Does hatred cause cancer?

[Aristarchus in Exile]

Examine the meaning of the word 'malignant.'

[mooeypoo]

Did it occur to you that we call tumors that are cancerous "Malignant" because of the meaning of the word?

[John Cuthber]

We distinguish between two sorts of tumours, benign and malignant.

The names arose from their properties, not the other way round.

[Aristarchus in Exile]

Can a makiugnant cancer hate? Or does the cancer become malignant because of hatred? The mind and emotiions have huge influences on health .. cancer was treated with emotional counselling (psychotherapy?) before the days of chemical and radiation treatments. I am not speaking impersonally here, I had prostate cancer, perhaps still have it. I self-treat it with temperance in lifestyle ane emotion. I'm still alive after 15 years with (or perhaps now without) it. I have had no medical intervention. Current statistics seem to state that surviving prostate cancer is not affected by current interventions. I don't know how succesful emotional counselling was.

[Bignose]

Can a makiugnant cancer hate? Or does the cancer become malignant because of hatred? The mind and emotiions have huge influences on health .. cancer was treated with emotional counselling (psychotherapy?) before the days of chemical and radiation treatments. I am not speaking impersonally here, I had prostate cancer, perhaps still have it. I self-treat it with temperance in lifestyle ane emotion. I'm still alive after 15 years with (or perhaps now without) it. I have had no medical intervention. Current statistics seem to state that surviving prostate cancer is not affected by current interventions. I don't know how succesful emotional counselling was.

 

So..... let me make sure I have this right. You're trying to form a theory based on a single anecdote?

 

Seems to be that this probably isn't a terribly difficult thing to figure out. Find the percentage of the population that psychologists would describe as "hateful" and find the percentage of the population that get malignant tumors and find out how close they are to one another. It is only a first step, and correlation certainly doesn't not imply causation, but if the two percentages aren't even close, then that probably puts a quick end to this discussion because there won't even be correlation.

[iNow]

I self-treat it with temperance in lifestyle ane emotion.

Steve Jobs tried to do something similar. See where it got him?

[Aristarchus in Exile]

So..... let me make sure I have this right. You're trying to form a theory based on a single anecdote?

 

Seems to be that this probably isn't a terribly difficult thing to figure out. Find the percentage of the population that psychologists would describe as "hateful" and find the percentage of the population that get malignant tumors and find out how close they are to one another. It is only a first step, and correlation certainly doesn't not imply causation, but if the two percentages aren't even close, then that probably puts a quick end to this discussion because there won't even be correlation.

 

The evidence that hatred is huge in our population is seen in Road Rage and Normal Driving Practices. I think the correlation is strong, because a huge percentage of drivers drive as if they hate everyone else on the road and sidewalk, and as cancer claims 1/3 of deaths.

 

Steve Jobs tried to do something similar. See where it got him?

 

Steve Jobs also succumbed to medical treatment. In medical treatment, cutting into a cancer can spread cancerous cells throughout the body, where they begin cancers in various organs. Jobs also had tremendous hatred problems, especially for Google and Android. Canadian Cancer Society information went a long way to dissuade me from having a surgery which two urologists wanted to do but which was not necessary .. cancer is a moneymaker. I have survived 15 years. I am very active, and make solo canoe trips of up to 10 weeks.

 

We distinguish between two sorts of tumours, benign and malignant.

The names arose from their properties, not the other way round.

 

The term malignant has many related meanings. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malignant_narcissism

 

When I got my cancer I read every book and article I could find. Statistics show a strong relationship between cancer deaths and personality problems, particularly in personalities which have a long history of failures and frustrations in life. As current medical intervention is said to have no positive effect on, for instance, prostate cancer survival, I suggest the medical profession return to psychotherapy for treatment, to reinforce the acceptance of failure as a natural part of life, and to improve a person's ability to effect success. In my case I have NO doubt that a long history of unhappiness, anger and hatred (broken home childhood, two broken marriages, no career success) had a HUGE part of my medical condition and also contributed to my failures because I reacted with anger instead of careful thought. I recently also seem to have brought my kidney stone attacks to a seeming end when I decided that my anger and hatred was harming no one but myself. Kidney stones are often caused by a chemical imbalance, too much acid, the old 'bile' personality.

[mooeypoo]

The evidence that hatred is huge in our population is seen in Road Rage and Normal Driving Practices. I think the correlation is strong, because a huge percentage of drivers drive as if they hate everyone else on the road and sidewalk, and as cancer claims 1/3 of deaths.

Another anecdotal piece of data.

 

Do you have actual experiments and actual scientific data to support your claims? What you're proposing is a rather clear statement, and can be resolved with a fairly clear experiment. Do you have evidence?

 

You're making a scientific claim, you should back it up with scientific evidence. Anecdotal data -- compelling as it may appear -- is not scientific evidence.

 

 

Steve Jobs also succumbed to medical treatment. In medical treatment, cutting into a cancer can spread cancerous cells throughout the body, where they begin cancers in various organs. Jobs also had tremendous hatred problems, especially for Google and Android. Canadian Cancer Society information went a long way to dissuade me from having a surgery which two urologists wanted to do but which was not necessary .. cancer is a moneymaker. I have survived 15 years. I am very active, and make solo canoe trips of up to 10 weeks.

And yet in this case we actually can give you medical research as evidence that medical treatment is more effective than no medical treatment. Your opinion on the issue doesn't matter, nor does your judgment of it -- evidence matters. What you bring forth is an anecdotal interpretation -- your own -- to explain something the data doesn't quite support.

 

Bring up evidence, and we can discuss them.

 

You're the one making this claim, and the burden of proof is on you. The burden of proof *scientifically*. Scientific evidence, not interpretations, personal stories and anecdotes, as inspiring as they may be.

