I fail to see how videos in which you can clearly read the full names of the patients and the links to their social media or websites could be labelled 'unverifiable'. They seem very verifiable to me. The fact that you're not willing to contact those people (who have no reason to do anything more than to offer their testimonials) in order to confirm or infirm your accusations is no reason to classify them as 'unverifiable'.
As for the scientific community, the fact that it has spent hard years gaining expertise is nothing more than an argumentum ad verecundiam. Their credibility should not be a logical consequence of their authority in the field if they do not provide the adequate means of verification for their scientific opinions. Firstly, whether they possess that knowledge or not is debatable, considering the mediocre state that medical advancements are today in comparison to other branches of technology. Secondly, if they do possess that knowledge, it's debatable whether the knowledge is of significant relevance, considering that many famous inventors had no academic studies in the fields that consecrated them. Thirdly, even if they do possess the knowledge and the knowledge is of significant relevance, that does not denote that they also possess the moral compass to make that knowledge available against their well-being if presented with offers (or threats) to keep the knowledge obscured.
Why would I spend the effort to verify something as scientifically useless as a testimonial? Indeed if these patients visited hospitals and doctors, then they would have medical records. If there was something truly amazing, rather than merely rare, it would have been noted by the doctors themselves. A good example is below.
Scientists Report a Rare Case of H.I.V. Remission
That nothing like these have happened tells me that what is being claimed as a miracle is nothing of that sort. Rare remissions happen sufficiently frequently in all diseases, that's natural and perfectly within the parameters of human biology. That is not a miracle. So I have no interest in pursuing any of these testimonials, even if you include a billion of them. If however you have doctors reports that clearly state that the remission violated all expectations of what is possible by a human body. I would like you to link it.
Are spontaneous remissions investigated by scientists? Yes they are, with promising results.
Cancer: The mysterious miracle cases inspiring doctors
It was the late 19th Century, and William Bradley Coley was struggling to save a patient with a large tumour in his neck. Five operations had failed to eradicate the cancer. Then the patient caught a nasty skin infection with a scorching fever. By the time he’d recovered,
the tumour was gone. Testing the principle on a small number of other patients, Coley found that deliberately infecting them with bacteria, or treating them with toxins harvested from microbes, destroyed otherwise inoperable tumours.
Could infection be the key to stimulating spontaneous remission more generally?
Analyses of the recent evidence certainly make a compelling case for exploring the idea. Rashidi and Fisher’s study found that 90% of the patients recovering from leukaemia had suffered another illness such as pneumonia shortly before the cancer disappeared. Other papers have noted tumours vanishing after
diphtheria, gonorrhoea, hepatitis, influenza, malaria, measles, smallpox and syphilis. What doesn’t kill you really can make you stronger in these strange circumstances.
It’s not the microbes, per se, that bring about the healing; rather, the infection is thought to trigger an immune response that is inhospitable to the tumour. The heat of the fever, for instance, may itself render the tumour cells more vulnerable, and trigger cell suicide. Or perhaps it’s significant that when we are fighting bacteria or viruses, our blood is awash with inflammatory molecules that are a call to arms for the body’s macrophages, turning these immune cells into warriors that kill and engulf microbes – and potentially the cancer too. “I think the infection changes the innate immune cells from helping the tumours to killing them,” says Henrik Schmidt at Aarhus University Hospital in Denmark. That, in turn, may also stimulate other parts of the immune system – such as our dendritic cells and T-cells – to learn to recognise the tumorous cells, so that they can attack the cancer again should it return.
Others are considering a far more radical line of attack. For instance, one approach aims to deliberately infect cancer patients with a tropical disease.The technique, developed by American start-up PrimeVax, involves a two-pronged approach. It would begin by taking a sample of the tumour, and collecting dendritic cells from the patient’s blood. These cells help coordinate the immune system’s response to a threat, and by exposing them to the tumour in the lab, it is possible to programme them to recognise the cancerous cells. Meanwhile, the patient is given a dose of dengue fever, a disease normally carried by mosquitoes, before they are injected with the newly trained dendritic cells.
This, not you tube testimonials, is how real scientific advances that help people are made.
