Ok please... I wasn't, and still am not, seeking to use HN discussion threads to persuade anyone with a strongly held position on medical science to change their position.

I was simply backing up others' suggestions that psychology could play a significant role in serious illnesses like cancer, by pointing out that there are prominent figures with mainstream scientific backgrounds (Lipton was a stem cell researcher and medical lecturer at Wisconsin and Stanford; Tanzi is a senior professor of medicine at Harvard) who have written books explaining and documenting some of the science behind this idea and that I and many others find their work persuasive.

I wasn't seeking to win any argument with an appeal to authority (though you did, along with a straw man dismissal).

I was suggesting some sources of further insight that others may have chosen to pursue if interested.

Then in response to your combative reply, I explained that I have personal experience with the topic. Again, not trying to win any arguments with this, just indicating that I have cause to take this issue very seriously and research it very deeply (I've read far more broadly than just Lipton and Tanzi fwiw).

But still, in response to your demand for hard evidence I linked to one academic paper on the topic and I linked to more in another (far more polite) comment in the thread.

After that discussion I went searching for further journal papers on the topic and found this:

http://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7...

Seriously, I have no dog in any fight other than that I was sick for a long time and now I'm making big strides towards to being very well. And I know there are many people - some I know personally - who are falling through the cracks of the medical system and it's very sad to witness.

I don't care much for any wars over the validity of "mainstream" vs "alternative" medicine. I consider most non-mainstream medicine ineffective and most alternative practitioners (including chiros) to be quacks.

But as a startup guy I'm comfortable with the idea that the most transformative ideas will often come from the fringes, and may well be sitting there already, just waiting to be explored. The fact that one of this year's Nobel Prize winners for medicine was for a discovery that came from traditional Chinese medicine should serve as an important reminder of that.

On the topic at hand: it's uncontroversial that psychology plays a role in the development and healing of physiological illness. The only questions are on the mechanics of how it works, the specifics of how it manifests in particular illnesses, and what techniques may exist or may be developed that could be effective in clinical settings.

In all sincerity, if you genuinely care about this topic and want to discuss it further, I'd be most willing to do so. I'd be happy to share more details about my own illness and recovery, and other sources of evidence that I've found useful.

You can find my details in my profile.

Like I said, I understand the skepticism as I was exactly that way inclined myself not so long ago.

But I'm also familiar with the kind of person who is more interested in picking and winning petty battles than learning about a topic through a good-spirited discussion.

So I'll finish by saying that while I accept my comments could have been more convincing with links to hard evidence (if convincing was what I'd set out to do), your rhetorical style is not of the kind that helps make HN a productive place to discuss interesting ideas, and thus seems contrary to the spirit of participation we try to cultivate here.

That said, I'm still happy to hear from you if you sincerely want to explore the topic further.