 

 

The term malignant has many related meanings. http://en.wikipedia....nant_narcissism

 

When I got my cancer I read every book and article I could find. Statistics show a strong relationship between cancer deaths and personality problems, particularly in personalities which have a long history of failures and frustrations in life. As current medical intervention is said to have no positive effect on, for instance, prostate cancer survival, I suggest the medical profession return to psychotherapy for treatment, to reinforce the acceptance of failure as a natural part of life, and to improve a person's ability to effect success. In my case I have NO doubt that a long history of unhappiness, anger and hatred (broken home childhood, two broken marriages, no career success) had a HUGE part of my medical condition and also contributed to my failures because I reacted with anger instead of careful thought. I recently also seem to have brought my kidney stone attacks to a seeming end when I decided that my anger and hatred was harming no one but myself. Kidney stones are often caused by a chemical imbalance, too much acid, the old 'bile' personality.

 

The fact that psychological state helps in recovery is not in dispute -- there's also medical evidence for that from real experiments. What you're doing, though, is taking it as if that is the cure. There's no evidence for that, let alone evidence that would suggest we should *stop* medical intervention.

 

You might be an exception, did you consider that? Are you really willing to risk millions of people's lives without proof that your method is *truly* effective?

 

You only tested it on ONE person - you. Unfortunately for you, I know a good family friend who tested your method as well, and did not survive. He was the happiest and most positive person I knew despite his condition. It didn't help him much, seeing as he's not around today to be happy anymore.

 

Anecdotal data is never a good source, and in this case you seem to want people to trust their lives on it.

 

~mooey

[Aristarchus in Exile]

Another anecdotal piece of data.

 

Do you have actual experiments and actual scientific data to support your claims? What you're proposing is a rather clear statement, and can be resolved with a fairly clear experiment. Do you have evidence?

 

You're making a scientific claim, you should back it up with scientific evidence. Anecdotal data -- compelling as it may appear -- is not scientific evidence.

 

 

 

And yet in this case we actually can give you medical research as evidence that medical treatment is more effective than no medical treatment. Your opinion on the issue doesn't matter, nor does your judgment of it -- evidence matters. What you bring forth is an anecdotal interpretation -- your own -- to explain something the data doesn't quite support.

 

Bring up evidence, and we can discuss them.

 

You're the one making this claim, and the burden of proof is on you. The burden of proof *scientifically*. Scientific evidence, not interpretations, personal stories and anecdotes, as inspiring as they may be.

 

 

 

 

The fact that psychological state helps in recovery is not in dispute -- there's also medical evidence for that from real experiments. What you're doing, though, is taking it as if that is the cure. There's no evidence for that, let alone evidence that would suggest we should *stop* medical intervention.

 

You might be an exception, did you consider that? Are you really willing to risk millions of people's lives without proof that your method is *truly* effective?

 

You only tested it on ONE person - you. Unfortunately for you, I know a good family friend who tested your method as well, and did not survive. He was the happiest and most positive person I knew despite his condition. It didn't help him much, seeing as he's not around today to be happy anymore.

 

Anecdotal data is never a good source, and in this case you seem to want people to trust their lives on it.

 

~mooey

 

Sorry to hear about your friend.

 

You're using the time honoured "I can make statements without providing proof but you cannot" dictum. No fair, and rather immature. The burden of proof to support your statements is on you as much as on me to support mine, no more no less. If this particular internet discussion on cancer was my whole life, I would provide statistics.

 

Scientific data does support medical intervention being unsuccessful in prostate cancer survival .. as reported in the mainstream media lately .. and again, I don't carry around a one ton sheaf of newspapers filed into categories with references and tabs.

 

I did not say psychotherapy or simple emotional balancing is a definite cure or the only cure .. I suggest it as treatment, ESPECIALLY for anyone ignorant of its value, of which there must be many as it certainly hasn't been suggested to me by any doctor I have seen DESPITE its huge value. Did I mention that I also improved my lifestyle? My diet? Lowered my alcohol consumption? Avoided excessive and unnecessary physical exertion which drains the body of energy needed for healing?

 

Did your friend seek professional psychotherapy? Some things are VERY deeply rooted. Fortunately for me my childhood and marriage failures are mostly very plainly remembered, I don't have to dig to the cause of unhappiness, and now that I'm more mature (I have a 21 year old grandaughter) I can admit my part in my adult failures, so I don't escape by laying blame on others.

[mooeypoo]

Sorry to hear about your friend.

 

You're using the time honoured "I can make statements without providing proof but you cannot" dictum. No fair, and rather immature. The burden of proof to support your statements is on you as much as on me to support mine, no more no less. If this particular internet discussion on cancer was my whole life, I would provide statistics.

 

Perhaps, but the burden of proof is on you, not on me.

 

you're the one making the incredible statement, not me. You're the one who needs to support themselves.

 

 

I do accept your criticism, though, and I will post the links references of what I was talking about, but it will have to wait since I am at work atm. Still, I remind you, science states quite plainly, that you're the one in need of proving your own statement since you're the one who makes it. It's not up to me to DISPROVE you, it's up to you to provide evidence for your own claim.

 

 

 

 

Scientific data does support medical intervention being unsuccessful in prostate cancer survival .. as reported in the mainstream media lately .. and again, I don't carry around a one ton sheaf of newspapers filed into categories with references and tabs.

I don't care about mainstream media, I care about scientific evidence. You're right about me needing to post evidence, but seeing as you're making this claim, I'm pretty sure it is VERY simple to get the scientific peer-reviewed medical research that was done on the matter. Otherwise, why is your word any better than mainstream media's? We don't even know you.

 

~moo

 

Did your friend seek professional psychotherapy? Some things are VERY deeply rooted. Fortunately for me my childhood and marriage failures are mostly very plainly remembered, I don't have to dig to the cause of unhappiness, and now that I'm more mature (I have a 21 year old grandaughter) I can admit my part in my adult failures, so I don't escape by laying blame on others.

 

He did quite a lot of things, including psychotherapy and some methods I personally disagreed with, all having to do with discovering your inner strength and being happy and cleansing your feeling, and.. and.. and. At the end, didn't help much.

 

Anecdotes go both ways. They're pointless. You signed up to this forum and you need to follow our rules -- support the claim you're making with evidence.

