What has hope got to do with science? Your assertion below is incorrect. We know that physical diseases have a biochemical basis, so we are correct to apply the scientific method and *suspect* that greater knowledge and/or a cure will result. This is why people fund the science of cancer research. It is based on the good reputation, good education, legacy of discoveries in the subject.
In the case of CF, there is none of this. It doesn't get past first base as there is no data and when there is claims of data, that data is flawed. There is no theory base too to make the real scientific community *suspect* that anything will come out of it. You're on the same level as the RAR people, though with a little more knowledge of science but it's all ad-hoc and you attempt to blind people with science on things like BECs, lanthanide contractions, relativistic effects on f-shells, plasmids because it sounds flash and like I said, you are playing at science, it's Cargo Cult Science. If the RAR/Besslers wheel people started talking all kinds of fancy Quantum Gravity, wormhole through space into extra dimensions, you'd suspect immediately that they had been watching too much Stargate and that a little bit of knowledge can fool all the people all the time. It's all Rodney Mackay bar the Canadian accent and comedy acting. This is how people who know about nuclear physics feel about the CF crowd - wannabes, amateurs, people mixing science fiction with science fact. On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Nigel Dyer <[email protected]> wrote: > It was, and is the hope that we will find cures for cancer that provides > the funds for many people such as myself to do the research that I am > doing. In a number of cases there was no scientific basis for the hope > when the research was started, but it funded the scientific research, and > science produced results. > > In other cases the hope has (to date) proved to be unfounded. > > Nigel >
