DocCec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
In a message dated 98-05-06 16:08:23 EDT, you write:
<< I do understand where this news can give the people who are undergoing
the horrible treatment for cancer now false hope. I also don't think
that the news should have been released until there was something
definative to the idea of a cure.
But to say it is a hoax, isn't right either. Just because something
hasn't been proven or is in the process of being proven doesn't make it
a 'cold fussion' hoax.
>>
Cold fusion is a good example of a real hoax, Sue. This is not. The
researchers are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Not to report
their research results would be unfair to others working in the field, which
means ultimately unfair to patients waiting for help. But to report them, in
this day and age where the popular media pick up on everything whether or not
they understand it, can have the results we are seeing now.
Given a choice, I'll settle for the reporting every time. If you use the
medical analogy, it's a false positive, which while annoying is far, far
better than a false negative.
And no, no hoax. A hoax would be if the researchers had not achieved the
results they reported, had not done the research in the way they reported, or
something similar.
Doc
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