 

~mooey

 

For your reference, here's the post "So you have a new theory" in the Speculation subforum, which is part of our rules. Refer to it, please, and while you're correct in requiring me to support my counter-claims, you need to understand that you have to prove your own statement, and not expect us to disprove you. You make a claim, you need to support it. It's not "assumed correct until proven wrong". That's not the way science works.

 

(A collection of some thoughts brought on by recent posts and posters. Some of these are touched upon in the FAQ and Pseudoscience section, and these sentiments can be found on other science fora)

 

If you think you've toppled relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution or some other theory with your post, think again. Theories that have been around for a while have lots of evidence to back them up. It is far more likely that you have missed something.

 

Here are some things to consider:

 

1. You have to back your statements up with evidence.
2. Anecdotes are not evidence.
3. Being challenged to present evidence is not a personal attack.
4. Calling the people in who challenge you "brainwashed" or "stupid" does not further your argument. Neither does throwing a tantrum.
5. Published research (peer-reviewed) is more credible than the alternative. But peer-review is not perfect.
6. When you have been shown to be wrong, acknowledge it.
7. Just because some paper or web site agrees with you does not mean that you are right. You need evidence.
8. Just because some paper comes to the same conclusion as you does not mean your hypotheses are the same.
9. Provide references when you refer to the work of others. Make sure the work is relevant, and quotes are in the proper context.
10. Disagreeing with you does not make someone "closed-minded." "Thinking outside the box" is not a substitute for verifiable experimental data.
11. Mainstream science is mainstream because it works, not because of some conspiracy. If you think you have an alternative, you have to cover all the bases - not just one experiment (real or gedanken). One set of experimental results that nobody has been able to reproduce is insufficient.
12. Respect is earned. People who are resident experts, mods and administrators have earned those titles.
13. Be familiar with that which you are criticizing. Don't make up your own terminology, and know the language of the science. A theory is not a guess.
14. If nothing will convince you your viewpoint is wrong, you aren't doing science. That's religion.
15. All theories are of limited scope. Just because a theory does not address some point you want it to does not automatically mean it's wrong.
16. Not understanding a concept, or discovering that it's counterintuitive, does not make it wrong. Nature is under no obligation to behave the way you want it to.
17. You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Science cares very little about your opinion, as it has little relevance to the subject.
18. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to address criticism of your viewpoint.

 

[Bignose]

The evidence that hatred is huge in our population is seen in Road Rage and Normal Driving Practices. I think the correlation is strong, because a huge percentage of drivers drive as if they hate everyone else on the road and sidewalk, and as cancer claims 1/3 of deaths.

 

As mooey pointed out, your experiences on the road are just anecdote. Now, I don't know for sure, but I bet you can find some statistics on the incident rate of road rage. I also bet that it isn't 1/3 of the population, not even 1/3 of the percentage of the population with cancer. But, again, these are numbers that if you looked for them, I bet they are out there. Without some kind of numbers, though, this is just supposition. Just try to look for these numbers -- Google will probably give you some good leads or a trip to a library working with a knowledgeable librarian should get you some preliminary numbers. But, again as mooey said, the onus is on you to try to find these numbers to supplement your idea here. If you do get good numbers, then I would be interested to see them.

[Aristarchus in Exile]

Perhaps, but the burden of proof is on you, not on me.

 

you're the one making the incredible statement, not me. You're the one who needs to support themselves.

 

 

I do accept your criticism, though, and I will post the links references of what I was talking about, but it will have to wait since I am at work atm. Still, I remind you, science states quite plainly, that you're the one in need of proving your own statement since you're the one who makes it. It's not up to me to DISPROVE you, it's up to you to provide evidence for your own claim.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't care about mainstream media, I care about scientific evidence. You're right about me needing to post evidence, but seeing as you're making this claim, I'm pretty sure it is VERY simple to get the scientific peer-reviewed medical research that was done on the matter. Otherwise, why is your word any better than mainstream media's? We don't even know you.

 

~moo

 

 

 

He did quite a lot of things, including psychotherapy and some methods I personally disagreed with, all having to do with discovering your inner strength and being happy and cleansing your feeling, and.. and.. and. At the end, didn't help much.

 

Anecdotes go both ways. They're pointless. You signed up to this forum and you need to follow our rules -- support the claim you're making with evidence.

 

~mooey

 

For your reference, here's the post "So you have a new theory" in the Speculation subforum, which is part of our rules. Refer to it, please, and while you're correct in requiring me to support my counter-claims, you need to understand that you have to prove your own statement, and not expect us to disprove you. You make a claim, you need to support it. It's not "assumed correct until proven wrong". That's not the way science works.

 

 

 

My post was in the form of a question, not a theory, but I can see I'm headed quickly to the land of the banished. I guess this is a typical internet forum after all. I will be expected to provide an equation for the sugar to caffeine ratio in the coffee on my table next ., that is, the coffee I'm drinking when on the forum, not the coffee at home or in another cafe. Phew!

Edited October 25, 2011 by Aristarchus in Exile

[Bignose]

My post was in the form of a question, not a theory, but I can see I'm headed quickly to the land of the banished. I guess this is a typical internet forum after all. I will be expected to provide an equation for the sugar to caffeine ratio in the coffee on my table next ., that is, the coffee I'm drinking when on the forum, not the coffee at home or in another cafe. Phew!

 

Oh, come on. Really? The martyr card already? People are just a little skeptical that just because a word is used to describe something, doesn't necessarily mean that that something automatically takes on all of the other definitions of that word, too. Are up quarks literally up? How about the charm quarks -- are they automatically magic trinkets? Is an expression in mathematics the way the formula's face reacts to news?

 

Words share meanings. That is why most dictionary entries have many definitions.

 

All we're asking you for is to do some basic legwork before just assuming that what you think and what the anecdotes you've experienced are indeed how you've interpreted them. Or, if you were just here to ask a hypothetical question, then the posts in this thread should be interpreted as "questions that need to be answered before this can be given serious thought". They are just simple questions. If you really think that your idea has merit, they are questions that you should be eager to try to answer to the very best of your ability. Because if you get answers that support your idea, and your methodology for getting those answers is sound -- then your idea will get a great deal of attention.

