Patrick Swayze has 5 weeks left to live...
Mar 15, 2008 at 5:40 AM Post #47 of 74
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sduibek /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Actually, it's science. Two words for you: Quantum Mechanics


There are at least two problems with your answer, the first of which is that medical studies have found no correlation between survival and believing that you are going to survive. The second is, your answer it doesn't actually fully answer the question. You might've as well said "One word for you: Chickens". Please explain how Quantum Mechanics explains that what someone believes will affect their probability of survival of a disease?
 
Mar 15, 2008 at 6:01 AM Post #48 of 74
Quote:

Originally Posted by Clutz /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I personally don't understand why people hold such ridiculous beliefs that someone's attitude would affect their probability of surviving and recovering from a serious illness. There is absolutely no scientific reason for believing this to be true. But then again, people seem to be all to ready to dismiss scientific inference and replace it instead replace it with irrational ideas and support them by saying you "just have to believe". On one hand, we have hard evidence of reality, and the other hand fantasy- yet humans seem to prefer irrational fantasy. Totally, totally baffling.


Well it's better then being negative. If belief & faith gives them peace & contempt what harm is there? I know you hate those words, cause theres no data & what not. Science cannot prove everything. Science is just at the tip of the iceberg in regards to the brains complexity.. If someone with an illness takes a plecbo to relieve aches & pains, & the aches & pains are gone that tells me that the brain & your body believes what you believe.. I won't go to the extreme of someone willing themselves from cancer.. But I do believe it is possible that a person with a strong will & love for his family can live a bit longer.. But cancer always wins out if it's severe..

Both my moms dogs & my best friends mom died from cancer.. It's horrible to say the least.. Cancer destroys you to the core.. The smell of premature rotting flesh.
 
Mar 15, 2008 at 6:08 AM Post #49 of 74
It is scientific. It has to do with neurotransmitters and enzymes and other scientific things such as quantum mechanics.

Hey, have any of you heard of Dr. Robert Beck? Suppressed Medical Discovery: Dr. Robert C. Beck ( Cancer,AIDS, anything viral)

He seems to think with a little blood electrification, all viruses, bacteria, pathogens, etc, go away. I'm going to build his device, which costs around $30 and test my blood prior and post to treatment. I'm interested to see if anything happens. I'll send the device to Mr. Swayze if it works ^_^

Tyler
 
Mar 15, 2008 at 6:16 AM Post #50 of 74
Swayze still smoking despite cancer battle | Metro.co.uk

Well, I guess he wants to go out his way.
rolleyes.gif
 
Mar 15, 2008 at 6:39 AM Post #51 of 74
Quote:

Originally Posted by kool bubba ice /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Well it's better then being negative. If belief & faith gives them peace & contempt what harm is there?


There can be lots of harm if people put all their eggs into faith healing and none into forms of healing that are understood by science.

Quote:

Science cannot prove everything.


Sure it can. Our Universe operates under a certain set of principles. It is the job of science to figure out and understand what these fundamental principles are.



Quote:

If someone with an illness takes a plecbo to relieve aches & pains, & the aches & pains are gone that tells me that the brain & your body believes what you believe..


It has nothing to do with belief. The placebo effect is science itself.

Quote:

I won't go to the extreme of someone willing themselves from cancer.. But I do believe it is possible that a person with a strong will & love for his family can live a bit longer.. But cancer always wins out if it's severe..


If you can will yourself away a minor malady then why wouldn't it apply to cancer?
 
Mar 15, 2008 at 6:43 AM Post #52 of 74
Quote:

Originally Posted by tylernol /img/forum/go_quote.gif
It is scientific. It has to do with neurotransmitters and enzymes and other scientific things such as quantum mechanics.


Your "answer" doesn't really answer anything - you've simply reasserted a previous assertion without providing any evidence for the assertion, and then shoved a bunch of jargon after it. That's a classic pseudo-science tactic.

Quote:

Hey, have any of you heard of Dr. Robert Beck? Suppressed Medical Discovery: Dr. Robert C. Beck ( Cancer,AIDS, anything viral)


He is nuts. Anyone who thinks that scientific discoveries are being suppressed does not understand how science operates. If there was any evidence for it there would be lots of scientists ready to jump on board. Scientists love a good debate over science, but it has to be science.
 
Mar 15, 2008 at 1:20 PM Post #53 of 74
Quote:

Originally Posted by Clutz /img/forum/go_quote.gif
He is nuts. Anyone who thinks that scientific discoveries are being suppressed does not understand how science operates. If there was any evidence for it there would be lots of scientists ready to jump on board. Scientists love a good debate over science, but it has to be science.


I wouldn't be so sure about that. Take the example of stomach ulcer treatment. For many years, the conventional wisdom was that stomach ulcers were brought about by stress, and could only be treated by surgery or expensive drugs. (Tagamet was one such drug, and 25 years ago that stuff was like gold - I actually heard a doctor refer to it in those exact words.) Then an Australian medical researcher discovered that stomach ulcers were in fact cause by a specific strain of bacteria, h pylori, and could be treated (and cured) with inexpensive antibiotics. His discovery was widely ridiculed by the medical profession and especially by the drug companies, who basically did all they could to discredit him and his discovery. Why? Because there would no longer be a lucrative market for expensive ulcer treatments, like Tagamet.

