^^ Well...I was referring only to what is demonstrably true; i.e., able to be demonstrated to anyone willing to observe and consider in an "ordinary" state of mind. That's all I offer above. It's not terribly exciting, but it works for everyone, in an "ordinary sense," every day--in conducting the business of..."life."

Some alternative modes of healing have been demonstrated to be true, some even in clinical trials, which I would assume you consider to be an acceptable 'ordinary' state of mind.

You were offering much more than that, you were offering absoluteisms based upon your perception of what is possible, and what we believe to be possible creates the framework for what is possible in our experience.

We know next to nothing about 'life', so I don't follow your claim that you are explaining to us how day to day 'reality' works.

You've somehow picked up the strange and incorrect idea that I said that no alternative modes of healing have been demonstrated to have value. It's best to read what I actually write, rather than IMAGINE what I've said.

That being said, I'll stand by my statement that current "alternative methods" are quackery, i.e., are not "cures," because if they were, the fact would be known. Take laetrile as an example. It became WILDLY known quite quickly, even though, ultimately, it seems to be useless. So, if something useless, like laetrile, gets immense attention, it would only be reasonable to expect that something which actually WORKED would get far more attention.

Just because something is not a "cure," doesn't mean that it can't sometimes have some beneficial effect. But as "benefit" becomes more vague (there's no vagueness about a "cure" ), the actual existence of the benefit becomes more difficult to demonstrate. Therefore, we can be quite sure, there is an endless amount of pure baloney being sold and promoted, as well as some things with PERHAPS SOME benefit.

theories shmeories...

if someone would have found a way to travel to other dimensions and come back after a few minutes physically unharmed then i guess the word would have spread and everyone would know about it! Totally makes sense to me, therefore it must be the truth.

ok, maybe not...

I think you may be missing by wider point: There must be SOME WAY to decide if an alternative treatment will be useful and valuable (and safe). More or less, the best ways I could think of that such evidence could be presented would be 1) Scientifically validated clinical evidence. 2) Word of mouth that is SO OVERWHELMING that it would not serve a very ill person to wait for more formal validation.

Is there another way?

well im talking from long years of personal experience here from the inside, that usually is closer to reality then the ideas we have about how things are or how they should be.

got slightly off topic here...

In any case, im very open to give any seriously interested scientist, scientific evaluation of a part of the therapy we successfully use since years. By serious i mean people that are not just curious but that are interested to evaluate these things for themselves have the ability, time and resources to do so. Meaning cancer research professionals.

Hi Bindu,

This work is going on. Here is probably the flagship journal for 'alternative' cancer treatment.

http://ict.sagepub.com/

Check it out. This probably represents the best data available.

Of note: Among scientists and clinicians you will find that 'integrative cancer treatment' is much more popular than 'alternative cancer treatment.'

The distinction is that in 'integrative treatment' alternative treatment modalities can be used as a complement for what you call 'school medicine.' You will get a lot of (IMO well deserved) pushback it you support the conspiracy theory that alternative modalities work better then 'school medicine' and that this has been repressed by powerful pharma interests etc.

Anyway, most cancer clinicians are willing to indulge their patients interest in alternative modalities so long as it does not impede their other treatments. There is a growing trend in major cancer centers towards holistic or integrative approaches.

So. . . check out that journal. If you want to support them open up your wallet and subscribe. Write letters to the senior authors on papers that are of particular interest to you and ask them more specific questions about how to translate their work into your own clinical practice.

I know you asked specifically for a forum but my bias is that a peer-reviewed journal is a better source of info. You can still have the interactive element by contacting authors and establishing a dialogue. IME scientists just love to talk about their work, especially if you begin your letters with just a sprinkle of flattery

Too bad, for all those years, you were (apparently) unable to compile accurate data from which you could publish validation of your techniques. One always has to wonder when people CLAIM success, but aren't able to SHOW IT in a manner that can be objectively analyzed...

good source!

complementary medicine is indeed the way, thanks