Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sushan]

This topic is related to the philosophical book for the month of July Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure by Sylvie Beljanski

https://forums.onlinebookclub.org/shelv ... ?id=264811


Western medicine has established methods of treating various cancers and none of them include treatments with plant extracts. People who strongly believe in western medicine even tend to criticize such suggestion. In such a context will this author be able to shake their beliefs? Is her writing and the evidence she has shown are strong enough to face the sceptics? If you are a sceptic what are your actual thoughts about these alternative treatment modalities?

[LuckyR]

This topic is related to the philosophical book for the month of July Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure by Sylvie Beljanski

https://forums.onlinebookclub.org/shelv ... ?id=264811


Western medicine has established methods of treating various cancers and none of them include treatments with plant extracts. People who strongly believe in western medicine even tend to criticize such suggestion. In such a context will this author be able to shake their beliefs? Is her writing and the evidence she has shown are strong enough to face the sceptics? If you are a sceptic what are your actual thoughts about these alternative treatment modalities?

You're approaching this issue illogically. Forget the suggestion, forget the skepticism. This author needs to fund a study to compare her treatment with conventional treatment. If it is significantly better statistically, great, she will rightly earn a place in the pantheon of oncology. Until then, writing books for the lay public, is just a way of selling books (not treating patients).

[Sushan]

This topic is related to the philosophical book for the month of July Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure by Sylvie Beljanski

https://forums.onlinebookclub.org/shelv ... ?id=264811


Western medicine has established methods of treating various cancers and none of them include treatments with plant extracts. People who strongly believe in western medicine even tend to criticize such suggestion. In such a context will this author be able to shake their beliefs? Is her writing and the evidence she has shown are strong enough to face the sceptics? If you are a sceptic what are your actual thoughts about these alternative treatment modalities?

You're approaching this issue illogically. Forget the suggestion, forget the skepticism. This author needs to fund a study to compare her treatment with conventional treatment. If it is significantly better, statistically, great, she will rightly earn a place in the pantheon of oncology. Until then, writing books for the lay public, is just a way of selling books (not treating patients).

Yes, it is the proper way of including a drug or a treatment regime to a treatment protocol, by research and experiments, and also comparing the result of such studies. Seemingly this author's father has tried to go in that path but has been crushed by the jealousy of the sceptics (as per the author). So will there be any difference if the author took the same approach? Won't it be better if she started a discussion in the society regarding the subject through this book and then go into the conventional methods of research and experiment?

[LuckyR]

This topic is related to the philosophical book for the month of July Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure by Sylvie Beljanski

https://forums.onlinebookclub.org/shelv ... ?id=264811


Western medicine has established methods of treating various cancers and none of them include treatments with plant extracts. People who strongly believe in western medicine even tend to criticize such suggestion. In such a context will this author be able to shake their beliefs? Is her writing and the evidence she has shown are strong enough to face the sceptics? If you are a sceptic what are your actual thoughts about these alternative treatment modalities?

You're approaching this issue illogically. Forget the suggestion, forget the skepticism. This author needs to fund a study to compare her treatment with conventional treatment. If it is significantly better, statistically, great, she will rightly earn a place in the pantheon of oncology. Until then, writing books for the lay public, is just a way of selling books (not treating patients).

Yes, it is the proper way of including a drug or a treatment regime to a treatment protocol, by research and experiments, and also comparing the result of such studies. Seemingly this author's father has tried to go in that path but has been crushed by the jealousy of the sceptics (as per the author). So will there be any difference if the author took the same approach? Won't it be better if she started a discussion in the society regarding the subject through this book and then go into the conventional methods of research and experiment?

Uummm... no. That's not the way it works. Sorry.

