Joined in 2023 
82 
63 About this deal
As an oncologist I have often had to talk people through the decision whether or not to have adjuvant chemotherapy. For instance, most people with muscle-invasive bladder cancer are cured by surgery alone, but some of them aren’t, and if you give chemotherapy then there is an absolute risk reduction of about 8%. This means that for every 12 patients treated, most don’t need the chemo because they will be cured anyway, some will die regardless, but for that one person in 12 the chemo makes a life-or-death difference. Clearly if I treat everybody then I know that I am saving some lives, but I don’t know who they will be, and given the toxicity of chemotherapy it is not so obvious that it is the right decision for an individual. I am not being critical of so-called Biofield treatments, however I do question the assertion that any and all forms of healing are somehow frequency-related. Primary – Here chemotherapy is the main treatment modality and is curative on its own. Examples include metastatic testicular cancer (chemotherapy alone almost always results in long-term cure) and haematological malignancies such as acute leukaemias and high-grade lymphoma. It does not bring about the promised improvements in health – those that occur would have happened anyway. Use a soft-bristle toothbrush to clean divots and interiors. Lay upright on a dry paper towel to allow water droplets to depart from crevices.
I am afraid it will take more than a wishful belief in magic to overturn the findings of rigorous research. It is no longer questioned in the health profession that sound, meditation, visualization, music, and hell even therapy dogs work to speed the recovery of their patient partners and that meditation and the power of positive thinking/visualization and personal conscious intent helps reduce stress and many common illnesses. But how do we go about measuring these phenomena? I have to make a living. Donations from awesome, good-looking users like you buy me time to keep things running. I don’t know what biology you have studied or where, but from your short communication, it almost seems like you may have missed about a centuries worth, or so, of research and accumulated biological and physical knowledge?When it comes to oncology it is quite clear that the authors of this article really have no idea what they are talking about.
Just because science cannot prove it exists does not mean it does not. What science HAS proven is that we see an extremely small amount of color, hear a small range of sounds (also proven by the dog whistle that humans cannot hear but dogs can) and the brain is limited in what it can perceive in the world. Why is it that people that call themselves scientists cannot even allow for ALL possibilities rather than only those that can be witnessed? Until that stops, our global society is going to remain in a modern version of the dark ages in my opinion. America’s Test Kitchen did a test on eating chocolate and listening to music to show if there was any difference. Why are you bothered by the requirement for evidence to be objective and repeatable? Anything else is surely hearsay. And Julian second of all I am very flattered that you think I was on some trip while writing this morning! You are so aptly proving my point so amazingly through direct observation that I could not have wished for a better segue into what I want to educate you both on now!..I don’t do drugs of any sort and drink red wine rarely only on the odd occasion.The tried and true method of personal scientific observation and anecdotal eye witness accounts re all we really have at this moment, much like Galileo and other thought leaders off his time, to measure and record consciousness events and the power of intent and the inner, energetic body. This is something that people say when they mean that numbers aren’t important because they don’t understand them. I am not accusing Rener of lying. But there are elements that seem implausible except perhaps within his / her belief system, and some which suggest that he / she has been lied to by charlatans. I should add that a “serious adverse event” is very often a change in a blood test, and not necessarily something that will impact quality of life. Also the 3.2 month survival benefit would have included those who didn’t finish the course.
I don’t know what they mean by a 41% reduction in the risk of dying in this context because they haven’t specified what point they are referring to – is it 6 months after treatment? one year? five years? On the other hand, reporting a 3.2 month survival improvement is equally misleading, since what happens in practice is that some people don’t respond at all, and others respond very well, and for those responders the survival benefit is much greater. Just taking an average figure doesn’t give you the full picture. It is much better to use a Kaplan-Maier survival curve, which is the standard way of reporting results in cancer trials, but they require a certain amount of training to understand. A recent edition of New Scientist (6th June 2020) carried a feature by Nobel Prizewinner Jeff Peebles, who came up with the ideas of dark matter and dark energy. It is a good summary of where we are so far and an interesting read. Your definition of Evidence bothers me. Simply ignoring peoples own testimony is rude, inhumane, and is setting up mankind for extinction.Without going into personal medical details I’ve been through my fair share of poor health for the past twenty years. I have files of evidence based scientific testing from various countries including UK, Australia, USA, Germany and Switzerland. Throughout this period I’ve met some very good and let’s say very questionable doctors, consultants, therapists etc, from around the world. I’ve tried to keep an open mind to conventional and non conventional treatments. Some helped and others made things worse. Keep your heart, mind and soul open to possibilities or you might miss out on real peace and joy. The only proof that will matter is what you believe to be true inside. Science etc will not alone. It is based upon deception – the people promoting it are either liars or else they have been lied to themselves. social reciprocity in interaction with practitioners: people tend to mirror the mood and behaviour of someone they trust – so if the practitioner is optimistic, their patients tend to report more progress than actually happened.
Like it or not, but we live in an age where we cannot entirely exclude science from our considerations. At the very minimum, I recommend a little smattering of sciency terminology. As you don’t want to be found out, select something that only few experts understand; quantum physics, entanglement, chaos-theory and Nano-technology are all excellent options.I suggest you talk to some of your colleagues in your local oncology department who will be able to put you right. The spectrum does not contain all the colors that the human visual system can distinguish. Unsaturated colors such as pink, or purple variations like magenta, for example, are absent because they can only be made from a mix of multiple wavelengths. Colors containing only one wavelength are also called pure colors or spectral colors. That is odd … I can’t find any scientific papers about this hugely important development in the field of esoteric knowledge. Yes, I can find papers by alternative practitioners casually mentioning chakras, subtle energy etcetera as if they are real phenomena, but these assumptions are nowhere actually substantiated. Could you point to proper peer-reviewed scientific work? The branch of mathematics dealing with probability was originally developed in relation to gambling, but it is applicable to any situation where there are random influences. This is very much the case when it comes to the behaviour of disease, and indeed many more areas of life than most people are aware of. Biofield Tuning effects the electric rhythms in and around the body and therefore can interfere with the performance of some electric medical devices such as pacemakers.”
Great Deal 
New Comment