If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Remember that boy who fled chemotherapy due to his religious beliefs? He's now free of cancer. Thank God. Or modern medicine, in this case   (foxnews.com) divider line 245
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

23189 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Nov 2009 at 5:05 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



245 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-11-08 06:02:28 PM  
Molavian: Modern medicine, weakening the human race one genetic defect at a time.

I wouldn't add that to your personal best troll list, but it's not too bad at all.
 
2009-11-08 06:03:17 PM  
misanthropic1: Manny Calavera: TheWizard
Might want to give Religion a bit for the whole holding together human civilization for a long enough time period for us to actually get science going in the first place.

Yes. The "religion, source of all evils" backlash tends to ignore the positive social benefits of the Christian church especially around c.600 to c.1100. For all the nostalgic reminiscing about the "honest pagans" and cynical observations about conversion by sword, the fact is that it was the monks who were the most progressive element of European society in that period - whether it be as regards education, slavery, medicine (crude as it was) or law.

And don't forget the crusades, they were awesome.


exactly.

people are always ready to gloss over history.

/what about all the good things Hitler did?
 
2009-11-08 06:03:18 PM  
Somaticasual: Why is it so hard to reconcile science and religion? If god's in charge, god gave us medicine and the technology to sustain life. If not, natural innovation did.

Because ((science+religion) - religion) is still useful, while (science+religion) - science) has no beneficial effects on human society whatsoever, except for purely accidental ones.
 
2009-11-08 06:03:24 PM  
ranold: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare

Nice retort.

On a related note, I would like to see the fundie head explosion that could come from the government forcing someone to get an abortion for life/health reasons. Perhaps the government could force feed meat products to a vegetarian dying from some protein deficiency.
 
2009-11-08 06:04:02 PM  
Wow, he is specially blessed! God cured him even though the courts forced him to have Chemo!

/sarcasm, not troll.
 
2009-11-08 06:04:17 PM  
Vangor:
Positive social benefits are not exactly demonstrable when the society is forcibly, literally and figuratively, Christian. Since the tendency is away from religiosity as we advance, I am of the mind faith has been a far greater hindrance than asset to us.


Unless without 'faith' we would never have gotten this far in the first place. Maybe it's less scary when viewed as an early component of society and civilization, warts and all - just as with many other early components.
 
2009-11-08 06:05:34 PM  
TheWizard: King Arthur Fonzarelli: Prank Call of Cthulhu: Science: 4,345,721,321
Religion: 0

I'd give Religion a few points for the same reason I'd give placebos a few points.

Might want to give Religion a bit for the whole holding together human civilization for a long enough time period for us to actually get science going in the first place.


Uh, religion was instrumental in bringing down the only modern civilization in the first 1000 years AD, and actively encouraged the new secular powers (which formed about .000001 seconds after the fall of Rome) to war against each other and not educate their citizens.

Yeah, "holding civilization together", that's what they were doing.

Good job recording all the knowledge except the knowledge necessary to maintain quality of life and repair existing technology too, by the way, Catholics. You had to rely on the mostly secular empire to the south (which you repeatedly tried to exterminate) to keep all the knowledge that was actually useful and develop new tech. Way. To. farking. Go.

//Religions not necessarily a bad thing, but it's never really that much help. Secular societies almost never have any trouble organizing themselves just as well in the complete absence of real religious influence

pedrop357: Woo-Hoo!

The ends justify the means!!! The ends justify the means!!!

If the government intrudes upon private decisions and the result is good, then it's OK that the government intruded upon private decisions!!

I hate fundies as much as the next person, but there are bigger issues here then some fundie kid declining treatment possibly under the influence of his parents.


He's a minor, and minors are not real people with respect to the law. This means laws can be made to protect him from himself. Once he's 18 he can deny all the life-saving he wants... I'd recommend doing so out in the middle of the ocean or something, though, to minimize overall cost to society.
 
