[Goanet] Propagation of a falsehood (2)
--- Mario Goveia wrote: The fact that it was incomprehensible to you and not to several other readers is something you will have to figure out for yourself. --- Mervyn Lobo wrote: My dear Mario, If you read my post AND understood it, you may realize that is exactly what I said. I am going to post the following for the third time. Don't disappoint your fans by trying to avoid the questions again and again and again. 1) There is no trash section of the Goanet archives. 2) It would really be interesting to know why you think there is such a section. 3) What makes you want to visit such a place? 4) Why would you trip over when you are there? BTW, you can have the last word defending the extremely badly written article. Mario responds: There is a thrash section in the Goanet archives. It is the section that contains posts by those who are in my spam list for obvious reasons. I am alerted to the most egregious thrash by other Goanetters especially when gross misrepresentations are being made. Here are some of the Gilbert's opinions that Mervyn says were incomprehensible to him for reasons that are incomprehensible to me. Yet, this admission of incomprehensibility did not constrain Mervyn from continuing to defend those who chose to misrepresent Gilbert's opinions as spreading dangerous myths: The current explanation for this (statistical significant) observation is that the surgery depresses the immune system, allowing the tumors to now behave and grow even more aggressively. Hence cancer surgery has undergone and is undergoing significant shift. From big radical cancer surgery we have turned / flipped and are now into minimal / organ-saving cancer surgery. Laboratory studies on humans show that markers of the immune system are significantly suppressed after major surgery. and Yet I encourage all patients to use every option available to improve their chance of being cured - especially approaches that have no side-effects and are cheap. I would not encourage patients to use these alternatives as a subsitute to proven treatments. These yet proven approaches should not be overlooked because of our lack of current state of understanding. [end of excerpts] Somehow this got twisted into mean-spirited allegations that Gilbert, a Board Certified oncologist, had said that tumors grew by exposure to air and allegations of a propagation of dangerous myths and insinuations by a non-oncologist who doesn't even practice medicine, that improper treatment of cancer was being propagated. ___ Goanet mailing list Goanet@lists.goanet.org http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
[Goanet] Propagation of a falsehood / Sunday humor
There is a saying, When one is in a hole, stop digging! It only makes matters worse. How many Goanetters thought that the experiment that I described in my original post was: 1. I personally provided and injected the sample of cancer cells in the mice? 2. The mice chest surgery done by me? 3. This whole experiment was done (presumably) in my kitchen rather than in a laboratory? Is this the classic example where spoon-feeding is needed? The respondent is supposed to be heavy into animal experiments. Atam soglem sagum zai ree saiba? Kind Regards, GL - Santosh Helekar [EMAIL PROTECTED] I don't recall that post described scientists and a laboratory that found the myth to have a basis, . --- Gilbert Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The post went on to describe scientists and a laboratory that found the myth - Goan and American - to have a basis. THEY hence mounted a good scientific study to validate it. The scientists - NOT ME - reconfirmed the fact by a simple experiment. (The description of the experiment was to excite some scientific interest in some young Goans with a curious bent). The American scientists presented their findings to a very receptive audience - which obviously did not include few goanet readers. :=)) I was merely the messenger to bring the same findings to Goanet readers. ___ Goanet mailing list Goanet@lists.goanet.org http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
[Goanet] Propagation of a Falsehood
Frederick: One of Goanet's causes celebres in vogue these days appears to be Propagation of a Falsehood. Observing the proceedings of this vitriolic, verbal donnybrook has piqued my appetite for bizarre belligerence and drollery. The raging polemic manifesting platitudes galore, incongruously mixed with invective and ostentatious oneupmanship has been highly provocative to the bystanding subscriber. All the putative wisdom and inspiration generated by this intellectual shenanigan, one can ill-afford to let go by the board. Ergo, at the risk of inadvertently antagonizing some as an articulate kibitzer, I take the liberty of expressing my true feelings in rhyme. In the eternal grim blood sport of fighting against Good Evil's principal weapon is the Propagation of a Falsehood It takes all kinds of strategies and tactics sly and lewd Twisting the facts and darkening purity to be vilely crude When lies are spread wide and the real picture is booed Astutely the Gospel of Untruth is spreading silky smooth Thru' various media and arenas when the fat is chewed Especially using swift Internet, slick, devious and shrewd For that could be the clever old Devil's poisonous fast food These mass false disseminations are devices to support screwed Egotistic theories, fads and ideologies with fanaticism spewed To promote prejudice, special interests and power that's wooed That could all be highly offensive and sound unfair to the prude And could put the truth crusaders in an awfully unsavoury mood Hence exposing such devious misrepresentations definitely should Be an absolute necessity to have such skullduggery withstood Hence let's muster the Knights of Cyberspace valiant and good For gone are the days of yore when we could count on Robin Hood Cheers Arnold ___ Goanet mailing list Goanet@lists.goanet.org http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