 

But, alas, no, you'd rather play the martyr and call us "a typical internet forum" and go boo hoo hoo.

 

Seriously: with this lack of wanting to do any work to support your idea, what did you think was going to happen here? "Oh my goodness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the word 'malignant' DOES HAVE ANOTHER MEANING!!!!!!! AND I DO DISLIKE HATEFUL PEOPLE!!11!2 You are teh smarterest person evar!!!!!"

 

Sorry, but this "typical internet forum" requires that you at least put in a teeny tiny amount of work before your idea merits more than a cursory glance.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Bignose

[mooeypoo]

My post was in the form of a question, not a theory, but I can see I'm headed quickly to the land of the banished. I guess this is a typical internet forum after all. I will be expected to provide an equation for the sugar to caffeine ratio in the coffee on my table next ., that is, the coffee I'm drinking when on the forum, not the coffee at home or in another cafe. Phew!

 

There's no banishment here, but you're making claims that you need to supply evidence for. I attached that post to help you, not to banish you.

 

 

You're expected to give appropriate evidence for the claims you're making. You seem to claim that psychological state cures cancer *on the expense of medical intervention*. That's a VERY clear and VERY big claim. The expectation of a science-forum is that you support it; we are not supposed to "rebuke it". It's *false* until proven true.

 

~mooey

[Aristarchus in Exile]

Oh, come on. Really? The martyr card already? People are just a little skeptical that just because a word is used to describe something, doesn't necessarily mean that that something automatically takes on all of the other definitions of that word, too. Are up quarks literally up? How about the charm quarks -- are they automatically magic trinkets? Is an expression in mathematics the way the formula's face reacts to news?

 

Words share meanings. That is why most dictionary entries have many definitions.

 

All we're asking you for is to do some basic legwork before just assuming that what you think and what the anecdotes you've experienced are indeed how you've interpreted them. Or, if you were just here to ask a hypothetical question, then the posts in this thread should be interpreted as "questions that need to be answered before this can be given serious thought". They are just simple questions. If you really think that your idea has merit, they are questions that you should be eager to try to answer to the very best of your ability. Because if you get answers that support your idea, and your methodology for getting those answers is sound -- then your idea will get a great deal of attention.

 

But, alas, no, you'd rather play the martyr and call us "a typical internet forum" and go boo hoo hoo.

 

Seriously: with this lack of wanting to do any work to support your idea, what did you think was going to happen here? "Oh my goodness!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! the word 'malignant' DOES HAVE ANOTHER MEANING!!!!!!! AND I DO DISLIKE HATEFUL PEOPLE!!11!2 You are teh smarterest person evar!!!!!"

 

Sorry, but this "typical internet forum" requires that you at least put in a teeny tiny amount of work before your idea merits more than a cursory glance.

 

Martyr? I fail to understand.

 

Words share meanings, but generally have the same root.

 

Research? When I got my cancer I read everything I could find on the subject. I learned, for instance, that the Human Papiloma Virus (HPV) causes cervical cancer. The HPV virus is found on the anus. During lustful sex people can transfer from the anus into the vagina. Is there a connection do you think? That should show that I have researched. Would you now like me to make a list of book titles and authors, dates published, publishers' names, where the book can be found? What scientific equation was used in the bindings? Please forgive the last little sarcasm.

 

You, as someone personally involved with the pain cancer can cause, should welcome the knowledge of someone who gives first hand personal experience of survival lasting 15 years .. far from anecdotal. That knowledge I have included .. here's abit more, prayer to God contributed to my survival and current general good health.

 

And, if you want a further 'theory', I believe prostate cancer can be caused by that same HPV virus making its way up the urethra, through the urethra walls, into the prostate, where it works the same work as on the cervix. Unfortunately, I cannot find an equation to fit. I cannot also find response from the medical profession, probably because of the political incorrectedness of saying that some forms of sex are dirty.

 

There's no banishment here, but you're making claims that you need to supply evidence for. I attached that post to help you, not to banish you.

 

 

You're expected to give appropriate evidence for the claims you're making. You seem to claim that psychological state cures cancer *on the expense of medical intervention*. That's a VERY clear and VERY big claim. The expectation of a science-forum is that you support it; we are not supposed to "rebuke it". It's *false* until proven true.

 

~mooey

 

OOps, the last post I posted (to Bignose?) was directed to you, mooeypoo, as I thought you had posted the rsponse. The images on the computer screen jump around.

 

Am I expected to hire a research assistant or two? Was Einstein required to provide proof that "imagination is more important than knowledge."

 

I do not claim that psychological state cures cancer. I state psychology was used to treat cancer, and should be used. I state that abandoning negative emotion (psychology) will have a positive effect on health, including cancers. This should not be surprising as Ying and Yang etc are very popular concepts among many people.

[mooeypoo]

Am I expected to hire a research assistant or two? Was Einstein required to provide proof that "imagination is more important than knowledge."

 

 

You're expected to not expect us to agree with unfounded statements you're making. If you make a CLAIM, support it. This is why you came to a *science* forum and not a fantasy forum, or pseudoscience-R-us forum.

 

You should really go over that post I attached, it wasn't just to make this thread look pretty.

 

I do not claim that psychological state cures cancer. I state psychology was used to treat cancer, and should be used. I state that abandoning negative emotion (psychology) will have a positive effect on health, including cancers. This should not be surprising as Ying and Yang etc are very popular concepts among many people.

 

but you seem to make the claim that medical treatment is less effective. Isn't that what you said when the point about Steve Jobs? You seemed to claim the reason it didn't work for him is BECAUSE he "succumbed" to medical treatment.

