DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Science and Theology, the sequel
Pages:   ... ... [90]
Showing posts 876 - 900 of 2231, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 12/09/2009 02:47:40 PM · #876
Originally posted by JH:
In other words, in your professional role, are you a skeptic?


My profession is one of Science. I follow that dogma when I practice. I would not presume to put my other beliefs upon my patient, although I have prayed with patients when asked.
 12/09/2009 02:52:11 PM · #877
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
it's a chicken-and-egg problem with such agencies a priori assuming there must be an explanation so it isn't news and thus not covered.

That's a cop out (and patently false). There needn't be an explanation to make the news, and scientific journals post extraordinary findings all the time as unexplained mysteries. The doctor can submit before and after X-rays for discussion without any explanation, but you're apparently willing to accept a story at face value without even basic confirmation that it ever took place. The need to believe overrides common sense. That's where we differ.


Patently false? That's a bit strong. I'm guessing between the two of us I am the only one that has a) submitted anything to a medical journal and b) reviewed articles for a medical journal...
 12/09/2009 02:59:44 PM · #878
A simple medline search of "spontaneous regression" and "cancer" revealed 71 articles from 1996 to 2009. So they do get published from time to time. Of course the doc has to write them up and the journal has to think them worthy to print. Among those considerations is the question of "is it important?" To the journal "important" doesn't mean answering philosophical questions about miracles but rather providing solutions and therapies to medical problems. A miraculous cure in this gentleman doesn't help another cancer patient.

Here's an example of such a case report:

MEDLINE

Authors Dussan C. Zubor P. Fernandez M. Yabar A. Szunyogh N. Visnovsky J.

Authors Full Name Dussan, Carlos. Zubor, Pavol. Fernandez, Manuel. Yabar, Alejandro. Szunyogh, Norbert. Visnovsky, Jozef.

Institution Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Jessenius Faculty of Medicine, Martin, Slovakia. zubor@jfmed.uniba.sk

Title Spontaneous regression of a breast carcinoma: a case report.

Source Gynecologic & Obstetric Investigation. 65(3):206-11, 2008.

Abstract Spontaneous regression of malignant tumors is a rare event. It is defined as partial or total disappearance of a proven malignant tumor without adequate medical treatment. The causes of this phenomenon are various. Nevertheless, malignant tumors do regress occasionally for no apparent reason, as evidenced by many clinical observations. We report a case of a 68-year-old woman, who was presented with a several-month history of a painless firm lump, initially of 1 cm in diameter and growing to a large solid regular tumor of 2.5 x 2.5 cm in size, in the upper outer quadrant of her right breast. Preoperative histopathological diagnosis revealed ductal invasive carcinoma. Later on, while awaiting surgical treatment, she suffered an arm injury requiring a 1-month delay of surgery. After recovery, on the date of surgery the tumor disappeared, and, in addition, it was not found in tissue specimens obtained from quadrantectomy. After 78 months of follow-up there was no evidence of relapse. In this report, we discuss clinical and histopathological findings, patient management and possible mechanisms of cancer regression.

For the record I'm not saying the above case is a miracle. But I'm not saying it wasn't either...

Message edited by author 2009-12-09 15:01:16.
 12/09/2009 03:01:39 PM · #879
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm guessing between the two of us I am the only one that has a) submitted anything to a medical journal and b) reviewed articles for a medical journal...

...and this is relevant how? You only have to be literate enough to READ a medical journal to know that unexplained phenomena do get published.
 12/09/2009 03:03:44 PM · #880
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But it's a chicken-and-egg problem with such agencies a priori assuming there must be an explanation so it isn't news and thus not covered.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A simple medline search of "spontaneous regression" and "cancer" revealed 71 articles from 1996 to 2009. So they do get published from time to time. "...malignant tumors do regress occasionally for no apparent reason, as evidenced by many clinical observations....

You just debunked your own argument. Congrats.

