View Single Post
Old 02-05-2013, 01:57 AM
BacteriumFendYoke's Avatar
BacteriumFendYoke BacteriumFendYoke is offline
Platinum Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Kent, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,881

Larry, I'll say it again.

There is no, objective, non-advocated research that says that the method you cite works. The science isn't there. The method's been around since 1928 and yet nobody has demonstrated any real non-bs quackery that shows it to work.

Shooting and missing again.

Also, whilst chemo and radiotherapy do not always work and sometimes have significant side-effects, your '9/10' statistic has no citation at all. You need to cite it from a neutral source - not an advocacy group. Go onto the BMJ or JSTOR and look up survival rates for - say - testicular cancer. If the figures are 9/10, I'll give it to you but right now you're just talking out of your arse.

Originally Posted by Jeff Almeyda View Post
Bacterium is 100% correct here.

1. Anecdotal evidence is always biased due to the lack of a control group.

2. Extraordinary claims require an extraordinary level of proof. (Yes, you must be able to PROVE to me that wheatgrass cures leukemia)

Usually, when I apply those two simple rules in conjunction with the scientific method, I find that the quackery tends to fall away.
Thank you Jeff. Thank you very much.

Last edited by Bernhard; 02-05-2013 at 07:43 AM. Reason: Edited by Arky: merging consecutive posts
Reply With Quote