 

Let me remind you, from your own post:

Steve Jobs also succumbed to medical treatment. In medical treatment, cutting into a cancer can spread cancerous cells throughout the body, where they begin cancers in various organs. Jobs also had tremendous hatred problems, especially for Google and Android. Canadian Cancer Society information went a long way to dissuade me from having a surgery which two urologists wanted to do but which was not necessary .. cancer is a moneymaker. I have survived 15 years. I am very active, and make solo canoe trips of up to 10 weeks.

 

 

You are making a LOT of unsubstantiated claims in there, from what happens from medical treatment to Jobs' state of mind. As far as I know, you weren't his therapist -- you don't know if he had hatered problems, and who they were directed towards. You *assume*. That's not science.

Don't make claims if you can't back them up, and don't blame us for insisting on this point.

 

 

~mooey

[Aristarchus in Exile]

You're expected to not expect us to agree with unfounded statements you're making. If you make a CLAIM, support it. This is why you came to a *science* forum and not a fantasy forum, or pseudoscience-R-us forum.

 

You should really go over that post I attached, it wasn't just to make this thread look pretty.

 

 

 

but you seem to make the claim that medical treatment is less effective. Isn't that what you said when the point about Steve Jobs? You seemed to claim the reason it didn't work for him is BECAUSE he "succumbed" to medical treatment.

 

Let me remind you, from your own post:

 

You are making a LOT of unsubstantiated claims in there, from what happens from medical treatment to Jobs' state of mind. As far as I know, you weren't his therapist -- you don't know if he had hatered problems, and who they were directed towards. You *assume*. That's not science.

Don't make claims if you can't back them up, and don't blame us for insisting on this point.

 

 

~mooey

 

Okay .. if this forum does not welcome beginners to science, you should remove the misleading invitation. Do you expect newcomers to substantiate every statement, idea, fact, as if they are writing a PHD thesis? Am I a newcomer to science? I have no formal education but scored third year university levels on mature student application testing. But because I have no PHD or Masters or even Bachelors I might be able to claim beginner status, and you can view me as an unlearned and naive young person despite the 170 IQ I scored in high school. Up to you.

 

Here is support for a claim I made in this thread. The main risk factor for developing cervical cancer is infection of the cervix with human papillomavirus (HPV).

 

Read more: http://www.cancer.ca/canada-wide/about%20cancer/types%20of%20cancer/causes%20of%20cervical%20cancer.aspx?sc_lang=en#ixzz1bpvMzOUw

 

If you don't know that Steve Jobs had intense hatred for Goodle and Android :"Just stop using our ideas!"

You don't read newspapers or follow hi tech personalities and developments.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transurethral_resection_of_the_prostate might support the Canadian Cancer Society pamphlet which said surgery of this type can spread the cancer throughout the bloodstream. I don't have time to read the Wiki article at this time. Surgery is risky. Many people die from hospital derived infection. Some cancers respond well to some surgeries, others do not.

 

I repeat, if you expect a poster on these forums to be PHDs, say that in your introduction.

[mooeypoo]

Okay .. if this forum does not welcome beginners to science, you should remove the misleading invitation. Do you expect newcomers to substantiate every statement, idea, fact, as if they are writing a PHD thesis? Am I a newcomer to science? I have no formal education but scored third year university levels on mature student application testing. But because I have no PHD or Masters or even Bachelors I might be able to claim beginner status, and you can view me as an unlearned and naive young person despite the 170 IQ I scored in high school. Up to you.

If we didn't welcome you, you'd be banned. We didn't do that, instead we explained to you what we expect.

 

But we do expect you to follow up on this. This isn't about beginning science, this is about understanding how science works. You don't have to have formal education, you need to understand that claims must be followed by evidence.

 

If this was a PhD thesis, trust me, you'd be doing a lot more work. We're not asking for a phd thesis, a basic start would suffice. That means showing *where* you get your information from when you make claims, and if you can't find where it comes from, read what scientific data actually says and then make your conclusion based on that.

 

It does not go the other way around. You seem to have a certain belief on how things should work, and you make very gradiose (and quite dangerous) claims. Suggesting that mainstream medicine is less effective than your method is a *definitive* claim. We are being very insistant because if you're wrong (and there's no evidence you're right so far) this can mean death for people.

 

You do understand that the bigger claim you make, the better evidence you should present, right?

 

If you don't feel you have enough training to find the evidence that fit your claim, don't make those claims.

 

I don't make claims in fields I have no knowledge of. I make suggestions, perhaps, in the hope that people who know what they're talkinga bout direct me towards resources that will help me understand better and make better judgment. The entire point of this exchange is to try and get you to step down from the gradiose unproven claim and to try and see what the *actual* data really says.

 

Here is support for a claim I made in this thread. The main risk factor for developing cervical cancer is infection of the cervix with human papillomavirus (HPV).

 

Read more: http://www.cancer.ca...n#ixzz1bpvMzOUw

 

 

Okay? So... how does this relate to any of your claims? I don't understand how we shifted from the original claim that hatred affects cancer to the above information about HPV and cancer. That link is well known, but HPV is a virus and has nothing to do with anger, rage or hatred.

 

And remember, you made claims about how getting rid of hatered is *more* effective than medicine. If you want to retract this statement, please do, but until you retract it, I will keep insisting you clarify it and provide proper proof for it.

It's a potentially dangerous claim.

 

 

If you don't know that Steve Jobs had intense hatred for Goodle and Android :"Just stop using our ideas!"

You don't read newspapers or follow hi tech personalities and developments.

I'm a programmer, so I really do, but newspapers are interpretive, they're not personal evidence from the man himself. The fact he does things to make it seem like he dislikes the companies does not mean he has "intense hatered". You assume so, and you have no evidence for it. Perhaps he was simply very competitive, and while he respected those companies for their achievements, he wanted to "kill them" to make more profit.

 

Newspapers are not evidence, especially not when your claim is so big.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia....of_the_prostate might support the Canadian Cancer Society pamphlet which said surgery of this type can spread the cancer throughout the bloodstream. I don't have time to read the Wiki article at this time. Surgery is risky. Many people die from hospital derived infection. Some cancers respond well to some surgeries, others do not.

