 4th stage cancer is difficult to determine. I agree that nobody should deceive anyone into believing that they can do more to help them then they know for certain. That's what is happening in the stem cell world. People are given false hope by hucksters who open clinics and take people for a ride.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not even going to address this. All this is is an assertion with no substance.

As far as I am aware, generally cancer cells are not detected by the immune system and that is kind of the issue. I don't know a lot about it though.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Speaking as an actual expert in a relevant field, do you want my opinion regarding your [lack of] understanding of the role of the immune system in cancer?


I'd be happy to give it to you. In detail.


Here's a hint/clue: the reason we have cancer in the first place is because the immune system doesn't recognize and eliminate these abnormal body cells. Or at the very least, because the immune system can't target and destroy them as fast as they reproduce.

So, while it's perhaps a bit of an oversimplification, it's not at all inaccurate to say that "the immune system does not play a large role in getting rid of cancer." There is quite a lot of study in this field, given its vital importance and all.

We actually have quite a lot of understanding regarding what cancer is, and why it represents a failure of the immune system. That's why our ability to treat and even cure cancer is much better today than it was just 10 or 20 years ago -- and far better than it was 40 or 50 years ago.

Yes, it's a failure of the immune system to do what is necessary to identify and kill off cancer cells. Isn't that what I said?

CISN - Research Hallmarks: Circa Today - The Immune System

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, it's a failure of the immune system to do what is necessary to identify and kill off cancer cells. Isn't that what I said?

No.

Vivisectus pointed out that the problem with cancer is that the immune system isn't recognizing and destroying the abnormal cells -- and thus doesn't play a large part in getting rid of cancer. In fact, the problem is that it's playing essentially no part in getting rid of the cancer.

Thus he was quite correct. You then insisted that he was just making an assertion without evidence, and that his claim wasn't even worth addressing.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not what I got out of that quotation. Maybe I need my eye's examined.

Since medical orthodoxy has yet to discover a cure for aggressive
pediatric brain cancer, parents should be permitted to use other therapies
prescribed by their medical doctor. The FDA’s policy of not permitting
children to have access to any other therapy except chemo and radiation
must stop. Children who are labeled ‘terminal’ should be allowed access
to any treatment that is safe and could potentially save their life. The
FDA stopped Alexander and continues to stop hundreds of other children
from having access to a non-toxic cancer therapy that has proven to be
both effective and safe. Oncologists must be stopped from using children
for experimentation. In their journal articles, oncologists admit that their
therapies for young children with malignant brain tumors are still
experimental, toxic and relatively ineffective.

You read it wrong. The treatment that they wanted has not, even after decades, been through the necessary steps to reach FDA approval, and Burzynski agreed to only treat patients as part of ongoing clinical trials. Their son did not meet the criteria of the trial so allegedly he couldn't be treated by Burzynski.

http://www.burzynskiclinic.com/clinical-trials.html

They could have declined chemotherapy. It was not forced on them.

All clinical trials have eligibility requirements, it's how they are controlled

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Speaking as an actual expert in a relevant field, do you want my opinion regarding your [lack of] understanding of the role of the immune system in cancer?


I'd be happy to give it to you. In detail.

I am if she isn't!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, it's a failure of the immune system to do what is necessary to identify and kill off cancer cells. Isn't that what I said?

CISN - Research Hallmarks: Circa Today - The Immune System

Part of the problem is that cancer cells are the individual's human cells (they are simply growing abnormally), complete with the same DNA and such as the rest of the cells in the body, so the immune system doesn't always recognize them as a problem to be addressed like it would a virus or bacteria or parasite or transplanted organ (foreign invader).

