Thread: cancer cure?
View Single Post


December 21st, 2012, 00:51
Originally Posted by lilmagi View Post
"The uploader has not made this video available in your country. "

uhm, so what is it?
Your country has strong laws against making demonstrably false or misleading medical claims and the poster didn't feel like legal troubles if they ever felt like traveling there?

Actually the poster, New Video Digital, is a distributor which licenses those videos under an ad revenue sharing agreement with the IP owners and not directly associated with that particular video. So the real answer is they have not licensed it for your region/country. They do have Highlander for most regions though so if you want to watch something else in the fantasy genre that might be comparable.

Oh, what's the video? It's a documentary arguing for organic vegetarian juice diets as a cure for cancer and lauding the work of a German doctor who advocated crazy things like hydrogen peroxide enemas alongside a few quite sensible things like "eat less meat and wash your hands before surgery." The "cure for cancer" part isn't exactly something I'd put into the same category as washing your hands and not eating your own body weight in pig every month. The real problem with the documentary though is that it wholly relies on annectdotal examples of people who went through this regimen and also recovered. That makes for a good story but it is dishonest to say "hundreds of our patients recovered" and present that as somehow proving anything without also saying out of how many total.

That's about as compelling as listing several redheads you know who own bycicles and saying that's proof that red-hair causes bike ownership. It's also about as honest an argument as saying that then concealing how many redheads you know who don't own bycicles. It's a little more serious though because in this case the redheads they know who don't own bicycles would be analogous to the patients they treated and charged then died of cancer anyways.

It's a particularly glaring bit of bullshit because they are able to assert that many of our current cancer treatments are rather shitty because, as awful as the pharmaceutical industry is, we actually do have access to data on how many of their customers didn't get better.

Now anectdotes can be valuable in the scientific process and other forms of investigation and inquiring. They can help inform our questions but its a deception to pretend they answer them. If you were a doctor and noticed several of your patients improve dramatically after switching to a certain diet, those anectdotes might suggest to you that it would be worth examining in a double-blind scientific study even though they don't themselves constitute anything that could honestly be called proof.

Similarly if you noticed that supposed third party idependent reviews of pharmaceuticals were both paid for by the pharmaceutical companies who had a vested interest in their outcome and seemed be inordinately positive about those products - you might use that as the inspiration for comparing the accuracy of industry funded trials with wider post-release data sets to see if there was perhaps systemic bias in the former.

You also might notice that the extent of the credits for the executive producer of this "documentary" are pretty all films both sold by Gerson Media and universally glowingly positive about the treatments and products they just happen to sell. Just as one would question the objectivity and motives driving the production of a drug study funded entirely by the company that would like to make that drug, you might also wonder about this film.
Last edited by jhwisner; December 21st, 2012 at 01:43.
jhwisner is offline




Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,550