[Sushan]

This topic is related to the philosophical book for the month of July Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure by Sylvie Beljanski

https://forums.onlinebookclub.org/shelv ... ?id=264811


Western medicine has established methods of treating various cancers and none of them include treatments with plant extracts. People who strongly believe in western medicine even tend to criticize such suggestion. In such a context will this author be able to shake their beliefs? Is her writing and the evidence she has shown are strong enough to face the sceptics? If you are a sceptic what are your actual thoughts about these alternative treatment modalities?

You're approaching this issue illogically. Forget the suggestion, forget the skepticism. This author needs to fund a study to compare her treatment with conventional treatment. If it is significantly better, statistically, great, she will rightly earn a place in the pantheon of oncology. Until then, writing books for the lay public, is just a way of selling books (not treating patients).

Yes, it is the proper way of including a drug or a treatment regime to a treatment protocol, by research and experiments, and also comparing the result of such studies. Seemingly this author's father has tried to go in that path but has been crushed by the jealousy of the sceptics (as per the author). So will there be any difference if the author took the same approach? Won't it be better if she started a discussion in the society regarding the subject through this book and then go into the conventional methods of research and experiment?

Uummm... no. That's not the way it works. Sorry.

Well, I think that way is applicable to many things in various other fields. One such a field is politics. Politicians start a discussion regarding something in the community and then ultimately it will be either accepted or rejected by the community iitself. I agree that that is not the ideal or accepted way for a drug approval. But what can this author do if her father's findings are unfairly suppressed and rejected from being tested for efficacy due to conspiracies by the big pharmaceutical companies?

[LuckyR]

You're approaching this issue illogically. Forget the suggestion, forget the skepticism. This author needs to fund a study to compare her treatment with conventional treatment. If it is significantly better, statistically, great, she will rightly earn a place in the pantheon of oncology. Until then, writing books for the lay public, is just a way of selling books (not treating patients).

Yes, it is the proper way of including a drug or a treatment regime to a treatment protocol, by research and experiments, and also comparing the result of such studies. Seemingly this author's father has tried to go in that path but has been crushed by the jealousy of the sceptics (as per the author). So will there be any difference if the author took the same approach? Won't it be better if she started a discussion in the society regarding the subject through this book and then go into the conventional methods of research and experiment?

Uummm... no. That's not the way it works. Sorry.

Well, I think that way is applicable to many things in various other fields. One such a field is politics. Politicians start a discussion regarding something in the community and then ultimately it will be either accepted or rejected by the community iitself. I agree that that is not the ideal or accepted way for a drug approval. But what can this author do if her father's findings are unfairly suppressed and rejected from being tested for efficacy due to conspiracies by the big pharmaceutical companies?

So who is supposed to test a researcher's findings? The researcher, initially publishes their findings in a peer reviewed journal. Later, if the drug is going to be sold, the drug companies who are going to sell it are required by the government to test it for safety and efficacy. But first things first. Before the drug companies get involved the primary researcher publishes their study findings. Did the author's father do that?

[Sushan]

Yes, it is the proper way of including a drug or a treatment regime to a treatment protocol, by research and experiments, and also comparing the result of such studies. Seemingly this author's father has tried to go in that path but has been crushed by the jealousy of the sceptics (as per the author). So will there be any difference if the author took the same approach? Won't it be better if she started a discussion in the society regarding the subject through this book and then go into the conventional methods of research and experiment?

Uummm... no. That's not the way it works. Sorry.

Well, I think that way is applicable to many things in various other fields. One such a field is politics. Politicians start a discussion regarding something in the community and then ultimately it will be either accepted or rejected by the community iitself. I agree that that is not the ideal or accepted way for a drug approval. But what can this author do if her father's findings are unfairly suppressed and rejected from being tested for efficacy due to conspiracies by the big pharmaceutical companies?

So who is supposed to test a researcher's findings? The researcher, initially publishes their findings in a peer reviewed journal. Later, if the drug is going to be sold, the drug companies who are going to sell it are required by the government to test it for safety and efficacy. But first things first. Before the drug companies get involved the primary researcher publishes their study findings. Did the author's father do that?

