Another confirmation that oncology is... - Advanced Prostate...

Advanced Prostate Cancer

21,037 members26,217 posts

Another confirmation that oncology is a pseudo-science

puxi profile image
puxi
22 Replies

nature.com/articles/d41586-...

Written by
puxi profile image
puxi
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
22 Replies

It’s a practice session on us .. 😂

NPfisherman profile image
NPfisherman

Precision is the key.... The science is coming, albeit, a bit crookedly.... LOL...

Thanks for the science...

Don Pescado

henukit profile image
henukit

The article confirms exactly the opposite: that medical science as any other field of science is a constant process of iterative development carried out by accumulating empirical observations, analyzing data in the context of the new knowledge and questioning its own hypothesis postulated prior. Pseudo-science doesn't work like that, it just creates dogmas.

puxi profile image
puxi in reply to henukit

You never head about Karl Popper right? I'm using his definition of pseudo-science fyi.

In any case, what in reality happens is that since more than 70 years there is NO advancement (Radiation, chemo or surgery aren't dogmas?) in oncology (and related field) despite 100's BUSD invested. A clear sign that things were/still are badly managed and the pseudo-scientific approach still dominates. To do science you need to put yourself under risk making PREVISIONS and not explaining à posteriori what happened. As easy as that.

all the best

Sxrxrnr1 profile image
Sxrxrnr1 in reply to puxi

Only 70 years? Excepting only very rare successes, life extending(OS) therapies,,,,try 4,000 years with almost no advancements as documented in this excellent book on our abject failures both in untold billions of dollars expended and lives lost dealing with this disease.

amazon.com/Emperor-All-Mala...

I read it some 8 years ago, Ken Burns has made a 3 part PBS broadcast documentary on it. Might be found on U Tube.

in reply to puxi

"In any case, what in reality happens is that since more than 70 years there is NO advancement (Radiation, chemo or surgery aren't dogmas?) in oncology (and related field) despite 100's BUSD invested."

That's an inaccurate and totally unwarranted dismissal of the efforts of many dedicated researchers, doctors and engineers. I don't care what this Popper maverick had to say. He seems to have been a loose cannon. I've benefited from the invention of a thermo-ablation machine used to perform HIFU surgery.

Maverick2 profile image
Maverick2 in reply to henukit

It is a science or pseudoscience is decided by the outcome. After knowing the drug working mechanism is wrong, will they revoke the patent or will they take the drug off the market? NO.

The scientist who said the drug working mechanism is wrong will be replaced.

If the industry drives science there will be no science. Only pseudoscience which will be picked and chosen in favor of the industry will be left.

My heart goes for the unfortunate scientist.

j-o-h-n profile image
j-o-h-n

I think pseudo-science is real...

Good Luck, Good Health and Good Humor.

j-o-h-n Friday 09/13/2019 7:19 PM DST

Seebs9 profile image
Seebs9 in reply to j-o-h-n

Or is science pseudo real...

j-o-h-n profile image
j-o-h-n in reply to Seebs9

Good Question.... Better Answer...... My guess is that everything is pseudo except when it's real...

Good Luck, Good Health and Good Humor.

j-o-h-n Monday 09/16/2019 12:45 AM DST

Well my psuedo-intellectual oncologist has keep me alive for 5 years and counting when everyone else told me I had 2 years to live if I was lucky. Her pseudo-scientific approach has managed to keep me off Zytiga so far due to her ability to keep my Psa low and stable with no radio graphic progression. But then again, if it's on the internet it must be true.

puxi profile image
puxi in reply to

This is another point... unfortunately there is still some "doctors" estimating survival when they even don't know how things really work. Very nice contradiction. Fortunately, here in Switzerland, doctors are not making any survival time prediction anymore because they learned afterwards (pseudo-science method) that they failed the most of the time.

in reply to puxi

Point well taken. However all I have to lean on is what's available via my Oncologist who plays the angles while waiting for the FDA to approve something new or clinical trials that mix something new with something old. To me it's a weird sense of karma, " A bird eats ants and when the bird dies, ants eat the bird. " I hope the health care system in Switzerland is superb. Good luck.

dentaltwin profile image
dentaltwin

Exactly right. We shouldn't be surprised though, in an atmosphere in which we are asked if we "believe" in climate science.

tom67inMA profile image
tom67inMA

Personally, I think we've come a long way in a short time from the days of leeches and bloodletting. Cancer needs iron to survive, so let's just do something to get rid of excess iron, right?

Cancer is not an easy problem to solve. Expect many more failures along the way.

Maverick2 profile image
Maverick2 in reply to tom67inMA

chest-thumping is good for drama. But will not produces any result. comparing your past with the present is no way an indicator. compare medicine and physics. it started around the same time with similar knowledge. now they are measuring the time to trillionths trillion and billionth billion light-years away. Physicist now could not find anything interesting in the world. compared to other branches of science medicine is 100 years behind.

j-o-h-n profile image
j-o-h-n in reply to tom67inMA

It's not just the iron it's the rust of the stuff...

Good Luck, Good Health and Good Humor.

j-o-h-n Saturday 09/14/2019 1:56 PM DST

tom67inMA profile image
tom67inMA in reply to j-o-h-n

They say it's better to wear out than rust out, so I cut back on iron supplements :-)

j-o-h-n profile image
j-o-h-n in reply to tom67inMA

I will remember that... thanks....

Good Luck, Good Health and Good Humor.

j-o-h-n Saturday 09/14/2019 7:41 PM DST

dadzone43 profile image
dadzone43

I guess I do not understand your definition of "pseudo science."

puxi profile image
puxi in reply to dadzone43

Not mine but from Karl Popper

CalBear74 profile image
CalBear74

The article referenced in the original post is a very encouraging sign that American medicine, oncology included, is alive and progressing as a genuine science, if our own experiences fighting the beast weren't evidence enough.

Go for the "big picture" of American medicine ( and fully appreciate why the poster above has made a silly claim) and read Paul Starr's great book the "Social Transformation of American Medicine". You will also gain a new perspective on how we got here and why we are different from other countries, especially the Europeans and British, in our delivery of healthcare.

amazon.com/Social-Transform...

You may also like...