Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (851341)	4/21/2015 1:45:16 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1579676

>> zGiven 5 year survival rates of 71%, it was pretty effecti Sorry, it should have been clear that wrecking women's bodies was no more effective than lumpectomy. You're totally missing the point and I think it is because you're TRYING to miss the point. The Halsted method of ever-more radical mastectomy had been seen as successful for a while, but during WWII it started to become evident that it was inferior to lumpectomy. It would take nearly 40 years for cancer surgeons to admit they were wrong. In effect, a generation who grew up doing radical mastectomy had to die off before the problem could be viewed in a new light. Same is true of Global Warming. Until the current group of "scientists" retire and move on to greener pastures will cooler heads prevail. Scientists are human, too. We all want to be right. But not all of us can be. Like cancer surgeons, climate scientists aren't about to admit they are wrong. They will have to die first.