It wasn't intended to be. Sarcasm wasn't my point, and you should re-read the part where I praise your source as being valid and appropriate.Originally Posted by MICAN
You know, the funny thing about data is that it really doesn't get old.Originally Posted by MICAN
for example if 12 years ago I were studying and actually treating cancer patients, and I found that untreated cancer patients were generally happy.
then today, someone reported that cancer patients are generally unhappy.
That wouldn't "debunk" my 12 year old research.
Also, the kind of support that you would expect from me is to appeal to a professional with experience in this field.. yes?
Really the only legit knock you can make about the source is #1 that he is in the current minority. #2 that his experience is "old".
Neither of those are very strong counters IMO.
If you really want to attack his Position, instead of just assuming and asserting it's incorrectness. You would have to show what he specifically got wrong at the time. And/or what has changed from then to now.
Honestly, haven't read that book.. just quoting a valid and proper source in support of my opinion, as is expected.
That doesn't make my point invalid, that outlet accurately reported the DR stance. The DR is the original source, and he is of the proper kind of support.Originally Posted by SAD
He may be in the minority, but he has hardly been "debunked". His view is only now in the minority, but it wasn't so long ago (like yesterday practically) where his view was "medically sound".Originally Posted by SAD
Further your "source" for debunking him is another biased site, that doesn't even appear to be a DR at all. Please See Mican's post where he sites actual Dr and current medical opinion.