2009-11-08 06:05:47 PM  
Quadruplator: Which religion?

The phony one that doesn't really heal disease.
 
2009-11-08 06:06:02 PM  
Fengen: snocone: BDR459: PCFX: Yay, my first greenlight!

/congrats

Congrats!

Shame story is BS. What did Jebus declare him cancer free or what? He still has one more session before treatment is complete and he is "cance free"?
Sorry, shenanigans!

Actually, he had his last treatment Friday. His family says he's cancer free, but they might just mean there aren't any symptoms they can see.

And yes, as far as I know, it's possible to be cancer-free before chemo is finished, since chemo is a powerful treatment and planned before treatment starts. If you're perscribed antibiotics, the bacteria might well be totally dead when you're 3/4 the way through the bottle, but you're still supposed to take it all. They want to make sure they get it all.

Do they ever do tests before chemo is finished to see if the cancer is still there?


Somebody made up the "cancer free" BS.
No legitimate medical practitioner said anything like that. Somebody might have said the x-rays or MRI (CAT is x-ray) show reduction of tumor size, maybe ablation, ON X-RAY. Not the same as a real time evaluation.
Yes, follow up testing starts in about 6 months, then a real doc might venture a progress assessment.
 
2009-11-08 06:06:06 PM  
Vangor: You do not understand an argument from authority as a fallacy, then, since the authority itself is used as the argument, not you are arguing from a position of authority and thus what you say should be received as more credible.

I'm aware of the fallacy, but I think in this case it's a little forced. I'm not saying that I'm a historian in lieu of an argument. I'm providing an argument and adding the reinforcement that I'm a historian to show that I do have sources.

Being a historian doesn't mean I'm right. The study of history is partly proving past historians were completely wrong, after all.
 
2009-11-08 06:06:44 PM  
Fr._Peter_Fitznuggly: Quadruplator: Which religion?

The phony one that doesn't really heal disease.


All of them? Got it!
 
2009-11-08 06:07:26 PM  
My cat is currently in remission and totally asymptomatic six months after being diagnosed with lymphoma and after having done only one round of chemo, so I am very much getting a kick, etc.

/YAY!
//cost a lot of money (mainly for the diagnosis phase), but worth every penny
///if not for marijuana, he prolly would have died
 
2009-11-08 06:08:41 PM  
Manny Calavera: jeblis: I'm sorry, how does that support the assertion that religion held society together long enough for science to develop?


/mentioning that you're a historian appears to be an attempt to "argue from authority"

Read it and you'll find out. But as this is unreasonable, Thomas shows how Church structures infiltrated popular and elite belief systems, thus producing both the basest superstition and the best science. If the argument here is that "religion" was key to the development of science, then I'd think that's relevant.

Being a professional historian on medieval history does give me the ability to "argue from authority". Why pretend otherwise?

I also typo'd Aquinas as "Aquinus" back there. I hope somebody catches me out on it, because I felt pretty silly.



The original statement had nothing to do with the origin of scientific thinking.

The original statement was that religion held society together long enough for it to develop. Are you suggesting that religion was required for science to develop? If anything, we see more evidence of it trying to hold back science.

/also

having/lacking credentials does not automatically make one right/wrong. Mentioning them is just a method of trying to weight your arguments as better. In reality your "authority" has no bearing on the validity of your statements.
 
2009-11-08 06:08:47 PM  
furiousxgeorge:
You're hired. Can I pay you in chickens?

I'm a vegetarian, but I think freeing the chickens even to be food would be the lesser evil.


You can eat chickens? I was thinking more along the lines of rape, but I suppose vegetarianism sort of precludes you from doing that too.
 
2009-11-08 06:09:12 PM  
Manny Calavera: But history is as history does, and for what it was, it did work to our benefit (and, often, against it)

No doubt, but what we are speaking of is whether the end result would be better with or without religion, and hence the contention. Unfortunately, I am doubtful our neurology would allow us to develop similarly without the ability for religion to manifest, thus I would say to our benefit is the ability of religion to manifest.
 
