Garry Tan has been the most influential figure that I have ever had a chance to come across. He appeared right at my critical moments of life and death, at the turning points of the tide. I am certain to say that without Garry and his helping hand, my life would not be what it is today. I consider myself very lucky to have met him.
>And then I better understood the stupendous energy requirements for a two-way trip to even the very closest neighboring solar system. And it is just not practical, even for a civilization at the end of the technology development tree.
Testing things is different than practicing things.
You cannot test many things. You also cannot prove many things. Look at nutrition. Determining the cause and effect of a substance on a human body is difficult.
Science is aimed at proving things. Sometimes, in life, that luxury is not available.
In holistic approaches, sometimes, the treatment works, but the cause and effect cannot be pinpointed. Oftentimes, it's not repeatable. That is because the state of the body is different from one point to another.
"Selling" these techniques or drugs complicates the matter. And this is why [alternative] therapies have a negative taste in scientific communities.
The holistic perspective is that there is no one singular effective treatment for all individuals. It is a craft.
Perhaps curcumin works for one , not another. Perhaps the same curcumin works now, but not later. Or perhaps you'll never knows if it works at all. Being able to measure it is difficult. Welcome to the game.
It is a process that combines both thinking and feeling. (Intuition). Perhaps one day you step in shit. But the next day you find a flower. There is no right or wrong answer.
I do believe there are "charlatans" -- if that's what you want to call it -- who are attuned to this type of flow, or practice.
Some treatments are considered "Fringe" because there are other [political, structural] hurdles at play that prevent them from going through proper scientific process. Some people don't have time to wait 10 years for government approval, so they'd rather take the chance now.
50% of long-term cancer survival is high. He probably should have took it.
Alternative treatments don’t guarantee higher success than modern medicine. However, if modern medicine puts the chance of survival at < 5%, it’s not a bad idea to try fringe approaches.
Modern science aims to create a standardized approach for categorized diseases. Controlled experiments aim to find a magic bullet, but are these experiments really “controlled”?
Everyone eats differently; everyone shits differently. Different air quality; stress levels; sleep; metabolism. Not to mention, the body and its disease are both is ever-changing systems over time. Until we have nano-machines, we won’t know the true cause and effect of all these variables.
Therefore, the holistic approach* is to use intuition, adaptation, and nonstandard ways to deal with this recognition. The downside of this approach is the amount of information and the ability to determine the credibility (eg. random social media), especially for a layman. However, if one was knowledgeable enough to read thousands of academic papers, from various fields (outside of oncology) -- one could develop a more tailored plan for the individual that accounts for these other factors.
*Holistic approach does not mean disregard of science. It does not mean rejecting standard protocols. It means that one should consider a wider-range of factors, in addition to standard protocols. It is an approach that places more value on breadth.
What about crafts that were sighted doing the same maneuvers in the 1940s and 50s? The obvious answer to your question is "latter", but the obviousness deteriorates as you look into historic occurrences.
Congratulations, Garry!