BlimeyDon't do it unless there is nothing actually wrong with you. This is disgusting.
Woman "howling in pain" before death at slapping therapy workshop
Diabetic Danielle Carr-Gomm, 71, stopped taking insulin during sessions run by an alternative healer.www.bbc.co.uk
Indeed. I prefer "Alternative to therapy"
I've just read the Cancer Research write up on laetrile. Yes, it's weird, quite softly worded although explaining clearly the negatives. They use the word 'caution' a lot...but for me it's not strongly worded enough. Would be better if they didn't give it the courtesy of a standard paragraph write up. Just say 'DON'T EVEN CONSIDER THIS!!" rather than listing the forms of application at the end.Indeed. I prefer "Alternative to therapy"
Steve McQueen insisted on using laetrile for his cancer. He died. The NIH was pushed into spending a lot of money putting it through a clinical trial due to public pressure. It failed. This sort of stuff makes me very angry. I understand Darwin's law, but one cannot expect the public to be able to understand what is legit and what is not if they are desperate so they need to be protected. All this shit should be made illegal. Even Cancer Research UK is too soft on this dangerous nonsense. Cochrane has confirmed it is bollocks.
Laetrile (amygdalin or vitamin B17)
Laetrile is promoted as an alternative cancer treatment. There is not enough reliable evidence that it works.www.cancerresearchuk.org
That was exactly my take. They (research charities/MRC establishment) seem to be scared to offend people with 'alternative' beliefs. They may as well include a section on the power of prayer.
Yes, a definite 'fear of offending' comes across...but they should 100% 'actual' science focused...what else is there really?That was exactly my take. They (research charities/MRC establishment) seem to be scared to offend people with 'alternative' beliefs. They may as well include a section on the power of prayer.
I work in 'actual' science and also edit a science research journal. It annoys me they way 'scientists' (some are 'only' medics) hype therapeutic approaches. One bad example of this is the amyloid theory. Decades of failed trials and it is still 'more evidence needed'. I thought science would be better than politics when I went into it 45 years ago, but we still have the equivalent of (well, I won't go there. Science and medicine should not be about politics. Full stop. The scientific method of hypothesis falsification is the only route to 'truth'. I was teaching this to a class of 16 postgrads yesterday. Guess how many showed up for the lecture? Five of them. Sometimes you just can't win.)
Best wishes to you @cheshunt seagull. The actual treatments for cancer have improved hugely in the last 20 years as I am sure you know. I am still waiting for the results of my prostate cancer biopsy. Probably 'OK' or they would have flown into action.
. Best wishes for your results too.
Cheers mateYes, a definite 'fear of offending' comes across...but they should 100% 'actual' science focused...what else is there really?