2009-11-08 06:10:43 PM  
Fengen:
Do they ever do tests before chemo is finished to see if the cancer is still there?


It depends on the cancer, the treatment, and what you mean by whether the cancer is "still there." (That last part can literally depend on the type and sensitivity of testing performed, and what are the standards for remission.) Many researchers argue that for most cancers, no one who is ever treated is ever truly clear of it again, it's simply a matter of whether it can be detected, and whether it ever escapes and presents itself again.

But certainly many cancer treatments involve ongoing assessment to determine response, and the extrapolation of broad expected outcome from different levels of response at different points in time and/or treatment.
 
2009-11-08 06:11:35 PM  
Jim_Callahan
Good job recording all the knowledge except the knowledge necessary to maintain quality of life and repair existing technology too, by the way, Catholics. You had to rely on the mostly secular empire to the south (which you repeatedly tried to exterminate) to keep all the knowledge that was actually useful and develop new tech. Way. To. farking. Go.

There is truth in this, in times and places, but the Islamic and Christian worlds both kept libraries (especially the Islamic), and monasteries tried their best to preserve the teachings of the "ancients"... particularly moving into the Renaissance, when Christian humanists decided it was crucial to record and preserve all knowledge.

FootInMouthDisease
And don't forget the crusades, they were awesome.

exactly.

people are always ready to gloss over history.

/what about all the good things Hitler did?

Trying to suggest that the Church never provided any positive social benefits "because of the crusades" is a very fine example of glossing over history.

I suggest that people are always ready to make history either one thing or the other.
 
2009-11-08 06:12:12 PM  
RealFarknMcCoy2: My cat is currently in remission and totally asymptomatic six months after being diagnosed with lymphoma and after having done only one round of chemo, so I am very much getting a kick, etc.

/YAY!
//cost a lot of money (mainly for the diagnosis phase), but worth every penny
///if not for marijuana, he prolly would have died


Congrats are due all 'round. Glad to hear your buddy is Ok.
Can cats tell the difference between mj and catnip(lot cheaper)?

o
 
2009-11-08 06:12:23 PM  
New Jeebus: Great- now he's back in the gene pool with his cancer genes and his parent's crazy worshipfulness predilections.

This is a genuine question, so feel free to call me out with links. Are the survivors of childhood cancers more likely to produce children who themselves develop cancer? I've never seen proof one way or the other, only anecdotes, and those anecdotes seem to lean towards "No."
 
2009-11-08 06:12:23 PM  
i224.photobucket.com
 
2009-11-08 06:12:44 PM  
Manny Calavera: I'm not saying that I'm a historian in lieu of an argument.

I do not mean to imply you are as I especially tried to stay away from such language, but I believe you were mistaken as to what an argument from authority was, nothing more.

To those others saying he is, shut up since you clearly do not know the fallacy either.
 
2009-11-08 06:13:20 PM  
While 13 is too young to make an informed decision, some alternative therapies do bear looking into.

Vitamin C seems to attack the cancer when administered intravenously, because it sidetracks the internal organs which filter it out when you take it by mouth. Hydrazine sulfate has shown some promise, but you have to eat a finicky diet---and absolutely abstain from alcohol, a fate worse than death for most Farkers. Since HS was tested mainly in Russia where everyone drinks too much, results came up negative.

In general, any medicine which is too cheap to be profitable or too common to be patented will not get the scientific consideration which it deserves.
 
2009-11-08 06:14:15 PM  
Yeah but is he still illiterate?
 
2009-11-08 06:14:41 PM  
Manny Calavera: I suggest that people are always ready to make history either one thing or the other.

I enjoyed employing history as paper airplanes, merely because the pages were light and smooth but stiff. Unfortunately for Hannibal, I forgot a landing system and thus his crossing of the Alps via the skies was disastrous.
 
