[mindslight]

How does it interact with the colloidal silver I am taking? What about my magnetic wristbands? I'm also having problems getting to the clinic these days because big oil stole my car that runs on water.

(Sorry, that's just how you're coming across.)

[marshallp]

http://www.fusfoundation.org/MRgFUS-Overview/about-focused-u...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-intensity_focused_ultrasou...

http://bergcityuni.wordpress.com/projects/cardiac-ablation-u...

(links to sites linking to university funded medical researchers)

It doesn't take long to do a GOOGLE SEARCH. For a supposedly tech themed discussion site there's a lot of closed-minded and google-challenged folk on here.

[mst]

If you write with sufficiently strong terms that you sound like you're blindly evangelising rather than rationally advocating, the average HN reader is going to go "eep" and adjust their prior expectation of your being right -way- down.

This effect is, I'm afraid, largely independent of whether you're -actually- right or not - so assuming your goals include "maximise the number of readers of your comment who go on to do some research about the technique", adjusting the language you use to try and put across that they should go and research it is probably a good idea.

Disclaimer: The above in no way indicates a judgement as to whether the technique in question is sufficiently awesome to deserve the language you used.

[marshallp]

I think you're making that mistake a lot of people in medicine make and what separates them from the tech industry. They're huge pessimists because they don't grok things like physics or computing and are trained/selected for their ability to pass tests out of a textbook. If you put your geekdom "crawl entire web/robot car/computers on every desk" hat on you'll realize you can run circles around the current medical industry.

edit: I get you're trying to give advice. If I make the claims less exciting no-one will bother. If too exciting, they think unfeasible. Getting the balance right seems hard.

[derleth]

> If you put your geekdom "crawl entire web/robot car/computers on every desk" hat on you'll realize you can run circles around the current medical industry.

Then why hasn't anyone done precisely this?

[mindslight]

"cure to a lot of ailments ... criminally underfunded ... potential immortality".

I mean as a mechanism, "focused ultrasound" pretty much says it all. But how successful is it in trials? I think I took a quick look at some links (or googled) based on another one of your comments, but not being in the medical field, or currently needing any repairs that involve tissue ablation, I didn't spend too long investigating the state of the art.

FWIW, I didn't downvote you. I just want to encourage you to sound less crackpottish. Focus on peer-reviewed evidence for specific applications, don't allude to some miracle cure-all.

[marshallp]

I'm not saying it's available at your local walgreens. I'm just saying, like robot cars were a few years ago, it's an underinvested/underpromoted breakthrough sitting right under people's noses.

[mindslight]

So you're attempting to remedy that by generically promoting it as a cure all, even claiming it's capable of providing immortality? I don't really think you are making an attempt to understand what I, or anybody else here, is saying. You're defending yourself as if we are just blind naysayers, but in fact those people didn't even bother commenting. I swear I'd seen some insightful comments from you before, so I figured that you might be open to seeing wisdom. However at this point, I give up.

[marshallp]

Why such drastic measures like giving up. As I said in another comment, too low a claim and people think it's not worthwhile, too high and it's crackpotty. How do I get to the right balance?

Furthermore, I think the medical industry is full of unsystematic people. Every time you see a medical lab, it's a guy walking around physically moving petri dishes. That's why I'm trying to promote in the tech circles, they do overly ambitious things.

Rather than simply naysaying, people should give a concrete reason refuting the claim that focused ultrasound is potentially a cure-all. I can't think of any, and I've put thought into it.

[mindslight]

So, just to reiterate - you're claiming to have a key to immortality, something that has been sought after for time immemorial, yet it is up to others to come up with evidence to refute your claim...

[DanBC]

> It doesn't take long to do a GOOGLE SEARCH.

You made the claim; you are familiar with the subject. If you had made the search and presented links that would have been one person spending a few minutes doing a search.

By expecting everyone who reads your post to do the web searching your asking for many people to spend a few minutes each doing a search.

The inefficiency is sub-optimal, no?

[marshallp]

I've made couple posts about it - including links - over the past week, still got downvotes. People are not realizing the unthinkable is actually thinkable.

[derleth]

> It doesn't take long to do a GOOGLE SEARCH

And waste time wading through a bunch of patent nonsense put up by scammers in the often-vain hope that there is something, just one real item of legitimate information, lost in all the dross.

You say 'closed-minded', I say 'wary of wasting time on yet another example of the alt-med scammer runaround'.

[marshallp]

All it takes is a couple of clicks to get a huge list of researchers, including Harvard and John Hopkins

http://www.fusfoundation.org/research/sites

[carbocation]

I have personally spent time in the cath lab with one of the doctors mentioned on that site doing ablation therapy. By absolutely zero means whatsoever is it a cure all. More typically, it is a palliative modality.

[marshallp]

Are you saying it will never potentially be a cure?

Maybe it isn't now, but with enough automated testing on mice or pigs etc. it will get to a mature point. This can also be parallelized, so maybe it can be done in a few months.

[derleth]

> Are you saying it will never potentially be a cure?

Well, I'm saying that the alt-med scammers can come up with 500 new 'potential cures' in the time it takes the real medical world to test one.

And that testing requires so many resources, especially in terms of the time of skilled people who should be doing something more likely to be productive, that it will likely never be done.

This reasoning applies more to stuff that's obvious nonsense, like everything that has suppurated out of the festering wound that is homeopathy, but everything goes through a period where the default reaction is skepticism. That's called science. That's what works.