hmmmm his website looks like he did it himself and he is actually on the board of the peer-reviewed journal he says he has been published in... but there is a lot of data there. And a lot of actual names and phone numbers of people who have seen these patients.
One wonders why it has not been published elsewhere though. On the other hand one wonders why the role of folic acid in preventing heart disease has not been better publicized. I dunno. If it were my daughter and I had no better ideas, I'd certainly call some of those numbers and see if those letters check out. Dana On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 17:21:42 -0500, Larry C. Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > so what? He was advocating an untried therapy with no data showing > that it worked. Moreover getting nominated doesn't mean anything. > Quite a few nominees have in the past tried to advance some fairly > whacko ideas. > > Until it has undergone an IRB review, at least one double blind > placebo controlled study (preferably under NIH supervision) and has > been published in a reputable peer reviewed journal then the only > conclusion is that its untried and inappropriate to use in a clinical > setting. In other words: > > > -- > In Greer's order, the Pinellas probate judge labeled Hammesfahr a > "self-promoter," who testified that he had treated patients worse off > than Mrs. Schiavo yet "offered no names, no case studies, no videos > and no test results to support his claim." > > In short, the judge wrote in the nine-page order, he needed "something > more than a belief" that some new treatment could restore Mrs. > Schiavo's faculties "so as to significantly improve her quality of > life. There is no such testimony, much less a preponderance of > evidence to that effect." > -- > taken from the St. Petersburg Fl. Times online edition > http://www.sptimes.com/2002/11/23/TampaBay/Judge__Schiavo_can_t_.shtml > > Judge Greer had it exactly right. > > let me guess from your reasoning, if a nobel prize nominee want such > things like laetril should be freely available to cancer patients as > well. In other words arguments from authority does not make a valid > argument. > > On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 13:51:56 -0800, Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sound like the judge should recuse himself. > > > > Aren't you a big supporter of this nonsence called the Nobel Prize? > > > > Dr. Hammesfahr was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Medicine and > > Physiology in 1999 > > http://www.floridaneurologicalinstitute.com/ > > > > On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 15:24:21 -0500, Larry C. Lyons > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > You know I don't give a flying fuck what the legal definition is that > > > has nothing to do with medicine. In case you have not realized lawyers > > > are not doctors. But then again given your shaky ideas of what > > > constitutes valid science I'm not surprised you'd rather use a very > > > inexact definition from an unconstitutional law. > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:144780 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
