Discuss PseudoSkeptics and their Fallacies. Share strategies for debating them.
23 Mar 2010, 10:09
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.
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)".
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).
23 Mar 2010, 12:03
Last edited by Nostradamus
on 23 Mar 2010, 19:37, edited 1 time in total.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
phpBB Mobile / SEO by Artodia.