As per the author her father tried to go along the proper path of first doing his researches and then taking its results to the people. But seemingly his process has been obstructed by the large pharmaceutical companies who saw it as a threat, and he has been even imprisoned. Seemingly that is why his daughter, the author, has chosen an alternative path.

[Sculptor1]

What will the skeptics say?
This one says do not waste your time and money on a book claiming to have medical advice written by a person who has zero scientific qualifications, and zero clinical experience. Lawyers are good at mking money, I've never heard of one curing a cancer.
There are thousands of fake life-style books, pseudo-science books, fortean times, mumbo-jumbo. There may be something of interest here, but useless without the rigours of scientific examination and experimentation, interpreted by people who have dedicated their lives to this area.
Lawyers are trined to win arguments regardless of truth. That is a very bad skill set for the aims of this book.

[LuckyR]

Uummm... no. That's not the way it works. Sorry.

Well, I think that way is applicable to many things in various other fields. One such a field is politics. Politicians start a discussion regarding something in the community and then ultimately it will be either accepted or rejected by the community iitself. I agree that that is not the ideal or accepted way for a drug approval. But what can this author do if her father's findings are unfairly suppressed and rejected from being tested for efficacy due to conspiracies by the big pharmaceutical companies?

So who is supposed to test a researcher's findings? The researcher, initially publishes their findings in a peer reviewed journal. Later, if the drug is going to be sold, the drug companies who are going to sell it are required by the government to test it for safety and efficacy. But first things first. Before the drug companies get involved the primary researcher publishes their study findings. Did the author's father do that?

As per the author her father tried to go along the proper path of first doing his researches and then taking its results to the people. But seemingly his process has been obstructed by the large pharmaceutical companies who saw it as a threat, and he has been even imprisoned. Seemingly that is why his daughter, the author, has chosen an alternative path.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'm not seeing it yet.

[Sushan]

What will the skeptics say?
This one says do not waste your time and money on a book claiming to have medical advice written by a person who has zero scientific qualifications, and zero clinical experience. Lawyers are good at mking money, I've never heard of one curing a cancer.
There are thousands of fake life-style books, pseudo-science books, fortean times, mumbo-jumbo. There may be something of interest here, but useless without the rigours of scientific examination and experimentation, interpreted by people who have dedicated their lives to this area.
Lawyers are trined to win arguments regardless of truth. That is a very bad skill set for the aims of this book.

I cannot totally disagree with you since the lawyers have that bad reputation of proving even wrong things with their ability to argue and convince the opposing parties. But at the same time I would like to give this author some credit as some chance to bring forth her father's work. I think it is fair to give the suggested medicine to go through the proper path of accepting a new drug. After that process the authorities will decide whether to accept or reject it.

[Sculptor1]

What will the skeptics say?
This one says do not waste your time and money on a book claiming to have medical advice written by a person who has zero scientific qualifications, and zero clinical experience. Lawyers are good at mking money, I've never heard of one curing a cancer.
There are thousands of fake life-style books, pseudo-science books, fortean times, mumbo-jumbo. There may be something of interest here, but useless without the rigours of scientific examination and experimentation, interpreted by people who have dedicated their lives to this area.
Lawyers are trined to win arguments regardless of truth. That is a very bad skill set for the aims of this book.

I cannot totally disagree with you since the lawyers have that bad reputation of proving even wrong things with their ability to argue and convince the opposing parties. But at the same time I would like to give this author some credit as some chance to bring forth her father's work. I think it is fair to give the suggested medicine to go through the proper path of accepting a new drug. After that process the authorities will decide whether to accept or reject it.

I seriously doubt she has much that has not been tried again and again.
For example, in the UK, there was a serious attempt, with much money spent and many happy volunteers to thouroughly examine a large range of alternative cancer treatments. The "Bristol Centre", whose exact name I cannot recall existed for many years, but admitted that all the alternative treatments that were tried has only caused harm to the willing volunteers and had failed to demonstrate any useful effects. The centre closed around 1992. Despite the scientific scrutiny and failure those treatments are still peddled by quacks on the Internet.

