--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Hugo" <richardhughes103@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > <snip> > > > (There's a *lot* more to the dismissal of the suit; > > > it would take me quite awhile to even outline it.) > > > > If you have any links I'd be interested to take a look. > > Aiee. The problem is the various pieces of it are > scattered throughout many dozens of posts on alt.m.t > over a couple of years as the story gradually unfolded > (Skolnick dragging his feet the whole way). I'll see > if I can figure out a way to put all the relevant > facts in a few paragraphs, but I can't do it right now.
Fair enough, If you do get time that would be cool. > > because all this is simply folk medicine with no > > actual known results to back up it's claims so why is it > > considered such a big deal by the TMO, it's only because > > it's ancient and Indian. > > Some cancer patients apparently did have good results > using MA-V as adjunctive therapy to mitigate the side > effects of chemo and radiation. As you probably know, > mitigating side effects isn't just a matter of making > life more pleasant for the cancer patient; in some cases > the side effects themselves are life-threatening, and > in other cases they're so debilitating that the patient > refuses further treatment. The only thing to do in such > cases is to reduce the therapeutic dosage of chemo and > radiation, which means the therapy is less effective > against the cancer. > > So anything that can reduce the side effects is making > a major contribution to the potential success of the > medical therapy. I can't deny it's interesting but it seems that a lot of co-operation would have to take place between doctors, I hope they are looking into it, might have helped my friends and many more besides. I do think the Vedic worship in the TMO has a lot to answer for, I don't see blind faith as useful, ever. > (There's an associated Skolnick story here, which again > I don't have time now to relate but may get around to > later on.) If you post it, I'll read it. > > > > > Remember who he was working for at the time. > > > > Conspiracy? Paid off by the big-pharma to rubbish > > MAV? Big claims. Be careful, you could get sued. > > Um, didn't suggest any such thing, Hugo. He was > working for an official publication of the American > Medical Association, which has an obvious interest > in debunking nonmedical therapies. Any committed > employee of a company or organization is going to > want to do what s/he can to advance his or her > employer's interests. Skolnick had motivation to be > zealous in his employer's cause. Sorry, I meant to put a smiley face at the end of the 'sued' sentence, here's one to make up for it ;-). I'm sort of right though aren't I, but I think that if there are discoveries to be made in herbal medicine the first thing that happens is the big pharma companies get hold of it and extract the active ingredient. There could be money in there. > > > More than anything else, that's why I consider Skolnick > > > a loathesome individual. > > > > I can't judge him yet, I'll have to read more as I've only > > skimmed through it today. I like a lot of what he says on > > his website, I'm more open minded that the hard-core skeptics > > but love the way they put their money on the line to get > > people to try and prove any paranormal claims. Not that > > that includes MAV of course. > > You may find it of interest that Skolnick considers > James Randi to be his mentor. At one point years > back on the newsgroup sci.skeptic, he posted a > fulsome tribute to Randi in which he referred to him > as St. George slaying the dragon of pseudoscience > (I kid you not). > > I'm no fan of Randi. He's exposed some frauds, which > is useful; but he considers anything "paranormal" to > be a fraud a priori, so his objectivity is in serious > question. Skolnick takes the same attitude: kill 'em > all and let God sort 'em out. I like what Randi does, but only up to a point. His million dollar prize if you can prove the paranormal is pure genius, he's had allsorts of jokers step forward. Where I disagree is his "If I can fake it, everyone else must be too" position. I saw him on a show where he pretended to be a medium and gave some amazing readings, causing people in the audience to burst into tears when he gave them accurate info about deceased relatives. When the presenter unvieled him as a skeptic demonstrating that anyone could be fooled by cold- reading there was astonishment as some of the stuff he unearthed was too incredibly accurate. Turned out he'd had the names and addresses of everyone in the audience and a team of researchers to check them out, so he knew who to go for when he came onstage. "Genuine" mediums on the show were outraged that he insists they *must* be doing that to get the same results as him. It was cheating, I went off him a bit there. Not that I actually believe you can talk to the dead of course, but you've got to fight fair. > Tangential coda: Skolnick was subsequently fired, > or asked to resign, from JAMA some years later, > apparently because he put up a fight against the > firing of George Lundberg, the editor in chief. > > Lundberg was fired because he had run a study in > JAMA during the Monica Lewinsky crisis that showed a > majority of college students didn't consider blow > jobs to qualify as "having sex with," as in, "I did > not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." > > The powers that be in the AMA considered the > publication of the study to have been an inappropriate > political statement; Lundberg was given the boot, > Skolnick along with him: How bizarre! Seems a bit po-faced but you can't doubt their commitment to editorial integrity can you ;-) PS Blow jobs aren't sex.