2009-11-08 06:15:32 PM  
olddinosaur: In general, any medicine which is too cheap to be profitable or too common to be patented will not get the scientific consideration which it deserves.

/facepalm
 
2009-11-08 06:15:50 PM  
olddinosaur:
In general, any medicine which is too cheap to be profitable or too common to be patented will not get the scientific consideration which it deserves.


What's the one I'm trying to remember? Maspirin? Baspirin? Vaspirin?

/Not obscure
 
2009-11-08 06:16:42 PM  
Let the little shiat die and let the courts sort everything out when the parents sue because treatment wasn't ordered.
 
2009-11-08 06:17:39 PM  
jeblis:
The original statement had nothing to do with the origin of scientific thinking.

It's not directly the statement, no, but I feel it's just a simplistic expression of what I'm trying to put forward: that society was shaped by Christianity, and that Christian traditions led to the scientific tradition.

I'll concede I may be reshaping the square peg to fit into a round hole.

The original statement was that religion held society together long enough for it to develop. Are you suggesting that religion was required for science to develop? If anything, we see more evidence of it trying to hold back science.

Required? I couldn't say. We might have found a way in a parallel universe without religion, but that universe isn't this one. What we see in our history is that religious thought and scientific thought simply can't be neatly di-lineated. Whether in history or, for that matter, in individuals.

having/lacking credentials does not automatically make one right/wrong.

I agree 100%, and wouldn't be a historian if I didn't.

Mentioning them is just a method of trying to weight your arguments as better. In reality your "authority" has no bearing on the validity of your statements.

Of course I would like to weight my arguments as better. But consider that your opening remark was merely [citation needed]; by mentioning that I'm a historian, I'm implying, as I said, that this is not merely coming out of my head, Google, or Wikipedia. Give me a few days and I could put you together a bibliography (but I won't, because this is Fark!)
 
2009-11-08 06:17:54 PM  
Thank God for modern medicine
 
2009-11-08 06:18:26 PM  
olddinosaur: In general, any medicine which is too cheap to be profitable or too common to be patented will not get the scientific consideration which it deserves.

Like the cheap antibiotics which have wiped out stomach ulcers?
 
2009-11-08 06:20:01 PM  
If you are not aloud to have assisted suicide then religious beliefs should not be used to get you out of medical treatment that will save your life. Silly fundies think they get special privileges.
 
2009-11-08 06:21:00 PM  
www.myconfinedspace.com
 
2009-11-08 06:21:04 PM  
olddinosaur: While 13 is too young to make an informed decision, some alternative therapies do bear looking into.

Vitamin C seems to attack the cancer when administered intravenously, because it sidetracks the internal organs which filter it out when you take it by mouth. Hydrazine sulfate has shown some promise, but you have to eat a finicky diet---and absolutely abstain from alcohol, a fate worse than death for most Farkers. Since HS was tested mainly in Russia where everyone drinks too much, results came up negative.

In general, any medicine which is too cheap to be profitable or too common to be patented will not get the scientific consideration which it deserves.


You get the amen.

thank creator we do not have socialized medicine
 
2009-11-08 06:21:20 PM  
whatshisname: olddinosaur: In general, any medicine which is too cheap to be profitable or too common to be patented will not get the scientific consideration which it deserves.

Like the cheap antibiotics which have wiped out stomach ulcers?


And that cheap stuff they put in that crap you rub on your teeth and in the water that has done wonders for decreasing dental carries and abscesses (which are potentially deadly). If only big pharma didn't take actions to keep us from having onhand supplies of toothpaste!
 
2009-11-08 06:22:09 PM  
and yes...there's only one "r" in "dental caries"
 
2009-11-08 06:22:09 PM  
MPOM:
That seems overly cynical and complicated. Another interpretation is that god "gave" us medicine and technology by giving us intelligence, the ability to develop knowledge, the ability to create technology and improve upon it. A creator gave its creation an inherent set of tools to create on its own. This is the way many Christians I have met view "God and Science."