The wiki article is 3 paragarphs long, and has nothing to do with what you're proposing. The risks associated with Transurethral resection of the prostate are (and I quote) -

 

Because of bleeding risks associated with the surgery, TURP is not considered safe for many patients with cardiac problems.

 

Postoperative complications include ^[1]

 

• Bleeding (most common)
• Clot retention and clot colic
• Bladder wall injury such as perforation (rare)
• TURP Syndrome: Hyponatremia and water intoxication (symptoms resembling brain stroke in an elderly presenting patient) caused by an overload of fluid absorption from the open prostatic sinusiods during the procedure. This complication can lead to confusion, changes in mental status, vomiting, nausea, and even coma. To prevent TURP syndrome the 1) length of the procedure is limited to less than one hour in more centers, and 2) the height of the container of irrigating solution above the surgical table determining the hydrostatic pressure driving fluid into the prostatic veins and sinuses is kept to a minimum.
• Bladder neck stenosis
• Urinary incontinence due to injury of external sphincter system which may be prevented by taking the Verumontanum of the prostate as a distal limiting boundary during TURP
• Retrograde ejaculation due to injury of preprostatic (internal) sphincter system

Additionally, transurethral resection of the prostate is associated with a low risk of mortality.

 

There's nothing here about what you're saying, regarding the risk of making the cancer worse by spreading the cells.

 

Your claim may as well be right, but (a) you still didn't provide evidence and (b) you seem to claim the risk from YOUR method is less than the risk of the medical intervention. Taht requires evidence on its own. Do you have research to prove this?

 

Look. You make claims that you can't back up, that's the bottom line; you can't expect people (especially science-minded people) to drop what we have *evidence for* in favor of a claim that has zero evidence, for whatever reason.

 

 

 

I repeat, if you expect a poster on these forums to be PHDs, say that in your introduction.

 

I expect you provide evidence to claims. If you don't have evidence, make it a guess, a hypothesis, or an opinion. You are the one who claims that your idea is true, and you have to substantiate it or accept the fact that it may well be false.

 

~mooey

[Aristarchus in Exile]

There's no banishment here, but you're making claims that you need to supply evidence for. I attached that post to help you, not to banish you.

 

 

You're expected to give appropriate evidence for the claims you're making. You seem to claim that psychological state cures cancer *on the expense of medical intervention*. That's a VERY clear and VERY big claim. The expectation of a science-forum is that you support it; we are not supposed to "rebuke it". It's *false* until proven true.

 

~mooey

 

Should you not do the same as you demand of others?

 

Your words: "And yet in this case we actually can give you medical research as evidence that medical treatment is more effective than no medical treatment. Your opinion on the issue doesn't matter, nor does your judgment of it -- evidence matters. What you bring forth is an anecdotal interpretation -- your own -- to explain something the data doesn't quite support."

 

If we didn't welcome you, you'd be banned. We didn't do that, instead we explained to you what we expect.

 

But we do expect you to follow up on this. This isn't about beginning science, this is about understanding how science works. You don't have to have formal education, you need to understand that claims must be followed by evidence.

 

If this was a PhD thesis, trust me, you'd be doing a lot more work. We're not asking for a phd thesis, a basic start would suffice. That means showing *where* you get your information from when you make claims, and if you can't find where it comes from, read what scientific data actually says and then make your conclusion based on that.

 

It does not go the other way around. You seem to have a certain belief on how things should work, and you make very gradiose (and quite dangerous) claims. Suggesting that mainstream medicine is less effective than your method is a *definitive* claim. We are being very insistant because if you're wrong (and there's no evidence you're right so far) this can mean death for people.

 

You do understand that the bigger claim you make, the better evidence you should present, right?

 

If you don't feel you have enough training to find the evidence that fit your claim, don't make those claims.

 

I don't make claims in fields I have no knowledge of. I make suggestions, perhaps, in the hope that people who know what they're talkinga bout direct me towards resources that will help me understand better and make better judgment. The entire point of this exchange is to try and get you to step down from the gradiose unproven claim and to try and see what the *actual* data really says.

 

 

 

 

Okay? So... how does this relate to any of your claims? I don't understand how we shifted from the original claim that hatred affects cancer to the above information about HPV and cancer. That link is well known, but HPV is a virus and has nothing to do with anger, rage or hatred.

 

And remember, you made claims about how getting rid of hatered is *more* effective than medicine. If you want to retract this statement, please do, but until you retract it, I will keep insisting you clarify it and provide proper proof for it.

It's a potentially dangerous claim.

 

 

 

I'm a programmer, so I really do, but newspapers are interpretive, they're not personal evidence from the man himself. The fact he does things to make it seem like he dislikes the companies does not mean he has "intense hatered". You assume so, and you have no evidence for it. Perhaps he was simply very competitive, and while he respected those companies for their achievements, he wanted to "kill them" to make more profit.

 

Newspapers are not evidence, especially not when your claim is so big.

 

 

 

The wiki article is 3 paragarphs long, and has nothing to do with what you're proposing. The risks associated with Transurethral resection of the prostate are (and I quote) -

 

 

There's nothing here about what you're saying, regarding the risk of making the cancer worse by spreading the cells.

 

Your claim may as well be right, but (a) you still didn't provide evidence and (b) you seem to claim the risk from YOUR method is less than the risk of the medical intervention. Taht requires evidence on its own. Do you have research to prove this?

 

Look. You make claims that you can't back up, that's the bottom line; you can't expect people (especially science-minded people) to drop what we have *evidence for* in favor of a claim that has zero evidence, for whatever reason.

 

 

 

 

 

I expect you provide evidence to claims. If you don't have evidence, make it a guess, a hypothesis, or an opinion. You are the one who claims that your idea is true, and you have to substantiate it or accept the fact that it may well be false.

 

~mooey

 

Actually, if you return to the first post I made you will see that I was asking a question, not making a claim. Also, I did not say pscyotherapy is an absolute cure and that surgery or radiation, chemicals should not be used. I think someone did suggest I said those things though. The wiki article on turps includes, I hope, the risks of surgery, and helps explain my aversion to the thought of surgery involving cancers, which should enhance the thought of seeking psychotherapy.