Message edited by author 2009-12-09 15:06:29.
 12/09/2009 03:06:41 PM · #881
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But it's a chicken-and-egg problem with such agencies a priori assuming there must be an explanation so it isn't news and thus not covered.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A simple medline search of "spontaneous regression" and "cancer" revealed 71 articles from 1996 to 2009. So they do get published from time to time.

You just debunked your own argument. Congrats.


Did you read my post? Did you see the doc has to write up the article? Did you see the journal has to accept it based on their own view of what is important? Sheesh.
 12/09/2009 03:08:28 PM · #882
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A miraculous cure in this gentleman doesn't help another cancer patient.

Perhaps if the gentleman was less inclined to attribute his cure to a miracle, and more inclined to come forward to be fully examined and have questions answered regarding drug combinations, diet, or any other factors it *could* help other cancer patients.

It's quite feasible that in these cases of spontaneous regression there are combinations of medical factors which cause the regression. Chemical or drug interactions, genetic disposition, enzyme activity - who knows.

By calling it a 'miracle' and leaving it at that, he is closing the door on this route.
 12/09/2009 03:09:30 PM · #883
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A miraculous cure in this gentleman doesn't help another cancer patient.

Perhaps if the gentleman was less inclined to attribute his cure to a miracle, and more inclined to come forward to be fully examined and have questions answered regarding drug combinations, diet, or any other factors it *could* help other cancer patients.

It's quite feasible that in these cases of spontaneous regression there are combinations of medical factors which cause the regression. Chemical or drug interactions, genetic disposition, enzyme activity - who knows.

By calling it a 'miracle' and leaving it at that, he is closing the door on this route.


I don't disagree with you at all. I'm not sure I ever called it a miracle...
 12/09/2009 03:11:16 PM · #884
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Did you read my post? Did you see the doc has to write up the article? Did you see the journal has to accept it based on their own view of what is important? Sheesh.

Did you read mine? Do you not understand that accepting an extraordinary story at face value without even confirming basic, verifiable facts makes absolutely no distinction between fact and fiction?
 12/09/2009 03:12:32 PM · #885
Can I request a Shannon-free Rant zone?
 12/09/2009 03:15:14 PM · #886
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by JH:
By calling it a 'miracle' and leaving it at that, he is closing the door on this route.


I don't disagree with you at all. I'm not sure I ever called it a miracle...

Bah! Then I'll come back some other time and corner you into a malpractice suit.
12/09/2009 03:16:24 PM · #887
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Can I request a Shannon-free Rant zone?

Here ya go.
 12/09/2009 03:52:01 PM · #888
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Can I request a Shannon-free Rant zone?

Here ya go.

LOL. That was your best post all day!
 12/09/2009 04:25:42 PM · #889
Originally posted by Louis:

Lastly, on a personal note, any god willing to miraculously cure a man already near the end of his life, but who will happily let untold numbers of very young children suffer unspeakable pain and die from identical diseases, or in any number of chamber-of-horrors ways, is, to quote Nietzsche, so absurd a god that he would have to be abolished even if he existed.


But considering current society wouldn't that be just the god we'd have? Or deserve?
 12/09/2009 04:27:06 PM · #890
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Can I request a Shannon-free Rant zone?

Here ya go.

LOL. That was your best post all day!

Excellent! - And it looks like someone has made the first post to that board...
 12/09/2009 04:28:40 PM · #891
Originally posted by Louis:
He believes in neither God nor an afterlife.



Correct. He's dead.
 12/09/2009 10:09:47 PM · #892
Originally posted by yanko:
Speaking as an agnostic, I can't tell you what that story proves or suggests. To put it simply you've given no information to fully investigate this story so to jump to any conclusion would be foolish. However since you did experence this what have you done to rule out other plausible explanations? Could it simply have been misdiagnosed? or the power of positive thinking? Will to live? Despite our advances there's a lot we don't know about the human body let alone what's going on inside of it at any given moment.


My friend has been receiving radiation treatments by his doctor since May, 2009, so misdiagnosis is not something I would consider. The first X-ray showed multiple tumors as well as the four fractures, so the diagnosis seems appropriate. As for the power of positive thinking and will to live, I've never heard of a fracture healing in three days (although I am aware of tumors that disappear without treatment) so the healed fracture seems to be much more than human will power. I also mentioned the doctor acquaintance of mine who says a fracture in a bone can't be healed in three days by any known medical/scientific method.

