------------------------------------------------------------------------
* G * O * A * N * E * T **** C * L * A * S * S * I * F * I * E * D * S *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enjoy your holiday in Goa. Stay at THE GARCA BRANCA from November to May
There is no better, value for money, guest house.
Confirm your bookings early or miss-out
Visit http://www.garcabranca.com for details/booking/confirmation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
--- Filomena Giese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> While about a dozen Goanet argu-pros have been
> debating whether Santosh is an indecent, mo-f
in
> (to use a traditional American epithet that
> deserves to be added to the Goanet lexicon of
> insults) atheist, and a lamebrain pseudo-scientist,
> daring to question the latest research quoted by
> Gilbert about cancer operations as indisputable
> fact and good medical practice, the rest of us
> 6,990 readers have been thinking
. and gearing up
> to contribute our 2 cents worth.
>
> Gilbert was talking about how the latest cancer
> research about the effect of operations on tumors
> validates the old kaneos that operations spread
> cancer.
>
> My own experience with "the latest research" is just
> the opposite.
>
Mario responds:
>
Without discounting anyone's "own experience", perhaps
it would have far more credibility if the new
"argu-am", Filomena, started off with a preamble that
even remotely resembled what had actually transpired
previously.
>
To begin with, Gilbert did not suggest that new
research validated old Goan kaneos. That is what
Santosh falsely alleged. Gilbert explained how an
observed correlation that led to the kaneos of Goan
grandmothers could be explained by a more medically
supportable explanation that had to do with a
suppression of the immune system.
>
Nowhere in his post did Gilbert suggest that the old
kaneos had been validated, or that essential cancer
surgery should be avoided. It would have been more
useful to question what he said rather than attack him
unilaterally.
>
Santosh's attack started off as follows:
>
"The post appended below propagates dangerous myths
and misinformation regarding cancer treatment in this
public forum."
>
"Here is a link to an article from the Mayo Clinic,
debunking the myth that tumor spreads when it is
exposed to air, and the misinformation that some
experiment in mice showed that this mythical
observation was accurate:" [end of excerpt]
>
Nowhere in his post had Gilbert said that tumors
spread when exposed to air. In fact, he sought to
explain that they did not. No dangerous myth was
being propagated.
>
We now see that Filomena was also unable to understand
the gist of Gilbert's comments. Either that, or she
had not taken the trouble to read Gilbert's post
before her own "rush to judgement" and her personal
anecdote that concludes that medical specialists
should pay attention to each other's opinions.
>
Who can disagree with this generality, but how is it
relevant to what had actually transpired in the
discussion on Goanet?
>
Filomena writes:
>
> Moral of the story: the "latest research" might
> turn out to be a myth. Santosh, in warning us not
> to rush to judgement and give up operations for
> cancer just because the latest research says this
> or that, is not half wrong.
>
Mario responds:
>
The latest research may also turn out to be true.
>
Unfortunately for Filomena's "rush to harangue", there
was no "rush to judgement" in Gilbert's conclusion
which was as follows:
>
"...Yet I encourage all patients to use every option
available to improve their chance of being cured -
especially approaches that have no side-effects and
are cheap. I would not encourage patients to use
these alternatives as a subsitute to proven
treatments.... etc.".
>
Did this conclusion justify the opening statement in
Santosh's attack, "The post appended below propagates
dangerous myths and misinformation regarding cancer
treatment in this public forum." We're talking here
about one physician who is not a cancer specialist
attacking a colleague who is a cancer specialist who
had tried to explain some Goan kaneos as they relate
to some cancer situations while making the appropriate
disclaimers.
>
Filomena is strangely silent on this salient point and
the attitude it displays.
>
Filomena writes:
>
> My life-threatening situation arose because the
> gynecologist didnt pay attention to the
> neurologist. Now, if defenders of our resident
> Goanet gynecologist, Gilbert, were to pay
> respectful attention to our resident Goanet
> neurologist, Santosh, who knows, we may well be on
> the way to achieving peace and amity on Goanet
..
>
Mario observes:
>
In Gilbert's scenario there was no patient, no medical
specialists that needed to consult each other, and
so no one that needed to pay attention to anyone
else's opinion on a case before them.
>
Obviously, as I have clearly shown above, Filomena's
harangue has it backwards as to who was disrespecting
whom in this instance.
>
_______________________________________________
Goanet mailing list
Goanet@lists.goanet.org
http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