[Goanet] Propagation of a falsehood (2)
--- Mario Goveia wrote: If a mistake is perceived in ANY post, it should be questioned, even criticized, in a constructive manner and a clarification obtained. There is no excuse to rush to judgement using selected excerpts from a post, ignoring other comments in the same post, followed by a vicious verbal attack on the writer. --- Mervyn Lobo wrote: Verbal attacks? The bottom line is that Gilbert's article was badly written, in fact incomprehensible to me. The subject however, was a serious one: cancer. I am glad that people took the time to point out and correct all the faults of that post. Mario responds: The fact that it was incomprehensible to you and not to several other readers is something you will have to figure out for yourself. Because the subject was a serious one, being addressed by a Board Certified oncologist, it should have been taken seriously and questioned in a civil manner. Instead it was attacked for no apparent reason. The conclusions in Gilbert's post were as follows. The current explanation for this (statistical significant) observation is that the surgery depresses the immune system, allowing the tumors to now behave and grow even more aggressively. Hence cancer surgery has undergone and is undergoing significant shift. From big radical cancer surgery we have turned / flipped and are now into minimal / organ-saving cancer surgery. Laboratory studies on humans show that markers of the immune system are significantly suppressed after major surgery. and Yet I encourage all patients to use every option available to improve their chance of being cured - especially approaches that have no side-effects and are cheap. I would not encourage patients to use these alternatives as a subsitute to proven treatments. These yet proven approaches should not be overlooked because of our lack of current state of understanding. Here is how Santosh responded to Gilbert's conclusions shown above: From, http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2006-September/048348.html SH: The post appended below propagates dangerous myths and misinformation regarding cancer treatment in this public forum. MG: No such dangerous myth was being propagated as we can see from Gilbert's conclusions shown above. Another example: SH: Here is a link to an article from the Mayo Clinic, debunking the myth that tumor spreads when it is exposed to air,... MG: No such myth had been suggested. Just the opposite. Gilbert had explained that tumors do not spread when exposed to air, which is what the Goan grandmothers thought was causing any such spread, but by a suppression of the immune system in his opinion. ___ Goanet mailing list Goanet@lists.goanet.org http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
Re: [Goanet] Propagation of a falsehood
I request Gilbert to provide the reference to the original paper that described the good scientific study that he claims below was mounted to validate the myth - Goan and American. Also, I don't recall that post in the Science as a Religion thread described scientists and a laboratory that found the myth to have a basis, as is claimed below. Can Gilbert provide the names of these scientists and the name of the institution where their laboratory is located? Cheers, Santosh --- Gilbert Lawrence [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The post went on to describe scientists and a laboratory that found the myth - Goan and American - to have a basis. THEY hence mounted a good scientific study to validate it. The scientists - NOT ME - reconfirmed the fact by a simple experiment. (The description of the experiment was to excite some scientific interest in some young Goans with a curious bent). The American scientists presented their findings to a very receptive audience - which obviously did not include few goanet readers. :=)) I was merely the messenger to bring the same findings to Goanet readers. ___ Goanet mailing list Goanet@lists.goanet.org http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
[Goanet] Propagation of a falsehood
--- Mervyn Lobo wrote: Mario, 1) Gilbert's original article was extremely badly written. 2) A board certified oncologist can make mistakes. 3) There are people who are capable of pointing out mistakes that a person is making in another profession. Mario responds: I agree with all three generalities above, but what do any of these generalities have to do with what actually happened with regard to Gilbert's post? If a mistake is perceived in ANY post, it should be questioned, even criticized, in a constructive manner and a clarification obtained. There is no excuse to rush to judgement using selected excerpts from a post, ignoring other comments in the same post, followed by a vicious verbal attack on the writer. ___ Goanet mailing list Goanet@lists.goanet.org http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
[Goanet] Propagation of a falsehood
