Re: RE: Diane, re Correction: RE Dietary omega-3 pufas ...

[Guest guest]

» Linus ing was quite adamant about keeping vitamin C high on a continuous

basis. I think if more people realised the routine

nature of cancer cell production, it would help them to select cancer

treatment options and to avoid the terror that can be handed down with a cancer

diagnoses.

I agree that the more we know about cancer the better we can choose treatment

options.

However Linus ings work has not stood the test of time.. has been

challenged.. and some of his data may have been falsified. And the LP Institute

no longer makes the same recommendations.

»I know an amazing woman who has been self-treating for pancreatic cancer for

FOUR YEARS. Astonishing to me. She is using organic coffee enemas 4 times a

day and food concentrates.

I wish your friend well. However she may be successful not because of the

coffee enemas but inspite of them.

Sometimes success is not as it appears.

Its why we value peer reviewed published data here.

Regards

jeff

[Guest guest]

>>Linus ing was quite adamant about keeping vitamin C high on a continuous basis. I think if more people realised the routine nature of cancer cell production, it would help them to select cancer treatment options and to avoid the terror that can be handed down with a cancer diagnoses. http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/vitamins/vitaminC/ http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pauling.html

[Guest guest]

And often, science is not as it appears. ;> Thanks for your wishes for my

friend. I have no opinion on why she is still living, but I study her

closely.

I am well aware of the controversy surrounding ing and his work and

ethics. I was working at the Scripps Institute when Linus ing was local.

I remember him and another noted researcher going back and forth - I will

remember the name sometime after I have emailed this - over just such

topics. I remember the debate in the immunopathology labs in which I

worked. Nonetheless, Linus ing outlived Roy Wolford by a significant

margin. I know, I know, a sample of one. But interesting nonetheless.

Research is very important, but each study creates artifact that can limit

the relevance of its findings. And each is a small, contorted view - like a

picture that is awkwardly posed. It is oft demonstrated that " in vivo " can

be very different from " in vitro " . And as we learn from quantum mechanics,

the observer does influence the outcome of an experiment - even when not

falsifying data, as and Crick, Mendell and many other noted

researchers have been acused of, or found, doing. I love science, but I

love it with its warts and limitations. In order to apply the findings of

science, we must see those warts and limitations. I find that rather than

participating in science, many times we rely on the watered down

interpretations of studies, rather than rigorously examining the studies

themselves. If we would pride ourselves on being critical thinkers here, we

must be ready to truly evaluate research on its validity and merits, which,

as someone who has been paid by a university to review research conclusions

and design for faculty, is a lot of work and can require special tools that

many of us are not comfortable using. So we rely on the peer review system

more than perhaps we should, as that system also has serious flaws.

Perhaps, peer review, challenged by careful review and testing, completes a

system for evaluating science. Peer review by itself is not infallible. It

just gives us a place to start.

Best,

Kayce

From: Novick <chefjeff40@...>

Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 09:35:20 -0400

» Linus ing was quite adamant about keeping vitamin C high on a

continuous basis. I think if more people realised the routine

nature of cancer cell production, it would help them to select cancer

treatment options and to avoid the terror that can be handed down with a

cancer diagnoses.

I agree that the more we know about cancer the better we can choose

treatment options.

However Linus ings work has not stood the test of time.. has been

challenged.. and some of his data may have been falsified. And the LP

Institute no longer makes the same recommendations.

»I know an amazing woman who has been self-treating for pancreatic cancer

for FOUR YEARS. Astonishing to me. She is using organic coffee enemas 4

times a day and food concentrates.

I wish your friend well. However she may be successful not because of the

coffee enemas but inspite of them.

Sometimes success is not as it appears.

Its why we value peer reviewed published data here.

Regards

jeff

[Guest guest]

..>>So we rely on the peer review system more than perhaps we should, as that system also has serious flaws. Perhaps, peer review, challenged by careful review and testing, completes a system for evaluating science. Peer review by itself is not infallible. Thats why I said we "value" peer review, not that it was the "end all" or "be all". Its also why we look for consistant evidence, trends, similarities, etc..and not outlying anecdotal evidence, and have discussions here over it all, Sure, science has its limited but when used properly and intelligently, whats better? I am always amazed at how people will dismiss something based on certain criteria, and then accept something else, even though it does a worse job in meeting that same criteria they set. ie.. People will dismiss something because they say the evidence is "weak" and

without strong evidence it shouldnt be accepted, and then accept something that has absolutely no evidence. Be WellJeff