I would not be surprised to find that most countries have major research projects ongoing, paid by governement and charities. For example, the UK has "Cancer Research UK", with 40,000 volunteers 3,000 staff and a revenue of £600 million per year.
I doubt that one man's efforts, and his faithful daughter however well meaning, has much to compare with CRUK, and all the other institutions and research facilities the world over.

Addemnum.
It's also worth considering just how vested her personal interests are in peddling "natural cures"..
Here's her biography.. (from Amazon) £15 to buy the book
Sylvie Beljanski is a health advocate for holistic medicine, public speaker, award-winning author and entrepreneur. She is the Vice President of The Beljanski Foundation, whose mission is to research natural approaches to cancer and CEO of Maison Beljanski, an international dietary supplement company that strives to help people Feel Better Naturally.

Check out her website maisonbeljanski, where you can buy "detox" and mud at expensive prices
Pots of skin cream for 50 euros, 90 for snake oil

[Sushan]

What will the skeptics say?
This one says do not waste your time and money on a book claiming to have medical advice written by a person who has zero scientific qualifications, and zero clinical experience. Lawyers are good at mking money, I've never heard of one curing a cancer.
There are thousands of fake life-style books, pseudo-science books, fortean times, mumbo-jumbo. There may be something of interest here, but useless without the rigours of scientific examination and experimentation, interpreted by people who have dedicated their lives to this area.
Lawyers are trined to win arguments regardless of truth. That is a very bad skill set for the aims of this book.

I cannot totally disagree with you since the lawyers have that bad reputation of proving even wrong things with their ability to argue and convince the opposing parties. But at the same time I would like to give this author some credit as some chance to bring forth her father's work. I think it is fair to give the suggested medicine to go through the proper path of accepting a new drug. After that process the authorities will decide whether to accept or reject it.

I seriously doubt she has much that has not been tried again and again.
For example, in the UK, there was a serious attempt, with much money spent and many happy volunteers to thouroughly examine a large range of alternative cancer treatments. The "Bristol Centre", whose exact name I cannot recall existed for many years, but admitted that all the alternative treatments that were tried has only caused harm to the willing volunteers and had failed to demonstrate any useful effects. The centre closed around 1992. Despite the scientific scrutiny and failure those treatments are still peddled by quacks on the Internet.

I would not be surprised to find that most countries have major research projects ongoing, paid by governement and charities. For example, the UK has "Cancer Research UK", with 40,000 volunteers 3,000 staff and a revenue of £600 million per year.
I doubt that one man's efforts, and his faithful daughter however well meaning, has much to compare with CRUK, and all the other institutions and research facilities the world over.

Addemnum.
It's also worth considering just how vested her personal interests are in peddling "natural cures"..
Here's her biography.. (from Amazon) £15 to buy the book
Sylvie Beljanski is a health advocate for holistic medicine, public speaker, award-winning author and entrepreneur. She is the Vice President of The Beljanski Foundation, whose mission is to research natural approaches to cancer and CEO of Maison Beljanski, an international dietary supplement company that strives to help people Feel Better Naturally.

Check out her website maisonbeljanski, where you can buy "detox" and mud at expensive prices
Pots of skin cream for 50 euros, 90 for snake oil

Well, she is an entrepreneur and definitely her thoughts on natural medicine are not solely for the benefit of the thousands of cancer patients, but for her and her organization's benefit as well. But if her drugs can actually do miracles I do not envy her being rich by selling her medicine. Not only me but also the many cancer patients who might be cured will never think that she got rich by selling them medicine, but will think as she gave them life. If she can do that what is wrong in giving her a chance?