How do you think the body should identify cancer cells when they aren't different from the rest of the body in a way that the immune system responds to?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I disagree. If I were desperate, I would look into his therapy, but cost would probably be prohibitive. You are jumping to the conclusion that this doctor is only out for money, which is not giving him a fair shake. I would feel sorry if you were on a jury deciding this man's fate. You are too quick to judge negatively the tireless effort this man has made to help those who have very few options left. When it comes to the dying, they should have options open to them, even clinical trials. They have nothing to lose. As to whether anything will help someone in 4th stage cancer is difficult to determine. I agree that nobody should deceive anyone into believing that they can do more to help them then they know for certain. That's what is happening in the stem cell world. People are given false hope by hucksters who open clinics and take people for a ride.

Yes, if I had enough money and there was no other hope, I would look at any and everything;including Shamans and Woomeisters with Boji stones...as I said before.

However the exorbitant cost is prohibitive to most people, and holds out false hope since there is no data that it is effective at all for that cost. I think that's wrong and fraudulent. Many, many, many people take advantage of the dying and desperate. He is one of them, peacegirl.

Of course people are free to fundraise and seek whatever treatment they want, and they do so all the time, he has plenty of patients, but how Bursynski can sleep at night is beyond my ability to understand.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, it's a failure of the immune system to do what is necessary to identify and kill off cancer cells. Isn't that what I said?

CISN - Research Hallmarks: Circa Today - The Immune System

No, you said

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, but in trying to kill off the cancer cells, it often kills the entire immune system so the body can't overcome the cancer in the long run.

Which was not how I understood thing to be: I always thought that most of what we call cancer exists because the immune system does not realize the cells are a threat. The problems caused by a depressed immune system would be entirely different, and if that is what causes a patient to die it is because of an infection of one sort or another - not cancer. Which is why I said that the immune system does not really play a role in getting rid of cancer.

There is some really cool research going on where we are trying to make the body create specific antibodies that target cancer-cells, and we just might be able to create some really effective cures in the near future. But then again this research is being done by those biased scientist 4stooges of big pharma who just want to keep us drugged so they can make money, so you probably won't like it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This guy knows his stuff. He's up there with Dawkins and Hitchens. I hope to contact him. He is one of yours, so it might behoove you to listen to his account of how science can be reconciled with objective morality.

Sam Harris on Moral Objectivism - YouTube

What on Earth do you mean "he is one of yours"? One of our what? The guy's a douchebag, I claim him as a fellow human being, of course, but that's about it.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am if she isn't!

By which I mean - I would be interested in one of those really comprehensive "101" posts or that you do on occasion.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't rule out the ability to pick one alternative over another, but this does not mean will is free.

The ability to pick one ability over another is compatibilist free will. So I was right to say that Lessans' redefinition of determinism does not rule it out, just like it fails to rule out even contra-causal free will. It would help if you were capable of learning what the words you use actually mean.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not true. Determinism means that we don't have a choice, but the way it's defined is not accurate because there are no antecedent events that cause us to do certain things, which is why there is so much confusion surrounding this issue. That's why Lessans' definition is more accurate and leads to his discovery.

Looks like my earlier skepticism was justified. You didn't understand my previous explanation of the difference between definitions and propositions (as you claimed), and have gone right back to nonsensical talk about the accuracy of definitions. You are incapable of either comprehension or learning.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is incorrect Spacemonkey. There are no shoulds in the new world, yet no one will desire to strike a first blow. They will only need to know what is and is not a hurt, and would never want to cross that boundary.

Shoulds are prescriptions. Without them there is no morality. No normativity. You are left with only facts and no values. But of course you still don't understand what any of these terms mean, so you will insist that I am wrong without having any idea what you are even talking about.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because I knew what you were going to say, and I wanted to see if my prediction was right. Sure enough, it was right out of a script.

Ah, so you were not being sincere.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I only refuse to answer your questions when you get nasty, which is happening more often.

That's another lie, Janis. You will never answer my questions no matter how nicely you are asked. You ignore questions until people stop asking you nicely, and then you use that as an excuse to continue not answering them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All in good time.

If your principle is a falsifiable empirical claim, which can only be established by evidence, and you don't have any such evidence yet but are instead waiting for some to be discovered 'all in good time', then your acceptance of it is purely faith-based, and you have no grounds for complaint when others dismiss it as an unsupported assertion.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you I have no idea. I'm not a mind reader. I'm not using my popularity in here to decide whether this knowledge is valuable. I know it is.

