View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Locked Sagan Thread

Discuss PseudoSkeptics and their Fallacies. Share strategies for debating them.

Re: Locked Sagan Thread

Postby ProfWag » 23 Mar 2010, 04:36

Kevin Kane wrote:The study was done by NCEPOD, the National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death. A professional group that studies healthcare deaths. The chemo study was a 30 day study. No more, no less. 30 is the number of days they studied, and the number of days was 30. 31 days they didn't study, nor did they study for 29 days, excepting that they then proceed to day 30. A 32 day study is right out. Once they reached the 30th day, they reported what they found.

it appears that you don't understand what I (we) am/are questioning. Not speaking for ND, but I am not questioning the number of days the study was done. I am questioning the statement you made that I quoted in my last post. It is that statement that appears to be a dishonest statement, doesn't have anything to do with 30 days for which I could care less about.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54






Re: Locked Sagan Thread

Postby Nostradamus » 23 Mar 2010, 04:37

This is the question posed by ProfWag. Can we have another opinion?
Aside from Kevin, Nostradamus, and myself, what is your opinion?
Here is what Kevin said on page 10:
"1 in 4 cancer treatment deaths are caused or sped up by chemo:"

Here are the first 3 paragraphs of the article Kevin referenced:

"A new study has raised serious questions about the use of chemotherapy for late-stage cancer patients.
The review of 600 cancer patients in Britain who died within 30 days of treatment has found that one in four of the deaths was either caused or hastened by the chemotherapy.
Chemotherapy is a standard treatment for cancer but the study questions whether seriously ill patients can cope with it."

Did Kevin lie, attempt to deceive or was he being honest and truthful?


Kevin made the following comment:
Most normal people are capable of understand language, intent and meaning.

Did Kevin fail to be capable of understanding language?
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Locked Sagan Thread

Postby really? » 23 Mar 2010, 04:50

Kevin Kane wrote:
really? wrote:
When encountering a person that is as unreasonable as you there are a few things one can do.
a. ignore them
b. start hurling ad hominems
c. just ridicule them.

I think I'll do 'A' since you are an unreasonable person.


How am I "unreasonable"? And do you understand that this is NOT a skeptic forum but a forum for anti-skepticism? Because it's kind of an important point. I see many skeptics are clueless to where they are. They think they are at a forum for skeptics. NOT SO. This is not a skeptic playground. If you don't understand this simple point, I suggest you go to a skeptic forum with your skeptic posts and skeptic beliefs. This is not such a forum. Am I clear?


NOT a skeptic forum but a forum for anti-skepticism?

Are you saying this is a forum for the gullible, the easily hoodwinked rubes and fools ?
KK, I know where I am.
Maybe I'll do 'C' for awhile
;)
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Locked Sagan Thread

Postby Kevin Kane » 23 Mar 2010, 10:09

SKEPTIC FAILURES:

Really? can't debate the value of NASA, so he chooses to play dumb and stfu.

Nostradamus and ProfWag fail at comprehending language and intent (eg..summary introduction to a medical finding)

ND and PF can't prove statements that I lied or misled, because I didn't.

ND can't refute the estimates I cited (1 in 4). Those estimates remain undisputed.

ND can't remain in context or on topic, but seems obsessed with stalking me.
User avatar
Kevin Kane
 
Posts: 377
Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 01:18

Re: Locked Sagan Thread

Postby Nostradamus » 23 Mar 2010, 11:07

Nostradamus and ProfWag fail at comprehending language and intent (eg..summary introduction to a medical finding)

ND and PF can't prove statements that I lied or misled, because I didn't.

ND can't refute the estimates I cited (1 in 4). Those estimates remain undisputed.

ND can't remain in context or on topic, but seems obsessed with stalking me.


Kevin can't comprehend the title of the report:
"A review of the care of patients who died within 30 days of receiving systemic anti-cancer therapy"

From the Introduction (not the summary introduction :lol: )
NCEPOD studied the death of those patients who died within 30 days of treatment, looking at whether the death was due to treatment related toxicity, progression of malignant disease or an unrelated cause.