Eventually, his discovery was proven to be fact and now antibiotics are the standard treatment for stomach ulcers. Scientists may in fact love a good debate over science, but all bets are off when money and profit margins enter the picture.

FWIW, I think the guy with the blood electrification device sounds like a crackpot. In general, anything that sounds too good to be true usually is. There are exceptions, though, so who knows?
 
Mar 15, 2008 at 2:19 PM Post #55 of 74
Some of this crap said about how all it takes is willpower is really insulting to those who actually see what cancer does. It's apparent that people immature enough to say these things have ever seen a loved one actually go through it.

It makes my stomach churn that this is allowed here. After all it goes into religious belief and that talk is supposed to be not allowed. It's amazing that it would occur to people to be so cruel, but then again this is the internet, where cruelty is the name of the game.

To suggest that someone lost their battle to cancer because of a lack of willpower (because that is what is being inferred simply by saying that it plays any part), is simply disgusting.
 
Mar 15, 2008 at 2:43 PM Post #56 of 74
Quote:

Originally Posted by beerguy0 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Eventually, his discovery was proven to be fact and now antibiotics are the standard treatment for stomach ulcers. Scientists may in fact love a good debate over science, but all bets are off when money and profit margins enter the picture.


I have three comments here. The first is that science is necessarily conservative about incorporating new ideas. The onus is on the new theory to explain and displace the old theory. If science picked all the nut-job theories, it would make even less progress than we do today. One of the biggest problems in science is inbreeding - people tending to move to other labs that their lab collaborated/collaborates with- this limits them (which is the reason I've switched from doing population ecology to evolutionary genetics, ad now I'm switching to biochemistry from evolutionary genetics). It is both good and necessary to get different persectives.

Second, you cannot group scientists that work for major biological/chemical/pharmaceutical companies because they obviously are going to be biased in favour of their company, but in academic science people want to find new ideas to use to bash over the heads of other people. There is nothing quite as interesting as a controversial debate.

Stress still may be a factor in causing ulcers because of the difference between ultimate causation and proximate causation. The proximate causation in this case is bacteria causing ulcers, but something lead to the condition where the bacteria were able to overcome the bodies host defenses. When humans get stressed, our body releases a chemical called cortisol (it's a steroid). That cortisol allows our bodies to release stores of energy much faster with it than without. However long term exposure to cortisol suppresses the immune system. Hence, long term persistent stress could in fact be the ultimate cause of ulcers. Since I don't follow this type of medical research I cannot comment on the validity of this particular hypothesis, but I'm certain that if I really wanted to I could support it or negate it within about 4 hours of doing paper research.
 
Mar 16, 2008 at 4:05 AM Post #57 of 74
Quote:

Originally Posted by Clutz /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Your "answer" doesn't really answer anything - you've simply reasserted a previous assertion without providing any evidence for the assertion, and then shoved a bunch of jargon after it. That's a classic pseudo-science tactic.


And your "response" doesn't prove anything except that you can use a condescending tone.

Let me first begin with a question -- do you consider Quantum Mechanics to be "pseudo-science"?

One of the main points of quantum is that an particle or event being observed by a conscious entity, is changed. We are transmitting huge amounts of brainwaves constantly. That's why we have things like the Double Blind Study - because if your attitude/thoughts/wishes/assumptions become entangled with the experiment, it changes the outcome.

With that in mind, it's really not a leap at all to suppose that your wishes/thoughts/assumptions brought to the table will effect the outcome of a battle with illness.


PLEASE NOTE, i'm not saying anyone should rely on Faith alone. That will get you killed rather easily, I have no doubt. However I would never rely solely on mainstream Western medicine/science either. You need both.
 
Mar 16, 2008 at 4:12 AM Post #58 of 74
Quote:

Originally Posted by Clutz /img/forum/go_quote.gif
There are at least two problems with your answer, the first of which is that medical studies have found no correlation between survival and believing that you are going to survive.


Who performed the studies, and more importantly who funded the studies? Were they Double-Blind studies? Also, the individuals in these studies -- were they relying on faith in survival alone or were they following a proven regimen of treatment?

Quote:

Please explain how Quantum Mechanics explains that what someone believes will affect their probability of survival of a disease?


See my post above. But to make it short -- matter is energy, energy is matter - i've seen it dubbed "wavicles". Our bodies are wavicles, our minds are constantly pumping out tons of wavicles, and on the Quantum level, energy affects and *changes* other energy. Thus, it's simply logical to conclude that your brainwaves can and do affect you and the world around you on a Quantum level - and thus, on an atomic level as well, affecting both matter and energy. Maybe not in vast sweeping ways, perhaps not even in scientifically-measurable ways, but the effect is there nonetheless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top