Frankly I am yet to figure out what the falsehood or mistakes or what was badly written in the original post. I will admit, I am not a linguist or an English scholar. I may have spent half hour to write the post; with half the time aimed at making the post short, sweet, and easily readable. My satisfaction is many read the post.:=)) The original post was a 'folksy write-up' of a Goan kani and there is SOME basis of that kani. The thrust of the mauxi's kani was surgery in some cancer situations, can make things worse. The myth was their explanation; and hence ipso facto it was not correct. That is why IMHO, the explanation was called a myth and their observations / story was a kani and not a scientific fact. The post went on to describe scientists and a laboratory that found the myth - Goan and American - to have a basis. THEY hence mounted a good scientific study to validate it. The scientists - NOT ME - reconfirmed the fact by a simple experiment. (The description of the experiment was to excite some scientific interest in some young Goans with a curious bent). The American scientists presented their findings to a very receptive audience - which obviously did not include few goanet readers. :=)) I was merely the messenger to bring the same findings to Goanet readers. Those who wanted to be constructive, instead of being demagogic (about my post), would have built on my post. They would have provided further facts on the immune effects of surgery. And that this was also shown in humans and not just an explanation / extrapolation from animals. Yet they chose to demagogue my posts in public, and apologize to me about their writings in private. Yet if they did not argue about the post (and the findings), this thread would have dies after two days. So I thank the nay-sayers for their contribution to this thread and dragging the discussion out.:=)) The IRONY of the today's world, is that in spite of many papers reporting on the effect of surgery on immune markers, most surgeons disregard those findings. Partly those facts (effects on immune markers) are disregarded because not much can be done about it. Yet if one had 2-3 million dollars to spend, those scientific facts would be used to make a case of buy and use VAT (Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic) equipment instead of the traditional lung surgery; or the acquisition of a Surgical Robot instead of the open abdominal operation for surgery in the abdomen or pelvis (prostate). These and other modern technologies permit less invasive surgery. Now please do not argue or micro-analyze the above points. The above is not written for a scientific or a linguistic audience; for very obvious reasons. If you do not want to accept the above facts, please use your delete button ASAP. Considering the number of posts I received privately and publicly thanking me for the helpful post, I will continue to post 'tit bits' of information, which I think may be useful to average Goans. Those who have nothing better / original to write, and want to make 'kit pit', can have a field day doing so.:=)) Kind Regards, GL --- Mario responds: I agree with all three generalities below, but what do any of these generalities have to do with what actually happened with regard to Gilbert's post? If a mistake is perceived in ANY post, it should be questioned, even criticized, in a constructive manner and a clarification obtained. There is no excuse to rush to judgement using selected excerpts from a post, ignoring other comments in the same post, followed by a vicious verbal attack on the writer. --- Mervyn Lobo wrote: 1) Gilbert's original article was extremely badly written. 2) A board certified oncologist can make mistakes. 3) There are people who are capable of pointing out mistakes that a person is making in another profession. ___ Goanet mailing list Goanet@lists.goanet.org http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
Re: [Goanet] Propagation of a falsehood
Mario Goveia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My dear Mario, A few days ago you claimed you do not get to see my posts. Now it seems you do. Just in case you did not see it the first time, here are some questions I directed your way. 1) There is no trash section of the Goanet archives. 2) It would really be interesting to know why you think there is such a section. 3) What makes you want to visit such a place? 4) Why would you trip over when you are there? Today you respond with a: I agree with all three generalities above, but what do any of these generalities have to do with what actually happened with regard to Gilbert's post? Sometimes one sees the point and sometimes one does not. If a mistake is perceived in ANY post, it should be questioned, even criticized, in a constructive manner and a clarification obtained. There is no excuse to rush to judgement using selected excerpts from a post, ignoring other comments in the same post, followed by a vicious verbal attack on the writer. Verbal attacks? The bottom line is that Gilbert's article was badly written, in fact incomprehensible to me. The subject however, was a serious one: cancer. I am glad that people took the time to point out and correct all the faults of that post. Mervyn3.0 Talent hits a target no one else can hit; genius hits a target no one else can see. - Authur Scopenhauer __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Goanet mailing list Goanet@lists.goanet.org http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
Re: [Goanet] Propagation of a falsehood
Mario wrote: Santosh is correct that I was mistaken in the specific instance described above. That reminds me of a joke from Pothen Joseph, a doyen of Indian journalism: There was a boss who thought he was infallible. One day he walked into the office and declared, For once I was mistaken! You mistaken!? cried the cronies. Impossible! Yes, confided the Infallible One. Once I thought I was wrong when I wasn't! Cheers, RKN ___ Goanet mailing list Goanet@lists.goanet.org http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
Re: [Goanet] Propagation of a falsehood
Mario Goveia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mario observes: Santosh is correct that I was mistaken in the specific instance described above. However, I was not mistaken about the gist of the entire post by Gilbert, which was to explain how some Goan kaneos can seem accurate whereas that is simply a coincidence because the real medical reasons are quite different from what the grandmother's thought were the reasons. Mario, 1) Gilbert's original article was extremely badly written. 2) A board certified oncologist can make mistakes. 3) There are people who are capable of pointing out mistakes that a person is making in another profession. Mervyn3.0 __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ Goanet mailing list Goanet@lists.goanet.org http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
Re: [Goanet] Propagation of a falsehood
--- Radhakrishnan Nair [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Mario wrote: Santosh is correct that I was mistaken in the specific instance described above. That reminds me of a joke from Pothen Joseph, a doyen of Indian journalism: There was a boss who thought he was infallible. One day he walked into the office and declared, For once I was mistaken! You mistaken!? cried the cronies. Impossible! Yes, confided the Infallible One. Once I thought I was wrong when I wasn't! Mario observes: RKN, even though it may boggle your mind to learn that Santosh was right and I was wrong in citing a quote, I was! Imagine that! However, in my never humble opinion, as far as the meaning of it all, your confidence in me can rest assured:-)) ___ Goanet mailing list Goanet@lists.goanet.org http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
Re: [Goanet] Propagation of a falsehood
--- Santosh Helekar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The post appended below propagates a falsehood about me. It is falsely claimed that the following quote is my verbiage, and not Gilbert's: Thus the grandmother's observation was accurate. The truth is that this quote comes directly from the following post of Gilbert: http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2006-September/048340.html Mario observes: Santosh is correct that I was mistaken in the specific instance described above. However, I was not mistaken about the gist of the entire post by Gilbert, which was to explain how some Goan kaneos can seem accurate whereas that is simply a coincidence because the real medical reasons are quite different from what the grandmother's thought were the reasons. Santosh has not only deliberately misrepresented Gilbert's post, he has done so in a mean-spirited and unprofessional manner given that Gilbert is a Board Certified oncologist and Santosh is a researcher in an unrelated field of medicine. For example: The post appended below propagates dangerous myths and misinformation regarding cancer treatment in this public forum. No such dangerous myth was being propagated. Another example: Here is a link to an article from the Mayo Clinic, debunking the myth that tumor spreads when it is exposed to air,... No such myth had been suggested. Just the opposite. Gilbert had explained that tumors do not spread when exposed to air, which is what the Goan grandmothers thought was causing any such spread. ___ Goanet mailing list Goanet@lists.goanet.org http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
Re: [Goanet] Propagation of a falsehood
In Gilbert's defence, one needs to clarify which one of his many grandmothers you folks are talking about. In Gilbert's case it works like this: If the historical observations in any way negatively implicate the church (as was the case with the destruction of the Hindu temples during the Inquistion), they are classified as old kaneos that are not to be believed. Anything else that satisfies his half baked ideas or should I say, his dogma is immediately accepted as part of his rock solid scientific, oops, moral code. I think it would be more appropriate to rename this thread to propagation of falshoods by christian bigots. --- Santosh Helekar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The post appended below propagates a falsehood about me. It is falsely claimed that the following quote is my verbiage, and not Gilbert's: Thus the grandmother's observation was accurate. ___ Goanet mailing list Goanet@lists.goanet.org http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
[Goanet] Propagation of a falsehood
The post appended below propagates a falsehood about me. It is falsely claimed that the following quote is my verbiage, and not Gilbert's: Thus the grandmother's observation was accurate. The truth is that this quote comes directly from the following post of Gilbert: http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2006-September/048340.html Here is the relevant paragraph that contains this quote: A few years ago, an experiment was undertaken where a batch of mice were injected with an identical quantity (volume) of aggressive cancer cells. As expected the mice developed multiple tumors (metastasis) in the lung. Half the mice were then operated to remove tumors from just one lung. The other half of the batch of mice did not undergo any surgery. The mice were then followed. The mice with their tumor (partly) removed died much earlier than the group where the tumors in both lungs were allowed to grow uninterrupted. Thus the grandmother's observation was accurate. .Gilbert Lawrence Once again, I ask people not to be misled by someone else's mischaracterizations of my writings. Cheers, Santosh --- Mario Goveia [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Specifically, in your post you wrote: In the very next line, following the description of the mice study/experiment we are further informed(quote)Thus the grandmother's observation was accurate.(end of quote) This was not an interpretation; you were quoting Gilbert, unfortunately with a quote HE had not made, but using verbage from one of Santosh's posts. Anyone who reads Gilbert's original post would know this. From, http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2006-September/048340.html The actual quote after the mice experiment is as follows: So old grand-mothers' tales are not to be ignored except at our own peril! ___ Goanet mailing list Goanet@lists.goanet.org http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