[Sculptor1]

What will the skeptics say?
This one says do not waste your time and money on a book claiming to have medical advice written by a person who has zero scientific qualifications, and zero clinical experience. Lawyers are good at mking money, I've never heard of one curing a cancer.
There are thousands of fake life-style books, pseudo-science books, fortean times, mumbo-jumbo. There may be something of interest here, but useless without the rigours of scientific examination and experimentation, interpreted by people who have dedicated their lives to this area.
Lawyers are trined to win arguments regardless of truth. That is a very bad skill set for the aims of this book.

I cannot totally disagree with you since the lawyers have that bad reputation of proving even wrong things with their ability to argue and convince the opposing parties. But at the same time I would like to give this author some credit as some chance to bring forth her father's work. I think it is fair to give the suggested medicine to go through the proper path of accepting a new drug. After that process the authorities will decide whether to accept or reject it.

I seriously doubt she has much that has not been tried again and again.
For example, in the UK, there was a serious attempt, with much money spent and many happy volunteers to thouroughly examine a large range of alternative cancer treatments. The "Bristol Centre", whose exact name I cannot recall existed for many years, but admitted that all the alternative treatments that were tried has only caused harm to the willing volunteers and had failed to demonstrate any useful effects. The centre closed around 1992. Despite the scientific scrutiny and failure those treatments are still peddled by quacks on the Internet.

I would not be surprised to find that most countries have major research projects ongoing, paid by governement and charities. For example, the UK has "Cancer Research UK", with 40,000 volunteers 3,000 staff and a revenue of £600 million per year.
I doubt that one man's efforts, and his faithful daughter however well meaning, has much to compare with CRUK, and all the other institutions and research facilities the world over.

Addemnum.
It's also worth considering just how vested her personal interests are in peddling "natural cures"..
Here's her biography.. (from Amazon) £15 to buy the book
Sylvie Beljanski is a health advocate for holistic medicine, public speaker, award-winning author and entrepreneur. She is the Vice President of The Beljanski Foundation, whose mission is to research natural approaches to cancer and CEO of Maison Beljanski, an international dietary supplement company that strives to help people Feel Better Naturally.

Check out her website maisonbeljanski, where you can buy "detox" and mud at expensive prices
Pots of skin cream for 50 euros, 90 for snake oil

Well, she is an entrepreneur and definitely her thoughts on natural medicine are not solely for the benefit of the thousands of cancer patients, but for her and her organization's benefit as well. But if her drugs can actually do miracles I do not envy her being rich by selling her medicine. Not only me but also the many cancer patients who might be cured will never think that she got rich by selling them medicine, but will think as she gave them life. If she can do that what is wrong in giving her a chance?

Everything is wrong with that
People DIE.
This is not a game. I've had cancer and take it seriously.

[Sushan]

I cannot totally disagree with you since the lawyers have that bad reputation of proving even wrong things with their ability to argue and convince the opposing parties. But at the same time I would like to give this author some credit as some chance to bring forth her father's work. I think it is fair to give the suggested medicine to go through the proper path of accepting a new drug. After that process the authorities will decide whether to accept or reject it.

I seriously doubt she has much that has not been tried again and again.
For example, in the UK, there was a serious attempt, with much money spent and many happy volunteers to thouroughly examine a large range of alternative cancer treatments. The "Bristol Centre", whose exact name I cannot recall existed for many years, but admitted that all the alternative treatments that were tried has only caused harm to the willing volunteers and had failed to demonstrate any useful effects. The centre closed around 1992. Despite the scientific scrutiny and failure those treatments are still peddled by quacks on the Internet.

I would not be surprised to find that most countries have major research projects ongoing, paid by governement and charities. For example, the UK has "Cancer Research UK", with 40,000 volunteers 3,000 staff and a revenue of £600 million per year.
I doubt that one man's efforts, and his faithful daughter however well meaning, has much to compare with CRUK, and all the other institutions and research facilities the world over.