The mind I was asking you about was your own. But then I guess your own mind is about as opaque to you as those of other people. I wasn't agreeing with you that you have supportive or sympathetic lurkers out there and asking you why THEY think as they do. I was asking you why YOU think such lurkers exist in the first place.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Think what you want.

I leave that to you. You are the one who allows her desires and emotions to influence her beliefs. I prefer to think in accordance with evidence and norms of rationality.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Wanna bet? Care to produce the peer-reviewed studies showing this?

There have been studies showing that a positive attitude improves a patient's prognosis. Not the same thing.

You are saying the same thing. Why does it show that a positive attitude improves a patient's prognosis? Because it helps the immune system to fight off the disease.

I said cancer and I meant liver. So what?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Those are hardly the same things. If you can't get even the most basic parts of your story correct, why should anyone believe that anything you say is correct?

Because I forgot for that moment whether the drug that I was prescribed was classified as causing liver damage or cancer. It definitely was a dangerous drug that I believe was taken off the market; again, not sure. I'm glad I didn't take it because they did not give the risks on the insert, which was the point I was making.

Does this discredit me, which you are trying so hard to do?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Not by itself. It's just one of a million examples that does.

You're darn right it doesn't, not even the many examples you have tried to accumulate to make it appear that way.

I have said before that you focus on the little trivialities in my writing that does not change the truth in what I'm conveying.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

The difference between "cancer" and "liver" is hardly trivial.

Regardless, the very first thing you learn when taking critical-thinking and analysis classes is that when an author can't keep his/her facts straight, there's an extremely high probability that what (s)he's saying is bullshit.

And even more to the point, when the author repeatedly demonstrates that (s)he doesn't understand the subject, then no rational person should take the author's claims seriously. Indeed, to take such an author's claims seriously would be the height of irrationality.

What claims are you talking about? I am just telling you about a personal experience. So now you're trying to use this as evidence against the book?

Your focusing on liver or cancer is just more minutia in your effort to find anything that would cause people to not take Lessans seriously. Whether I get liver damage or cancer from a drug that was supposed to be safe, I don't think it matters which disease I would die or end up injured from; the outcome would be the same: devastating.

Come on LadyShea, be honest for a change.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Coming from you -- someone who casually lies whenever it's convenient, and is a world-class hypocrite -- that's rich.

I'm sorry that this whole "eyes not being a sense organ" fiasco has made you distrust me. I am not a liar and I am certainly not a hypocrite, and I don't just say things for convenience.

I am exposing the truth of a medical system that is corrupt.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

One does not expose "the truth" with unverified and made-up examples.

There are plenty of examples. Maybe you're not looking in the right place. A good place to start is lef.org.

I have to expose the lies. My will is not free to do otherwise.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

A lot of us feel much that way when it comes to exposing your lies.

You can believe what you want, I can't stop you.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Why is it that you think it's bad when the "medical system" supposedly lies, but you don't regard it as bad when you say things that are patently untrue?

Like what? Whether the outcome of this drug was a non-functioning liver or cancer? I just told you that I didn't remember at that exact moment which disease this drug was known to cause. Does that make me a liar? No.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will search for more evidence, which is your holy grail. I believe this woman would have no reason to put online something that happened to her son without a good reason.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Really? Do you suppose that -- just possibly -- she isn't a medical expert, and so doesn't know what actually happened? Sadly, there are an awful lot of examples of purveyors of so-called "alternative medicine" preying upon desperate and uneducated parents by telling them that the "medical establishment" is corrupt and only trying to sell medicines and so forth. In far too many cases, this has led to people dying because they didn't seek proper treatment for conditions that are perfectly treatable with standard procedures.

