Pamela Shapiro wrote:
>In 1957 the ability to detect the presence of cancer in deep
>body tissue was quite poor. Even if the patient's evident
>tumors had regressed, malignant cells could still be present,
>but undetectable, within the blood, bone or other organs.
>The particular type of cancer is an important variable when
>interpreting such anecdotes, as many cancers follow a natural
>course of remission and advance even in the absence of treatment.
(snip)
>Give me mere data, give me molecular evidence of cure, give me
>science. Anecdotes make good reading, but unless they serve to
>illustrate real and measurable effects, they do more harm than
>good.
Great points; I couldn't agree more, Pamela. I had intended to imply this
in what I wrote,
but perhaps I did not do so clearly enough. I certainly would not
interpret that anecdote
(or experimental data that might corroborate it) as implying people are
responsible for
their cancer (or lack thereof), but you're right that some might. In fact,
now that you
brought it up, there was a program on NC Public TV this very morning
discussing the
personality factors that predict cancer. I couldn't tell whether it was a
recent program
(the clothing styles looked a little out of fashion, but they WERE
psychologists...),
but I was really surprised by the claims that were being made about "cancer
prone
personalities." Could someone illuminate me as to whether this is all bunk?
-Mike
************************************************
Michael J. Kane
Department of Psychology
P.O. Box 26164
University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Greensboro, NC 27402-6164
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
phone: 336-256-1022
fax: 336-334-5066