On its face, an X-ray on Friday that shows 4 fractures, followed by an X-ray on Monday that only shows three of them suggests to me that one of the fractures has been healed. Since my doctor acquaintance says medicine and science don't acknowledge such a speedy healing, I am at a loss as to what other explanations there could be. Does anyone know of a case of a three-day healing process for bones? Is there anything in the medical world to to the contrary?

I suppose I could postulate that

(a) my friend is mistaken or did not understand what his doctor told him, (I've known him for at least a decade and know him to be honest. I also was present when the doctor called on Sunday to tell him of the grim Friday X-ray)

(b) the doctor or X-ray technicians are pulling a hoax (it would be pretty elaborate to have X-ray technicians in two different hospitals collaborate to fake one of the X-rays, especially when there is no inference that any medical person did anything unusual)

(c) I made this all up (I didn't)

What else is plausible in the natural world to explain this occurrence?
 12/09/2009 10:20:36 PM · #893
Originally posted by Louis:
I think it's contradictory to use the words "evidence" and "anecdote" in the same sentence, as you've done. Once is useful, one is useless. For example, Whitley Strieber, a respected writer and author of dozens of books, has all kinds of anecdotes that support the existence of intergalactic aliens interacting deeply and personally with human beings, and him in particular, but he has absolutely no evidence. We are left with the choice to believe his anecdotes, or dismiss them pending actual evidence. Guess which choice I've made.


One person's anecdote is another person's testimony. If my friend goes into a court room and testifies as to what he has witnessed, including two X-rays - one with four fractures on Friday and another with three fractures on Monday, his sworn testimony is evidence. Then, of course, there are the X-rays themselves. They are clearly evidence that one of the fractures no longer exists by Monday. It seems to me you sidestep a lot of evidence by using the word "anecdote."
 12/09/2009 10:27:25 PM · #894
My unadorned point is that your friend is likely exaggerating, at the very least. Further, you are asking atheists what they think of a miracle, the only evidence you provide for being an anecdote -- yes, an anecdote, the word is the most apropos word in this case -- that has absolutely zero evidentiary value, as I've already pointed out. I'm sorry, but your story is not evidence. It becomes evidence once you supply data, not simply because you find the miraculous in an event that is even second-hand information from your position. To quote someone or other, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Stories and hearsay don't count as such.
 12/09/2009 10:30:54 PM · #895
I agree completely with Louis' post. But don't you have some homework to do and get back to me on? What are you doing here? ;)
 12/09/2009 10:31:45 PM · #896
Oooops....
 12/09/2009 10:53:05 PM · #897
Originally posted by chalice:
On its face, an X-ray on Friday that shows 4 fractures, followed by an X-ray on Monday that only shows three of them suggests to me that one of the fractures has been healed.

Question: why would prayer be a plausible explanation for healing one out of four fractures? For that matter, why would a god grant requests at all?

Originally posted by chalice:
After the prayer was completed I asked him if he sensed anything during the prayer. He replied that at one point he sensed a white light falling on him and he felt a sense of being âdrainedâ from head to foot. Other than that, he did not notice anything unusual. (I did not sense anything unusual, but others in the room said they felt that there was a lot of âenergyâ in the room.)

That reminds me of a personal experience. I was once dragged into a multi-level marketing "party" where the rep was pitching various purported health devices (mostly magnetic bracelets and mattress pads). At one point he gave a demonstration of a solar blanket to persuade me that the stuff really worked. Sure, convince me. He explained that this blanket supposedly harnessed the rays of the sun and channeled that energy through the body to work all sorts of health benefits. He asked for a volunteer and wrapped the mylar sheet around her. Immediately, she reported a similar experience as above- white light, a rush of energy, a sense of profound well-being, etc. Big applause from the room. The rep asked me with a smug grin what I thought now. I said, "I think it's 11 o'clock at night. What sun?"

