[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by photon

This is very confusing, your criticising the blog for criticising anything that runs counter to traditional medicine, then present something originating from traditional medicine as an example of.. well what I'm not sure, it's confusing.

Listen, I'm not trying to defend the guy, I'm defending the idea. I think there should be a lot more research into the theory he presents. He may be nuts, but there is something to what he says, even if it is wrapped in a pretty strange package.

What I presented was something that was originally discounted as being bogus. The idea of using a virus to cure a disease was considered a little crazy. Sometimes revolutionary thinking is a little crazy.

This quack didn't say that a virus tuned to replicate only in cancer cells may in the future after much research and science result in an effective treatment for cancer.

The quack says his magical "nemesis theory" (which is not a real theory and the opposite of scientific) of "every disease has an anti-disease organism" means his goat virus can and does prevent AIDS and Cancer and other diseases with no side effects, so buy now.

The quack is attacked not because it's non-traditional medicine, the quack is attacked because he's a quack and doesn't do anything resembling science. Everything on the blog about the quack is substantiated, it's not just a dismissal.

Boltzmann and Mendel were thought to be quacks in their day too. Don't be too quick to dismiss the work of someone because it doesn't follow the method you choose. I mean, who ever would have thought that first wonder drug would be found in moldy cheese? That's crazy!

To compare the contents of the UofA link you posted to what this quack is talking about is absurd. EDIT: It's insulting to the intelligence and hard work those real scientists put into their work.

I disagree. There are some interesting parallels. Just one guy is viewed as a quack while the other is viewed as revolutionary, mostly because of method.

The expectations of the establishment is to demonstrate efficacy, regardless of where it came from.

No, the expectations of the establishment is to follow the rules they set forth and #### anyone who dare to challenge them. This is why big pharma has such a grip on the American health care system and that grip is extending north of the border. When there is a buck to be made, the establishment will jump in full force and fire up the discredit machine for any new idea.

The guy isn't a quack because he's looking in odd places for results, he's a quack because he doesn't care at all about research or results or science or ethics and jumps immediately to stating that what he has is the magic cure all.

Again, I'm not defending the guy, I'm defending the idea. I'd like to see a lot more research into the idea. All too often we see ideas buried because they fly in the face of reason. I mean, who would have thought that the concept of heliocentrism would ever catch on. Personally, I'm always willing to explore ideas, especially if they can lead to significant breakthroughs in solving big world problems. For example, I'm still a firm supporter of pursuing cold fusion technology, which is complete quackery to large swaths of a certain community. So that probably makes me a bad person. But then again, I am in the skeptic thread where big ideas are judged on conformity more than anything. Now, back to your little dog pile.