<<And I remain puzzled why you do not offer your own view on the topic as I have just asked you to do; why you exempt yourself.>>

I have engaged in the discussion and offered my insights. It seems that you missed them? Perhaps if you have anything to add/ask, you can engage on that thread.


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

This is an interesting study SueZ. I think one could interpret is as, regardless of what you do, your chances of recovery are the same, so raw did not save Ruby. Or, one could interpret is as, those who recover do so because their immune systems is stronger for some reasons, so perhaps raw made Ruby's immune system stronger and helped her recover.


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

Related papers on the topic that I found (not read) are:

[1] Well differentiated thyroid cancer: Are we over treating our patients? Nixon I.J., Shah J.P. (2014) European Journal of Surgical Oncology, 40 (2) , pp. 129-132. ([www.ejso.com])

[2] Comparative effectiveness in thyroid cancer: Key questions and how to answer them. Asare, E.A., Wang, T.S. (2015) Cancer Treatment and Research 164, pp. 67-87. [link.springer.com]

rawgosia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is an interesting study SueZ. I think one
> could interpret is as, regardless of what you do,
> your chances of recovery are the same, so raw did
> not save Ruby. Or, one could interpret is as,
> those who recover do so because their immune
> systems is stronger for some reasons, so perhaps
> raw made Ruby's immune system stronger and helped
> her recover.

Yeah, it seems like really good news - especially for all the children of Fukushima and those of us who were subjected to a lot of head and neck x-rays as children.

rawgosia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Related papers on the topic that I found (not
> read) are:
>
> [1] Well differentiated thyroid cancer: Are we
> over treating our patients? Nixon I.J., Shah J.P.
> (2014) European Journal of Surgical Oncology, 40
> (2) , pp. 129-132.
> (http://www.ejso.com/article/S0748-7983(13)00941-4
> /abstract)
>
> [2] Comparative effectiveness in thyroid cancer:
> Key questions and how to answer them. Asare, E.A.,
> Wang, T.S. (2015) Cancer Treatment and Research
> 164, pp. 67-87.
> [link.springer.com]
> -12553-4_5

Thanks, I'll read these!

gosia,

what i recall is that you referenced professional standards of conduct.
unfortunately the bigger point is that from a practical perspective, trying to enforce it is not possible in the environments that we have been discussing.

which is why repeated calls for controls and overview are met with resistance regarding authoritarian overtures.

---

along those lines of difficulty of controlling others behavior, there was a recent story where a doctor told his patients that they had cancer so that he could give them chemo and make more money, and they didn't have cancer. ugh.


excellent post by suez. thank you.

She actually said: "...it is a real issue that there are no regulatory bodies which impose certain standards of behaviour online...So I do believe that certain standards are needed."

[www.rawfoodsupport.com]

Where would these "regulatory bodies" and "standards" come from if not some government type organization? Please explain. It's obvious that she left herself wide-open to be interpreted as an every day nanny-stater who thinks that we, not her, need to be looked after for our own good. Just because she denies it now doesn't mean that she didn't write it down in plain English. What are these "regulatory bodies" supposed to do anyway? Search our homes and grill us to make sure that what we say online is true according to them?


SueZ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SueZ Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > rawgosia Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I am in favor of what?! You are putting words
> > in
> > > my mouth. I kindly request that you do not do
> > this
> > > as you are misrepresenting me. And I was not
> > > referring to you at all. I was addressing
> > fresh,
> > > not you.
>
>
>
>
> > Rawgosia, in case you were wondering, I'm sure
> I'm
> > not the only other one who saw what she did
> there
>
>
>
> On second thought - maybe I was.
>
> Stating there are issues about low standards that
> it would be wise to address does not necessarily
> mean a call to rally for government mandates
> regardless of how many people here take the giant
> leap to that conclusion. Geez.
>
> On the one hand there sure seems to be plenty of
> fear of authority figures meddleing while the
> other hand is ever moments from dialing 911 to be
> rescued instead of doing an little due diligence
> on one's own ...

rawgosia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> <>
>
> The purpose of me asking "How would you like to
> see accountability work in the raw food
> community?" was to open a discussion. I value a
> collaborative discussion as a better way of
> developing an idea than a debate. The approach is,
> here is an issue, let's explore the possibilities.
> Rather than, here is an issue, here is my opinion,
> what is your opinion, let's debate. A
> collaboratively-developed idea is of more value
> than one person's current opinion. This is a tool
> used in collaborative research.

In the spirit of sharing in collaborative research on the accountability problem I'm linking one of my new tools of discovery which has helped me immensely in the preliminary stages of some varieties of BS detecting - BS has to be detected before it can be addressed and accounted for, after all.

[www.amazon.com]