I guess that makes sense. I still think it trivializes the concept of free will, but it does seem more positive than what I said. This is one of my pet peeves; I think people deserve full credit for what they have done. If there truly is a god out there pulling the strings, our lives are without purpose and we're robots built to go to Point A to Point B.
To go against our limitations and struggle to grow and slowly become the gods themselves is a more meaningful life I believe.
 
2009-11-08 06:22:52 PM  
Manny Calavera: So much fail.

First, you need to learn how to quote.

Second, what you are getting at in no way invalidates the quote from the Farker regarding the Crusades.

Third, 'the church' as you conveniently lump them together, is responsible for incomprehensible amounts of pain and suffering across the globe.

/You 'christians' are so unlike you Christ.
//Please go on the attack and prove my point, instead of turning the other cheek.
 
2009-11-08 06:23:00 PM  
jeblis: having/lacking credentials does not automatically make one right/wrong. Mentioning them is just a method of trying to weight your arguments as better. In reality your "authority" has no bearing on the validity of your statements.

I dunno. I kinda like to know that the random stranger on the internet forum who is speaking as though he's credentialed in a field is actually credentialed in that field, rather than just being someone who Googled themselves up some factoids.
 
2009-11-08 06:25:20 PM  
Tiberius Gracchus: whatshisname: olddinosaur: In general, any medicine which is too cheap to be profitable or too common to be patented will not get the scientific consideration which it deserves.

Like the cheap antibiotics which have wiped out stomach ulcers?

And that cheap stuff they put in that crap you rub on your teeth and in the water that has done wonders for decreasing dental carries and abscesses (which are potentially deadly). If only big pharma didn't take actions to keep us from having onhand supplies of toothpaste!


Big Pharma is only too happy to sell you something you use every day. Now, innoculate you once in your life and never have caries, not so much.
Get it you do not.
 
2009-11-08 06:25:42 PM  
Old Philosophy "joke":

Science has reached a point where the scientists go to God (just roll with it) and say, "God, we can create life. We don't need you anymore."

God says, "Okay. Show me that you can create life, and I will concede."

A scientist prepares his equipment, then reaches down to scoop up a simple handful of dirt from which to create life.

God says, "Oh no, no, no. Get your own dirt."

/personally agnostic
//still like that one
 
2009-11-08 06:25:54 PM  
olddinosaur: In general, any medicine which is too cheap to be profitable or too common to be patented will not get the scientific consideration which it deserves.

Patented? Push the product to market, become the brand name, and dominate the market while bringing in investors. Forget a patent, merely be the first to succeed and you and everyone else who produces possess a profitable market.
 
2009-11-08 06:26:57 PM  
FootInMouthDisease: Manny Calavera: So much fail.

First, you need to learn how to quote.


If this is the first of my failings, then I must be doing pretty well.

Second, what you are getting at in no way invalidates the quote from the Farker regarding the Crusades.

The quote from the Farker regarding the crusades no way invalidates my quote regarding the social activity of the Church.

Third, 'the church' as you conveniently lump them together, is responsible for incomprehensible amounts of pain and suffering across the globe.

Humanity is responsible for incomprehensible amounts of pain and suffering across the glove. That's as general as we can get. From then on, I like to allocate the blame at an individual level.

/You 'christians' are so unlike you Christ.
//Please go on the attack and prove my point, instead of turning the other cheek.


I'm an atheist.
 
2009-11-08 06:27:05 PM  
I say let the religious fanatics stick to their mystic healing. Fewer religious fanatics growing up to disseminate their 'wisdom' and Westboro Baptist propoganada on the rest of us. But I do feel sorry for the children who suffer. Parents who do this sort of thing have this great faith in the supernatural and afterlife. It's too bad they demonstrably let their children die in the name of God and are so ecstatic about their kids going to heaven.

www.salon.com

She was obviously looking out for her children. Yates was even so nice as to send them to heaven before they had a chance to commit sins and be condemned to hell.