It works both ways. There are snake salesman on both sides of this fence, even though doctors are given the legal right to prescribe these drugs or therapies with impunity; therapies or drugs that very often have not been carefully tested with enough rigor or with enough time to even know what the long term side effects could be.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Also, look up the "sunk cost fallacy." You might just possibly find it to be illuminating reading. And if you truly can't understand why it applies to these people (and you too, for that matter), then you're incapable of understanding basic logic. Though it's not like this would be a surprise.

Why the sarcasm? All of you love to hate me, don't you? I'm the scapegoat in here.

You don't realize how narrow minded you really are in the name of science, and you will fight tooth and nail to defend your position which is crumbling before your very eyes.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I've said it before, but it bears repeating: there are times when it is really, really hard not to suspect that in reality, you're an incredibly persistent performance-art comedian, kind of like Andy Kaufman.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I know: Let's go back to the game where you pretend that your ideas are rational and evidence-based. And then, in the very next post, after it's pointed out that all of the literally millions of relevant experiments that have been done flatly contradict Lessans' claims, you insist that you nonetheless have absolute faith that someday, somehow, somebody will perform experiments that somehow overturn the results of all the millions of previous experiments and somehow support Lessans' claims.

Because that one never stops being funny!

I liked your example in the beginning of this thread when you showed how the earth was shown to be a sphere, and yet people still believe the earth was is flat even with conclusive proof. Your evidence as to how the eyes work, although you believe it is a slam dunk, does not provide absolute proof, and that's what I'm aiming for. There are times that science is able to prove something, whereupon we don't have to collect evidence to support our theory anymore.

But there are other options that don't show the terrible side effects of chemo, and the possibility of rebuilding the immune system. Why would you not even consider this unless you're trying to protect your worldview at all costs, which does not give the answers that you believe will one day be a cure all.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Since there are no laws preventing people from seeking any treatment they want -- hell, they can have witch doctors shake beads at them if they want -- this is bs. On the other hand, not even you could possibly be so irrational as to expect the government to enact laws forcing insurance companies to pay for untested, unverified "treatments." Or am I being too optimistic?

I'm talking about treatments that have gained acceptance in the medical arena. People do get help from acupuncture, therapeutic massage, rolfing, medicinal herbs (of course they have to be taken with caution), cranial sacral therapy, yoga, lymph removal, and other types of beneficial therapies. They certainly are less invasive and can only do good. The only area insurance companies have recently covered is chiropractic. I think that's ashame.

And do you think the results are not skewed in the most prestigious medical journals available?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Would you please stop using words you don't understand? It's another form of dishonesty. That you don't have any understanding at all what the word "skew" actually means was explained to you in detail more than a year ago.

Why can't I use the word "skew" if that is what the results turned out to be?

skew (sky)
v. skewed, skew·ing, skews
v.intr.
1. To take an oblique course or direction.
2. To look obliquely or sideways.
v.tr.
1. To turn or place at an angle.
2. To give a bias to; distort.adj.
1. Placed or turned to one side; asymmetrical.
2. Distorted or biased in meaning or effect.3. Having a part that diverges, as in gearing.
4.
a. Mathematics Neither parallel nor intersecting. Used of straight lines in space.
b. Statistics Not symmetrical about the mean. Used of distributions.
n.
An oblique or slanting movement, position, or direction.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Middle English skewen, to escape, run sideways, from Old North French eskiuer, of Germanic origin.]

skewed - definition of skewed by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

This is exactly the sort of thing that makes people say that your patent ignorance is quite obviously deliberate.

I am not going to be accused of something that I am not guilty of without a fight.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said that the trend toward preventive care is beginning to take hold because people are realizing that doctors are not gods and drugs, for the most part, don't cure.

You are lying, you said nothing about a 'trend toward preventative', you just ranted about drug use and Doctors prescribing too much.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't rule out the ability to pick one alternative over another, but this does not mean will is free.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The ability to pick one ability over another is compatibilist free will. So I was right to say that Lessans' redefinition of determinism does not rule it out, just like it fails to rule out even contra-causal free will. It would help if you were capable of learning what the words you use actually mean.