Message edited by author 2009-12-09 22:53:59.
 12/09/2009 11:04:03 PM · #898
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
There are two unequivocal miracles with the cancer cure anecdote:

1. That such an event would occur without banner headlines in NEJM and guest appearances with Matt Lauer.
2. That any rational person would believe such a story in lieu of any such news coverage given its obvious significance.


But it's a chicken-and-egg problem with such agencies a priori assuming there must be an explanation so it isn't news and thus not covered. Miracles have been discussed before and I hold the position that even a real, bona fide miracle, would not provide the evidence a skeptic would seek. There would always be another level of evidence sought in order to perpetuate the viewer's current worldview. That's my position anyway, and I'm sticking to it. ;)


I'm inclined to agree with Dr. Achoo. Even if the news services are all over this story and a panel of experts end up authenticating the X-rays, all that would lead to is people of faith believing that, absent a scientific/medical explanation, a miracle had occurred and non-believers thinking that there is some other as yet undiscovered reason (other than a miracle, of course, because "miracles" get ruled out sua sponte in the court of one's own mind).

I suppose it's pointless to even mention the events. I was just curious as to what cause people on this site might attribute the healing of a fracture in three days, (to say nothing of the disappearance of the tumors). Now I know: (a) it's anecdotal so don't even consider it, (b) it's a hoax (with a link to some woman who faked cancer with pictures of her shaved head when she didn't even go to the hospital), (c) any god who favors one person and doesn't stop atrocities to others is "sadistic" with the implication that this instance of healing does not have to be considered seriously, and (d) probably a few others I don't recall at the moment. It's all sidestepping, in my humble opinion.

I realize you haven't seen the X-rays yourself. I'm not expecting you to buy into the events personally without a chance to have someone scrutinize all the facts (maybe I'll write a book and everyone can challenge it). What I was expecting was a straight-up response as to what (other than a supernatural explanation) could cause a fracture to heal in three days, or why separate X-rays might not be accurate, or some such explanation. Implicit in bothering to write about the events is that they are reported accurately, no one is pulling a hoax, and the X-rays could be produced if my friend would authorize their production. By bothering to post the events here, I am inferentially paying you the complement that you are serious about your convictions and learned enough that you might have a plausible explanation for the phenomena I have reported. (I mean no sarcasm here. I do respect the opinions of most people who post in this thread, regardless of their respective positions.)

Who knows, maybe no one has an opinion as to why a fracture could show up as healed in three days time by looking at a second X-ray.
 12/09/2009 11:38:36 PM · #899
It's interesting how you latched on to the one word at the end of my post while the substance of it doesn't make the final cut in your summary. I guess saying there's nothing concrete in your story to make an inform opinion one way or the other just isn't sexy enough.

Frankly what was the point of telling that story when it appears you've already made up your mind as to what believers and nonbelievers think? Not very scientific.

Message edited by author 2009-12-09 23:41:29.
 12/09/2009 11:56:23 PM · #900
Originally posted by chalice:
I was just curious as to what cause people on this site might attribute the healing of a fracture in three days, (to say nothing of the disappearance of the tumors). Now I know: (a) it's anecdotal so don't even consider it, (b) it's a hoax (with a link to some woman who faked cancer with pictures of her shaved head when she didn't even go to the hospital), (c) any god who favors one person and doesn't stop atrocities to others is "sadistic" with the implication that this instance of healing does not have to be considered seriously, and (d) probably a few others I don't recall at the moment. It's all sidestepping, in my humble opinion.

Demanding evidence of value as opposed to someone's third-hand hearsay is sidestepping? Pointing out that a "true believer" is the least likey to refrain from exaggeration is sidestepping? Bringing up the very real issue of theodicy is sidestepping? Nonsense.

As yanko mentioned, one wonders why you brought this to an avowed group of atheists/agnostics in the first place. Unless you were seeking to value your conclusion in its refutation by those who hold no faith, I don't really see the point.
Pages:   ... ... [90]
Current Server Time: 08/05/2025 05:19:08 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/05/2025 05:19:08 AM EDT.