'Nice' parents like these should rot in jail. I think the kid should've been put in foster care as soon as they stopped running. I'm confident this won't be the last we hear about this family.
 
2009-11-08 06:28:07 PM  
Manny Calavera: In a Christian society with varying degrees of Christianisation, it was generally the most committed to religion (i.e the monks) who were interested in social reform, social equality, removal of slavery, etc, etc. They used as rationale the Scripture as well as Augustinian traditions.

Huh. So monasticism was monolithic, e.g., all monks held the same views about what counted as just distributions of social resources and the permissible allocative mechanisms to achieve that distribution? I'll assume that's not what you meant and go from there.

Nevertheless, "science" began in the rebellion against the authoritarian ultra-realist positions of the Augustinian tradition inspired in no small part by the newly (re-)discovered naturalist, Aristotle, which advocated a moderate realism. William of Ockham, Francis Bacon, and similar folks kick started the slide towards the Renaissance and all its gooey scientific goodness.

So, sure, in the broadest possible sense, the medieval church started science. But, like it's Islamic counterpart, it ossified as soon as perceived threats to its magisteria became evident. So saying that the church started science (or whatever your claim was) is a bit like saying my 3 year old nephew inaugurated architecture just cuz he builded something *cute* with Legos. It's disingenuous and hoodwinks the innocents here at fark.
 
2009-11-08 06:29:22 PM  
Manny Calavera: pain and suffering across the glove.
across the glove? That typo is just stupid.
 
2009-11-08 06:29:56 PM  
Jim_Callahan: Uh, religion was instrumental in bringing down the only modern civilization in the first 1000 years AD

Wait, you mean the Roman Empire? There's no particular reason to fault Christianity for its downfall, unless you can cite some. (You could just as easily cite Christianity as a symptom of Rome's decline, rather than a reason for it.)

Good job recording all the knowledge except the knowledge necessary to maintain quality of life and repair existing technology too, by the way, Catholics.

Again, what is this magical lost knowledge that the Catholics consigned to oblivion?

You had to rely on the mostly secular empire to the south (which you repeatedly tried to exterminate) to keep all the knowledge that was actually useful and develop new tech. Way. To. farking. Go.

Again, what exactly are you referring to? We need some specifics here. What is this secular empire to the south? Would it be a non- secular, Muslim empire?
 
2009-11-08 06:30:08 PM  
snocone: Big Pharma is only too happy to sell you something you use every day. Now, innoculate you once in your life and never have caries, not so much.

...Seriously?

1. Even I know that innoculisation doesn't work that way.
2. Explain childhood immunisations and the near-complete wiping out of many diseases.
 
G2V
2009-11-08 06:32:07 PM  
Obviously god cured him for making a good effort, what with the fleeing and all.
 
2009-11-08 06:33:51 PM  
I just imagine Darwin shaking his head.
 
2009-11-08 06:34:27 PM  
snocone: Tiberius Gracchus: whatshisname: olddinosaur: In general, any medicine which is too cheap to be profitable or too common to be patented will not get the scientific consideration which it deserves.

Like the cheap antibiotics which have wiped out stomach ulcers?

And that cheap stuff they put in that crap you rub on your teeth and in the water that has done wonders for decreasing dental carries and abscesses (which are potentially deadly). If only big pharma didn't take actions to keep us from having onhand supplies of toothpaste!

Big Pharma is only too happy to sell you something you use every day. Now, innoculate you once in your life and never have caries, not so much.
Get it you do not.

If an approvable vaccine for caries could be developed, the profit potential would be huge. During the time before the product made it into the Orange Book, profit would be enormous. Even after it went generic, there would still be a great demand for the branded product.
 
Displayed 50 of 245 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report