 

Newspapers are not evidence? We are expected to obtain the original words of the doctor who originated the PSA test from his mouth that say the PSA test is worthless? You must have a lot of time and money to be able to do such things.

[Bignose]

Martyr? I fail to understand.

 

Words share meanings, but generally have the same root.

 

Research? When I got my cancer I read everything I could find on the subject. I learned, for instance, that the Human Papiloma Virus (HPV) causes cervical cancer. The HPV virus is found on the anus. During lustful sex people can transfer from the anus into the vagina. Is there a connection do you think? That should show that I have researched. Would you now like me to make a list of book titles and authors, dates published, publishers' names, where the book can be found? What scientific equation was used in the bindings? Please forgive the last little sarcasm.

 

You, as someone personally involved with the pain cancer can cause, should welcome the knowledge of someone who gives first hand personal experience of survival lasting 15 years .. far from anecdotal. That knowledge I have included .. here's abit more, prayer to God contributed to my survival and current general good health.

 

And, if you want a further 'theory', I believe prostate cancer can be caused by that same HPV virus making its way up the urethra, through the urethra walls, into the prostate, where it works the same work as on the cervix. Unfortunately, I cannot find an equation to fit. I cannot also find response from the medical profession, probably because of the political incorrectedness of saying that some forms of sex are dirty.

 

In fact there the CDC made a recommendation today that not only girls of age 11-12 should get the HPV vaccine, but boys of that same age too. HPV can be associated with cancer of the penis, anus, mouth and throat, as well as the commonly well known link to cervical cancer.

 

But, none of this address the main point of this thread -- namely the title "does hatred cause cancer"?

 

And all I'm asking is to start with a little bit of statistics to see if there is a possible correlation. I pretty much laid it out for you.

 

1) find the percentage of the population that psychologists would define as "hateful"

 

2) find the percentage of the population that gets cancer

 

If your idea has any merit, the two percentages should be in the neighborhood of one another.

 

This is the barest minimum to start with. There are plenty of other questions to go over, but if there isn't even correlation, then there really isn't any reason to search for causation, will there?

 

I'd want to see where you get your numbers from. i.e. just how a "hateful person" is defined? How it was measured? What are the margins of error on any figured reported? And similarly for any cancer studies, defining exactly what gives a positive result (i.e. if you have a benign tumor, does that count or not), and what the margins of error are. And you'd want to post your sources for answering these questions so that everyone has the opportunity to look up those same sources and make their own judgments about it if they want to.

 

This is your idea -- so I'm not going to do it for you. Though, as I posted above, I suspect that with a little Googling, you could get at least a good beginning on answering these questions. Going to a good library and working with a knowledgeable librarian, and you could probably get pretty good answers to these questions. But, you actually have to do it.

 

And, lastly, I called you a martyr because instead of just doing this teeny tiny amount of work -- you'd rather complain and call us a "typical internet forum" (whatever that exactly means). And again, if you seriously thought that your idea had merit -- why wouldn't you want to pursue the answers to every single question asked as vigorously as possible? Every time you get a well-researched answer that agrees with your idea, you know your idea is just that much stronger? What are you afraid of? That your idea will become weaker once you actually look for some answers? If you truly cared, you'd want to know the answer, whether it is agreement or disagreement. But, again, you'd rather play the martyr, complain that we're asking you some hard questions, and not actually look for answers. You like the attention more than you like actually knowing the answer to the question that is this thread title.

[Aristarchus in Exile]

In fact there the CDC made a recommendation today that not only girls of age 11-12 should get the HPV vaccine, but boys of that same age too. HPV can be associated with cancer of the penis, anus, mouth and throat, as well as the commonly well known link to cervical cancer.

 

But, none of this address the main point of this thread -- namely the title "does hatred cause cancer"?

 

And all I'm asking is to start with a little bit of statistics to see if there is a possible correlation. I pretty much laid it out for you.

 

1) find the percentage of the population that psychologists would define as "hateful"

 

2) find the percentage of the population that gets cancer

 

If your idea has any merit, the two percentages should be in the neighborhood of one another.

 

This is the barest minimum to start with. There are plenty of other questions to go over, but if there isn't even correlation, then there really isn't any reason to search for causation, will there?

 

I'd want to see where you get your numbers from. i.e. just how a "hateful person" is defined? How it was measured? What are the margins of error on any figured reported? And similarly for any cancer studies, defining exactly what gives a positive result (i.e. if you have a benign tumor, does that count or not), and what the margins of error are. And you'd want to post your sources for answering these questions so that everyone has the opportunity to look up those same sources and make their own judgments about it if they want to.

 

This is your idea -- so I'm not going to do it for you. Though, as I posted above, I suspect that with a little Googling, you could get at least a good beginning on answering these questions. Going to a good library and working with a knowledgeable librarian, and you could probably get pretty good answers to these questions. But, you actually have to do it.

 

And, lastly, I called you a martyr because instead of just doing this teeny tiny amount of work -- you'd rather complain and call us a "typical internet forum" (whatever that exactly means). And again, if you seriously thought that your idea had merit -- why wouldn't you want to pursue the answers to every single question asked as vigorously as possible? Every time you get a well-researched answer that agrees with your idea, you know your idea is just that much stronger? What are you afraid of? That your idea will become weaker once you actually look for some answers? If you truly cared, you'd want to know the answer, whether it is agreement or disagreement. But, again, you'd rather play the martyr, complain that we're asking you some hard questions, and not actually look for answers. You like the attention more than you like actually knowing the answer to the question that is this thread title.

 

Your words: "You like the attention more than you like actually knowing the answer to the question that is this thread title." This is a typical accusation on internet forums. Accusations have been made here before this one. This is a typical internet forum.

[Bignose]

Your words: "You like the attention more than you like actually knowing the answer to the question that is this thread title." This is a typical accusation on internet forums. Accusations have been made here before this one. This is a typical internet forum.