Anyone that says "The chemo study was a 30 day study." is either an idiot or a liar.
Kevin said on page 10: "1 in 4 cancer treatment deaths are caused or sped up by chemo:" That's not what the report said. Kevin admitted that this is not true. (See the post on Mon Mar 22, 2010 2:59 pm) So Kevin knows he isn't telling the truth.

So clearly the study looked at people so close to death that they died within 30 days of beginning treatment. That is why the report calls these people "late-stage cancer patients".

So when Kevin purposely misrepresents the report again and again and again he is a liar. That's pretty easy to show eh Kevin. You lie, and you lie, and you lie. You are obsessed with being a liar.

How can anyone believe anything Kevin says when he appears to be nothing more than a compulsive liar?
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Locked Sagan Thread

Postby Kevin Kane » 23 Mar 2010, 11:39

The study ... which I posted a link to .. points out that it is "not a representitive sample of the total population recieving SACT (systematic anti-cancer therapy)".

BUT

Just because it's wasn't a representetive sample doesn't mean that it doesn't represent overall chemotherapy usage that some may interpret from my statement (1 in 4).
User avatar
Kevin Kane
 
Posts: 377
Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 01:18

Re: Locked Sagan Thread

Postby Nostradamus » 23 Mar 2010, 12:03

The study ... which I posted a link to .. points out that it is "not a representitive[sic] sample of the total population recieving[sic] SACT (systematic anti-cancer therapy)".

BUT

Just because it's wasn't a representetive[sic] sample doesn't mean that it doesn't represent overall chemotherapy usage that some may interpret from my statement (1 in 4).


Another weaseling post by Kevin. No surprise there. And the statement after the BUT is so logically incorrect it is stunning. That is simply mind boggling wrong.

So now it is further clear that you lied in the initial claim. You have continued to lie about the contents of the report. You are definitely obsessed with being a liar.
Last edited by Nostradamus on 23 Mar 2010, 19:37, edited 1 time in total.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Locked Sagan Thread

Postby Kevin Kane » 23 Mar 2010, 12:36

It's clear that Nostradamus hasn't provided any evidence that my claim is false. The claim is valid until it can be proven invalid. The statement stands.

Either ND provide evidence, or we must all recognize that Nostradamus is dishonest and trolling and stalking.


ND and Prof have provided a reasonable argument that my statement can be interpreted to mean; 1 in 4 of ALL chemo patients are affected.

Now provide evidence that this interpretation is incorrect. When you provide such evidence, I will acknowledge my statement as a mistake, but as it stands, the statement is valid.

THE STATEMENT IS CURRENTLY: VALID.
User avatar
Kevin Kane
 
Posts: 377
Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 01:18

Re: Locked Sagan Thread

Postby Nostradamus » 23 Mar 2010, 19:50

So now Kevin admits he completely misrepresented what was said. He purposely lied. It has taken tens of posts to get Kevin to admit he lied.
It's clear that Nostradamus hasn't provided any evidence that my claim is false. The claim is valid until it can be proven invalid. The statement stands.

To admit that your claim is false proves that your claim is false.

So Kevin writes "1 in 4 cancer treatment deaths are caused or sped up by chemo:"
Now Kevin writes "ND and Prof have provided a reasonable argument that my statement can be interpreted to mean; 1 in 4 of ALL chemo patients are affected."

No kidding. You admit that's what it means? WOW. A genius at work. :lol:

We did not say that so once again Kevin is a liar. I got a great idea Kevin. Let's see if this thread can be locked. How about it? Do you want to have one of the moderators see if Kevin purposely misrepresented the report and continues to troll.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Locked Sagan Thread

Postby NinjaPuppy » 23 Mar 2010, 20:05

Nostradamus wrote:I got a great idea Kevin. Let's see if this thread can be locked. How about it? Do you want to have one of the moderators see if Kevin purposely misrepresented the report and continues to troll.

