|
Post by mrsonde on Jul 20, 2018 15:54:27 GMT 1
I think it must be, thanks. There's a comment that asks some very pertinent questions. It is, isn't it? Its only purpose seems to be to provide an excuse for not divulging something that is nothing like as cogent as he claimed. Its purpose is to see if you can be civil. You can't. It is of course an impossible demand, logically, to provide something that is not what it is, or is what it is not. The Law of the Excluded Middle. Now, how does one commence any attempt to educate someone so ignorant in the most basic principles of how to reason?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jul 20, 2018 16:01:41 GMT 1
Give 'im a break. He's only a chancer, after all. Nice of you to join in, Uriah, but the other bullies in the gang really don't want your help!
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jul 20, 2018 16:11:27 GMT 1
Why is it any of those things? It clearly is all of those things. Why that is so is another question; presumably the answer is that Dr Burzynski thought emotion would help his case more than hard facts. A good analysis of the film here. You may argue specific points if you like.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jul 20, 2018 16:15:18 GMT 1
Its purpose is to see if you can be civil. You can't. I was perfectly civil. I just chose not to grovel, a better description for what you demanded. So I remain unconvinced by Dr Burzynski's claims, and the only loser is Dr Burzynski.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jul 20, 2018 16:21:44 GMT 1
Why is it any of those things? It clearly is all of those things. It is clearly, by any dictionary definition, none of those things. Nothing to do with Burzynski. These clips are from a Congressional hearing, from patients deposed to give their testimony. Have you seen the film? Or it's follow-up? Which includes a devastating critique of that "org", incidentally? No, you haven't. As usual, you're simply pretending to know everything about a matter you only heard of the other day, and actually still know nothing whatsoever about. Present your objections to the facts and science published by Burzynski, if you can. Explain how he managed to invent a peptide that occurs in cancer-free people but doesn't in cancer sufferers. Explain how he's managed to fool thousands of people that the introduction of this peptide into their blood cures them of untreatable cancers. Placebo effect, is it? Some placebo, that reduces in weeks brain tumours in three-yr-olds. Explain why if all this is charlatanry, the NCI and NIH has spent millions trying to reproduce his results in a way that circumvents his patents?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jul 20, 2018 16:28:07 GMT 1
Its purpose is to see if you can be civil. You can't. I was perfectly civil. I'm still waiting. Asking politely is "grovelling", I see. Where did you learn this modern rule of etiquette? Butch Lesbian Deepcut? You remain ignorant of Burzynski's findings and results, and the only loser as ever with your wilful ignorance is you.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jul 20, 2018 16:38:21 GMT 1
I'd certainly heard of Burzynski, and of the movie.
I had neither seen nor read aay convincing evidence of the efficacy of his cure.
So cancer patients orthodox medicine had given up on subsequently went into remission. It happens quite a lot.
Anecdotes aren't science. Surely you knew that!
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jul 20, 2018 16:47:23 GMT 1
Asking politely is "grovelling", I see... No. This is asking politely: You want me to dig that paper up for you...? Yes, that would be nice. This would be grovelling: That's interesting Nick, I wasn't aware of that, and would like to learn more. Would you post me a link to that scientific proof, please, if it's not too much trouble (and sorry for all the years of abuse I've hurled your way in the past, I've turned over a new leaf).
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jul 20, 2018 16:48:11 GMT 1
I'd certainly heard of Burzynski, and of the movie. I think you're lying, as usual. That's because you hadn't heard of it. If you had, you'd be able to give us your refutations of the science presented in that movie - which would of course have necessitated further investigation. You can't, because you hadn't heard of him until the other day, and you've only just started to inquire into it by a quick google of the very people invested in repeating your ignorant insults. Huh? What are you blathering about? You couldn't even be bothered to sit through a few minutes of those clips, could you, before pronouncing they were "propaganda"? You're a complete joke, woman. Look "anecdote" up. These are not "anecdotes" - they're results. Astonishing almost miraculous results. They are not presented as "science" - that's done elsewhere, published in scientific journals, and which you can easily find yourself. Either by asking politely, or by following the links of Burzynski's site.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jul 20, 2018 16:54:59 GMT 1
No, that's a response to a question, and a statement. "Asking" is another speech act entirely. You want me to give some references to sites that would begin to teach you the basics of English grammar? That would be asking, politely. Actually, that would be simple copy-and-pasting, because I knew you couldn't bring yourself to be so civil. Do it your own way, if you prefer, I've no copyright on it. But as with your ignorance about the foundations of music, you ain't going to learn until you can ask, politely. Because one thing is absolutely certain - you're not going to start finding things out for yourself, not at this late stage of mental decrepitude.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jul 20, 2018 16:57:40 GMT 1
Look "anecdote" up. These are not "anecdotes" - they're results. Astonishing almost miraculous results. Like any sudden remission, without any help from Dr R. Nobody has shown irrefutably, in properly conducted and completed trials, that these 'cures' really are down to his magic potion. But I didn't, you see. However hard I looked. That's why I needed your help - for which I (politely) asked, or more accurately, responded to your offer to provide it.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jul 20, 2018 16:59:44 GMT 1
But as with your ignorance about the foundations of music... Another example of that curious tendency to foist your inadequacies onto me!
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jul 20, 2018 17:04:47 GMT 1
Look "anecdote" up. These are not "anecdotes" - they're results. Astonishing almost miraculous results. Like any sudden remission, without any help from Dr R. No one has ever had a sudden remission from the cancer presented. All 56 cases to that point died. The only one cancer-free was Burzynski's patient. If you'd have watched the clip, you'd have learned that. Yes, they have. Tell us, quick, Jean, seeing as you're the expert on the subject: what is this "magic potion"? One sentence will do, please. Why not? They're linked to, on his site. You're claiming the links are broken? But you didn't, anywhere. I'm still waiting. Ask away, and you'll have the science you've "looked so hard" to find. Yes, that is "more accurate" - so no more lies about ever asking, if you would. I'm happy to provide it, whenever you want. All you have to do is ask, politely.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Jul 20, 2018 17:06:16 GMT 1
But as with your ignorance about the foundations of music... Another example of that curious tendency to foist your inadequacies onto me! But I'm the one who knows, and you're the one who admits she doesn't! The foisting is yours, madame.
|
|
|
Post by jean on Jul 20, 2018 17:17:06 GMT 1
In the case of Dr Burzynski, you claim to know but won't share your knowledge. So I have no reason to revise what I think I know, but I am of course open to being convinced by serious scientific evidence, which you (inexplicably) refuse to provide.
As to The foundations of music, How music works or whatever we're calling it this week - well I do know rather more about that, and I did (very politely) ask you, and Nay, to expound your theories (preferably without the use of tubes and wires) but you wouldn't do that either (and as for Nay, I don't belive he even knows what you're talking about).
|
|