Spacemonkey, it does rule out contra-causal free will, because although nothing can cause us to do anything we don't want to do, THIS DOES NOT GIVE US FREE WILL. You are very confused, believe me when I say this. I'm not trying to be nasty.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not true. Determinism means that we don't have a choice, but the way it's defined is not accurate because there are no antecedent events that cause us to do certain things, which is why there is so much confusion surrounding this issue. That's why Lessans' definition is more accurate and leads to his discovery.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Looks like my earlier skepticism was justified. You didn't understand my previous explanation of the difference between definitions and propositions (as you claimed), and have gone right back to nonsensical talk about the accuracy of definitions. You are incapable of either comprehension or learning.

I will say that his definition is more useful because it reflects what is going on in reality. How can a definition be useful if it is not defining what is actually going on? There is a great misunderstanding with the meaning of determinism.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is incorrect Spacemonkey. There are no shoulds in the new world, yet no one will desire to strike a first blow. They will only need to know what is and is not a hurt, and would never want to cross that boundary.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Shoulds are prescriptions. Without them there is no morality. No normativity. You are left with only facts and no values. But of course you still don't understand what any of these terms mean, so you will insist that I am wrong without having any idea what you are even talking about.

Well then elaborate instead of putting the blame on me. Normativity does not come from shoulds. A child could grow up without ever hearing the word should, and be completely conscientious and know the difference between right and wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because I knew what you were going to say, and I wanted to see if my prediction was right. Sure enough, it was right out of a script.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Ah, so you were not being sincere.

Right, I'm starting to be like you people.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I only refuse to answer your questions when you get nasty, which is happening more often.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That's another lie, Janis. You will never answer my questions no matter how nicely you are asked. You ignore questions until people stop asking you nicely, and then you use that as an excuse to continue not answering them.

I am not answering questions related to the eyes. I am answering all other questions to the best of my ability.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All in good time.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If your principle is a falsifiable empirical claim, which can only be established by evidence, and you don't have any such evidence yet but are instead waiting for some to be discovered 'all in good time', then your acceptance of it is purely faith-based, and you have no grounds for complaint when others dismiss it as an unsupported assertion.

I can't pinpoint exactly what the problem is, but something is very wrong with your analysis. You are creating a false dichotomy. The evidence will support these claims if he was right in his observations and reasoning. Obviously, the new world isn't here yet, but that does not mean that Lessans' observations were an assertion. They are spot on Spacemonkey and one day, if we're still alive, we will all see this discovery brought to light. I hope it's not too late for this generation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you I have no idea. I'm not a mind reader. I'm not using my popularity in here to decide whether this knowledge is valuable. I know it is.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The mind I was asking you about was your own. But then I guess your own mind is about as opaque to you as those of other people. I wasn't agreeing with you that you have supportive or sympathetic lurkers out there and asking you why THEY think as they do. I was asking you why YOU think such lurkers exist in the first place.

I just do. It's a hunch.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Think what you want.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I leave that to you. You are the one who allows her desires and emotions to influence her beliefs. I prefer to think in accordance with evidence and norms of rationality.

Well it's a matter of opinion as to who fits into this norm of rationality. It's also no surprise that you believe my desires and emotions have everything to do with my belief in Lessans' claims. You got it all wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You are lying, you said nothing about a 'trend toward preventative', you just ranted about drug use and Doctors prescribing too much.

There is a trend toward preventive care, but alternative therapies are not covered by insurance except for chiropractic. What's your problem thedoc?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What's your problem thedoc?

YOU.

[Vivisectus]

I liked your example in the beginning of this thread when you showed how the earth was shown to be a sphere, and yet people still believe the earth was is flat even with conclusive proof. Your evidence as to how the eyes work, although you believe it is a slam dunk, does not provide absolute proof, and that's what I'm aiming for. There are times that science is able to prove something, whereupon we don't have to collect evidence to support our theory anymore.

Absolute proof huh? Only religion deals in such absolutes.