 

And you are a typical poster with an idea that you don't actually want to do any of the work to try to support, and you try to deflect any actual questions by playing the martyr. I am almost shocked that we haven't gotten the line "they didn't believe in Galileo, too!".

 

Must be a match made in heaven, because this "typical internet forum" gets a fair amount of posters who behave in exactly the same way...

Edited October 26, 2011 by Bignose

[mooeypoo]

Should you not do the same as you demand of others?

I'm not the one making the claim.

 

Your words: "And yet in this case we actually can give you medical research as evidence that medical treatment is more effective than no medical treatment. Your opinion on the issue doesn't matter, nor does your judgment of it -- evidence matters. What you bring forth is an anecdotal interpretation -- your own -- to explain something the data doesn't quite support."

You are correct, though slightly shifting the blame here. I agree, I should be putting forth evidence, but that has nothing to do with the fact that you, as the claim maker, need to establish their claims.

 

I fell into the trap and made a claim myself. Good catch. I officially retract my claim.

 

I had a few articles to post here regarding high odds of survival due to medical treatment, but those were not with prostate cancer. In fact, this here seems to support the idea that the odds of surviving prostate cancer are independent of treatment. According to the article, there's a 5 year survival rate for both treated and untreated patients if the cancer is spotted early.

 

I did the work for you, it seems, and all it took was a quite short google search.

 

However, this isn't too much of a statement in that pdf. What it says, really, is that treatment isn't too helpful. It does NOT say that your treatment is helpful. Since you're stating that your treatment is helpful, you need to prove it.

 

I gave my original statement as an example of why your statement is out of the ordinary. I agree, I should be providing link, but that doesn't solve the issue here that you are the one making the extraordinary claim, and hence you are the one that's required to prove it.

 

A google search and a google-scholar search do not require having a PhD.

 

 

Actually, if you return to the first post I made you will see that I was asking a question, not making a claim. Also, I did not say pscyotherapy is an absolute cure and that surgery or radiation, chemicals should not be used. I think someone did suggest I said those things though. The wiki article on turps includes, I hope, the risks of surgery, and helps explain my aversion to the thought of surgery involving cancers, which should enhance the thought of seeking psychotherapy.

Right, which we answered with our own questions, to which you started answering definitively. After we started telling you it's unacceptable, you started playing martyr and claim we're persecuting you.

 

This isn't about you, it's about the truth and about what works. We have no way of knowing what works other than to follow evidence, which is why we require them.

 

Newspapers are not evidence? We are expected to obtain the original words of the doctor who originated the PSA test from his mouth that say the PSA test is worthless? You must have a lot of time and money to be able to do such things.

 

Newspapers are not scientific evidence. Doctors and scientists publish peer-reviewed papers exactly for that reason. Google scholar has a lot of them.

 

 

You're sticking to irrelevant details here; even *if* Steve Jobs was full of hate, he's one person. One person with one example is irrelevant. And at the same token, even if he wasn't full of hate, that doesn't mean anything either. See what I mean here? It's not just one person. A research paper will tell you if ther's a real TREND.

 

If I were you, I'd start looking into some medical resaerch regarding the benefits of psychological treatment on cancer patients, and go from there. Maybe you'll find something that will support your idea. Maybe you'll find something that will give you another idea, whatever happens, though, you have to consider first what actually happens and *then* reach a conclusion, and not reach a conclusion first and then look for evidence to support it.

 

There's no dispute psychological state affects patients positively. The question is how much, and you seem to claim that medicine is less important -- and even HARMFUL.

 

That's a dangerous claim, sir. You should back it up.

 

~mooey

 

Your words: "You like the attention more than you like actually knowing the answer to the question that is this thread title." This is a typical accusation on internet forums. Accusations have been made here before this one. This is a typical internet forum.

 

Okay, seriously now. You can say I made a mistake a billion times and I can agree with you a trillion time, and it will still not change the fact that someone ANSWERED YOUR QUESTIONS and you, instead of relating to questions and points that were raised in a rather lengthy and well thought-of post, decided to attack their integrity instead.

 

Are you more interested in shifting blame, or discussing? How many times do I need to tell you I accept the error I made before you start listening and cooperating? We're not here to rub your ego, we're here to get facts, which you're not supplying in the least.

 

Please. PLEASE, read the post I put up. You SERIOUSLY need it.

[swansont]

Your words: "You like the attention more than you like actually knowing the answer to the question that is this thread title." This is a typical accusation on internet forums. Accusations have been made here before this one. This is a typical internet forum.

 

!

Moderator Note

Bignose laid out the process one would need to follow to begin to support the claim you have made. Instead of staying on that course, you focus on the secondary comment (that, oh by the way, you brought up in post #12. You opened the door for the comment). Sadly, that is typical internet behavior, but we try to make it atypical around here. If you continue to be less interested in pursuing the original question than you are in whining about how this forum isn't living up to your expectations (which would include responding to this modnote), the thread will be closed.

 

Focus on the main discussion. That goes for everyone.

[Aristarchus in Exile]

 

You don't have to have formal education, you need to understand that claims must be followed by evidence.

 

The wiki article is 3 paragarphs long, and has nothing to do with what you're proposing. The risks associated with Transurethral resection of the prostate are (and I quote) -

 

There's nothing here about what you're saying, regarding the risk of making the cancer worse by spreading the cells.

 

~mooey

 

Do your personal laws demand that it is the person making the claim who has to provide the evidence? There are many examples of claims supported by others than those who made the claim, Aristarchus's claim that the sun was the centre of the solar system, for instance, was supported 1,800 years after the consensus people exiled him. The Englishman who in the 1700s proposed Black Stars forming because of strong gravity not allowing light to escape was supported 200 years later. The thought that we all have the right to Instant Gratification is one of the worst curses of our modern age.

 

I said it was the Canadian Cancer Society, who sent me an information package, who said that TURPS carries a risk of spreading cancer cells into the bloodstream. Wiki is a young tool which has done a lot to spread knowledge, but it is a YOUNG tool which needs a lot more maturity.