Addemnum.
It's also worth considering just how vested her personal interests are in peddling "natural cures"..
Here's her biography.. (from Amazon) £15 to buy the book
Sylvie Beljanski is a health advocate for holistic medicine, public speaker, award-winning author and entrepreneur. She is the Vice President of The Beljanski Foundation, whose mission is to research natural approaches to cancer and CEO of Maison Beljanski, an international dietary supplement company that strives to help people Feel Better Naturally.

Check out her website maisonbeljanski, where you can buy "detox" and mud at expensive prices
Pots of skin cream for 50 euros, 90 for snake oil

Well, she is an entrepreneur and definitely her thoughts on natural medicine are not solely for the benefit of the thousands of cancer patients, but for her and her organization's benefit as well. But if her drugs can actually do miracles I do not envy her being rich by selling her medicine. Not only me but also the many cancer patients who might be cured will never think that she got rich by selling them medicine, but will think as she gave them life. If she can do that what is wrong in giving her a chance?

Everything is wrong with that
People DIE.
This is not a game. I've had cancer and take it seriously.

I do not say this is a game, or an issue that does not need serious attention. Though I do not have first hand experience, I have seen hundreds of cancer patients during my clinical training and have seen what they go through. That is why I say we have to consider each and every option to use in this war against cancer. What if a very much vague and a seemingly irrelevant thing do a miracle and cure cancer? We do not have to accept rubbish, but I think it is good to consider every potential option.

[Sculptor1]

I seriously doubt she has much that has not been tried again and again.
For example, in the UK, there was a serious attempt, with much money spent and many happy volunteers to thouroughly examine a large range of alternative cancer treatments. The "Bristol Centre", whose exact name I cannot recall existed for many years, but admitted that all the alternative treatments that were tried has only caused harm to the willing volunteers and had failed to demonstrate any useful effects. The centre closed around 1992. Despite the scientific scrutiny and failure those treatments are still peddled by quacks on the Internet.

I would not be surprised to find that most countries have major research projects ongoing, paid by governement and charities. For example, the UK has "Cancer Research UK", with 40,000 volunteers 3,000 staff and a revenue of £600 million per year.
I doubt that one man's efforts, and his faithful daughter however well meaning, has much to compare with CRUK, and all the other institutions and research facilities the world over.

Addemnum.
It's also worth considering just how vested her personal interests are in peddling "natural cures"..
Here's her biography.. (from Amazon) £15 to buy the book
Sylvie Beljanski is a health advocate for holistic medicine, public speaker, award-winning author and entrepreneur. She is the Vice President of The Beljanski Foundation, whose mission is to research natural approaches to cancer and CEO of Maison Beljanski, an international dietary supplement company that strives to help people Feel Better Naturally.

Check out her website maisonbeljanski, where you can buy "detox" and mud at expensive prices
Pots of skin cream for 50 euros, 90 for snake oil

Well, she is an entrepreneur and definitely her thoughts on natural medicine are not solely for the benefit of the thousands of cancer patients, but for her and her organization's benefit as well. But if her drugs can actually do miracles I do not envy her being rich by selling her medicine. Not only me but also the many cancer patients who might be cured will never think that she got rich by selling them medicine, but will think as she gave them life. If she can do that what is wrong in giving her a chance?

Everything is wrong with that
People DIE.
This is not a game. I've had cancer and take it seriously.

I do not say this is a game, or an issue that does not need serious attention. Though I do not have first hand experience, I have seen hundreds of cancer patients during my clinical training and have seen what they go through. That is why I say we have to consider each and every option to use in this war against cancer. What if a very much vague and a seemingly irrelevant thing do a miracle and cure cancer? We do not have to accept rubbish, but I think it is good to consider every potential option.

People read these books; they give them a "chance" as you put it, and then they die because they echew standard proven treatments in favour of the novel treatments in these sort of books.
What am I not managing to convey here?