You do know that I can read this, right?
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Locked Sagan Thread

Postby Nostradamus » 23 Mar 2010, 20:13

I know. I am asking Kevin if he wants to obstinately make knowingly false, or if he wants to begin making positive posts. I have not made any comments about his space program posts. I may not agree with them. Still he has opinions that he can share. What I have challenged him on is that he has a habit of not telling the truth. His persistence in lying and repeatedly posting falsehoods could be branded being a troll. I thought he should understand that.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Locked Sagan Thread

Postby ProfWag » 23 Mar 2010, 20:47

Kevin Kane wrote:It's clear that Nostradamus hasn't provided any evidence that my claim is false. The claim is valid until it can be proven invalid. The statement stands.

Either ND provide evidence, or we must all recognize that Nostradamus is dishonest and trolling and stalking.


ND and Prof have provided a reasonable argument that my statement can be interpreted to mean; 1 in 4 of ALL chemo patients are affected.

Now provide evidence that this interpretation is incorrect. When you provide such evidence, I will acknowledge my statement as a mistake, but as it stands, the statement is valid.

THE STATEMENT IS CURRENTLY: VALID.

The truth of the matter, Kevin, is that it depends on the type of cancer, the stage of the cancer, the health/age of the patient, etc. The following are survival rates for various kinds of cancer from a study done 20 years ago. Treatment has most certainly improved since then, but I’m busy at work today and don’t have time to do your research:
For some kinds of cancer, chemotherapy (as well as radiation therapy) can be life saving. These include acute lymphocytic leukemia of children and Hodgkin's disease, as well as a few others. For other kinds, chemotherapy almost certainly extends life. These include ovarian cancer, some colon cancer, small cell lung cancer, etc. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy may shrink tumors, when that is a medical necessity, and may succeed in relieving pain (such as from bone metastases). For a limited number of types of cancer, the combination of surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy have sometimes made a substantial difference in the outcome of treatment.
TYPE OF CANCER CURE RATE*
Choriocarcinoma (low-risk patients) 90
Burkitt's Lymphoma (Stage I) 90
Acute lymphocytic leukemia 60
Hodgkin's disease (stage III and IV) 60
Diffuse histiocytic lymphoma 70
Nodular mixed lymphoma 75
Testicular carcinoma (stage II-III) 70-90
Childhood sarcomas (w/ radiation & surgery) 70-90
Childhood lymphomas 75
*Percent long-term disease-free survival. Source: Cecil's Textbook of Medicine (1988)

Additional sources that show chemotherapy is effective in two other types of well-known cancers:
Prostate cancer:
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/ ... ekey=40518

Breast cancer
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/19048.php
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Locked Sagan Thread

Postby Kevin Kane » 24 Mar 2010, 01:47

Yes, some types of cancer respond very well the chemotherapy. Hodgkin's Disease for example. But the consequences of the treatment are well known.

"The good news about Hodgkin's disease is that treatment can cure the disease. The bad news is that survivors face a higher than average risk for long-term complications of these treatments, some very serious."

http://www.umm.edu/patiented/articles/h ... 0083_5.htm

This layperson language is echoed at major Hodgkin's sites that I checked out. I'll cite other cancer types that show benefit from chemo eventually.
User avatar
Kevin Kane
 
Posts: 377
Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 01:18

Re: Locked Sagan Thread

Postby ProfWag » 24 Mar 2010, 03:44

The true meaning of a person's thoughts often get lost or misconscrewed while posting rather than discussing something face to face. Having said that, it appears that you would prefer that people not take chemo and face certain death rather than take chemo and hold out hope for survival. Is this true?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Locked Sagan Thread

Postby Kevin Kane » 24 Mar 2010, 04:02

The point is that Carl Sagan died without immune functionality because of the treatment. The first stage of the treatment, the 'lethal dose' of chemo, was to totally disable the immune system, allowing for the transplant of bone tissue from his sister to be accepted by the body. The second stage of chemo is the suppress the growth of all fast growing tissue. He did this 3 times, the final treatment included radiation therapy.

All chemo and radiation patients face similar complication. Chemo can permanently damage the immune system. It can leave the person sterile or susceptible to other cancers.

The hard truth is that even if Carl Sagan was completely cured of cancer, his immune system was destroyed by the treatment and he died as a result of it.
User avatar
Kevin Kane
 
Posts: 377
Joined: 17 Jan 2010, 01:18

PreviousNext

Return to PseudoSkeptic Fallacies

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron