Can this man cure cancer? [John Kanzius]

www.naplesnews.com ^ | 21 June 2008 | By MATT CLARK

[farlander]

American Cancer Society published news on all kinds of alternative, speculative, and in-development treatments. This is one of those that it’s a “interesting idea” but not all that much different that what about hundreds of other teams are doing.

I guess I’ll just repeat myself since you’re not paying attention either: when the New England Journal of Medicine publishes an article on this stuff, or an Fortune 500 company announces an investment or says it is investigating this track, get back to me.

In the meantime, this guy is still a kook, no matter how charismatic he may be, or ‘novel’ his approach may look like to the non-scientific folk.

[farlander]

I don’t think he’s out to scam people - I think he’s just deluded, as none of his stuff is/has been replicated by anyone nor really peer reviewed. When you’re facing the meeting with God one can grasp to any straw. Especially if it feels “scientfic”. There is very, very little actual science (ie, peer reviewed, AND reproduced) coming out of this guy.

If any of this was ANY good and/or had prospects, there’d be big pharma companies lining up to invest and bring to market. I sure don’t see any.

[southland]

bookmark

[count-your-change]

You mean the Political Activist New England Journal of Medicine? The one that takes up the cause of the environmental movement, the anti gun ownership movement, the one that feels free to advise on disability laws?
The one that took five years to correct a biased article and only when called on it by readers?
No thank you, I don't care to worship at their feet.

[farlander]

That doesn’t make clinicial studies and papers they publish any less valid, or Kanzius’ theories any more.

[count-your-change]

No, it certainly doesn't, anymore than the what The American Cancer Society publishes in its journal. Neither is a journal of hacks nor is Holy Writ.
What it does do is tell us is that no matter how prestigious the NEJM (or Lancetor or whatever) is, what is published there must be weighed on its own merits and that simply being published there means nothing in and of its self despite your earlier comments.
That Kanzius is willing to let someone ‘look under the hood and kick the tires’ of his idea and application shows he is not a “kook” even if he is proven wrong eventually.
I seem to recall that Thomas Edison fought for d.c. current usage even though a.c. was obviously superior for transmission and large scale usage, and Edison, brilliant and practical as he was, tried to make furniture from concrete of all things!
Fortune 500 funding? Useful but not necessary to innovation and invention. Need examples?