Quote:
Originally Posted by Jet2
|
Thanks, Jet
I found Clifton Leaf’s 2004 article impressive, as a well-written summary of the known science of oncology (the study of cancer), and summary of the history and economics of cancer research, and a pointed criticism at the inefficiencies and bad ideas of its institutions and traditions. It doesn’t promote any unconventional thinking or fringe science, but rather focuses on problems for which substantial mainstream criticism exists, yet progress is slow or non-existent.
I recommend it highly.

Though, at over 10,000 words, it’s a lengthy read, it covers and connects a lot of information, while being neither overly technical nor “dumbed down”.
It’s odd that an alternative treatment website like healingcancernaturally.com promotes Leaf’s article with the following prefacing comment:
Quote:
|
the man who wrote this article is unbiased against or for any particular cancer treatment. He conclusively proves in this article that the cancer establishment [conventional cancer treatment] has made virtually NO significant strides toward curing cancer since the 1950s! Getting someone newly diagnosed with cancer to read this is a first step toward opening up their eyes ...
|
While I agree with the recommendation of Leaf’s article to cancer patients, it neither state nor imply anything like “conventional cancer treatment has made virtually NO significant strides toward curing cancer since the 1950s!” Rather, it emphasizes the disparity in progress in various areas of treatment, in particularly areas where mortality has decreased little since the 1950s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jet2
Though I do not have proof myself, I believe mind power is an good alternative cure!
|
You’ll find no support whatever for this belief in the linked article – nor, IMHO, in any credible source.
Though patient morale can for many reasons be critical in the treatment of many diseases, the idea that “mind power” should be used as an alternative to conventional treatment, rather than to complement it, is, in my emphatic opinion, a dangerous one.
There is also almost no possibility of scientific proof of such a claim. Such testing would require a sizable patient population to be denied conventional treatment in favor of an alternative. For a life-threatening disease for which a conventional treatment with a high probability of success exists, this is ethically unconscionable.
----------------
Moderator: Computers and Technology; Medical Science; Science Projects and Homework; Philosophy of Science; Physics and Mathematics; Environmental Studies
