Slashdot Mirror

There are serious ethical concerns with giving a placebo where giving no treatment is substantially worse. You'd basically be condemning them to a death if you did that. That's why, in these kinds of circumstances, the experimental treatment is compared to the current accepted standard of treatment.

This kind of treatment has been in the experimental phases since at least 2011, and has undergone clinical trials;

http://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10...

http://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10...

And I believe this link, from 2011, is a press release announcing the approval of the trial discussed in this particular story. I'm not 100% sure, but the names and terminology match up...

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/...

=Smidge=

There are serious ethical concerns with giving a placebo where giving no treatment is substantially worse. You'd basically be condemning them to a death if you did that. That's why, in these kinds of circumstances, the experimental treatment is compared to the current accepted standard of treatment.

This kind of treatment has been in the experimental phases since at least 2011, and has undergone clinical trials;

http://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10...

http://ascopubs.org/doi/abs/10...

And I believe this link, from 2011, is a press release announcing the approval of the trial discussed in this particular story. I'm not 100% sure, but the names and terminology match up...

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/...

=Smidge=

Sigh. The correct response was to not get all defensive. You disappoint me.

And I know many, many people who make shit up and then claim it's a major breakthrough. Your point?

My point was that knowledge doesn't imply wisdom. You are making this plain by avoiding the point by changing the subject. That's the behavior of a child.

No, you'd just have to supply a link to the peer reviewed papers. Yet you have not.

Yes I did. But you just chose to pretend that I didn't. Here's another link which performed a meta-analysis of peer-reviewed papers on the subject. . .

http://jco.ascopubs.org/cgi/content/abstract/JCO.2008.21.6366v1

Here's another sixty or so papers presented in a document which have been peer-reviewed/refereed before inclusion.
http://www.radiationresearch.org/pdfs/20090407_competence_genes_mobile_phones.pdf

It's just more hand-waving about 'the truth is out there'. I've wasted enough time following the evidence trails of crackpots. I will not waste further time until the "extraordinary proof" level has been reached.

Talk is cheap. I have my doubts that you've explored much of anything with that attitude. Also, if you had, you wouldn't be asking questions which show such basic pieces of ignorance in this field, so I'm going to call bullshit on you.

Htz is the stock ticker for Hertz rent-a-car, not a unit of measure. I'm going to assume you ment Hertz, which is abbreviated Hz. Anyway, 60Hz isn't RF. Cell phones transmit in the MHz-to-GHz range.

Oh, come now. Yes, I used the wrong notation. (But hey, it gave you the chance to show off your well-groomed dictionary knowledge.) Now dig into that knowledge base of yours and tell me what you know about, "Frequency Modulation". -Because biological systems will respond to both analog wave forms and those which are modulated from high frequencies. Again, the fact you don't know this common detail suggest to me that you need to research the subject and not wait around for so-called "extraordinary evidence" to show up without you having to look for it.

The Earth's magnetic field doesn't cycle much within a small area, and definitely not at a fixed frequency.

Yes, I know. The Earth's magnetic field doesn't have to move at all for the example I offered to work. I didn't say that it did, and if I gave you that impression then I do apologize.

As for the rest of your so-called example, you now have a 100+ year old technology that you claim is killing people, yet has not been linked to increased mortality. And considering your experiment contains fundamental flaws, such as believing the Earth's magnetic field pulses regularly, there really isn't reason to believe in the conclusions.

I think you need to slow down. You're mis-interpreting what I wrote and making false assumptions based on those interpretations. And I certainly don't think it's fair to place emphasis on the fact that, "I think this technology is killing people". That makes me sound hysterical, which I am certainly not. I've been quite clear in saying that whatever cancer risks may be present are not the focus of my interest. I'm interested in how EM can affect cognition and the nervous system in non-destructive ways.

I'm "stuck" on breaking chemical bonds because that is the only proven mechanism where EM causes disease.

"Proven" is a big word. You're talking about orthodox truth, which is spotty at best and agreed upon more by television broadcasters and public relations firms. And in any case, disease isn't the whole enchilada by a long shot. I keep telling you, I'm interested primarily in how EM affects cognition.

one without insurance and all are getting excellent treatment and aren't being financially ruined