Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Sun)   Cute 37-year-old mum fights to block radiotherapy for cancer-stricken son, fears it will lower his IQ (w/pics)   (thesun.co.uk ) divider line
    More: Stupid, neon, radiation  
•       •       •

24627 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Dec 2012 at 5:55 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



308 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-08 02:17:15 PM  
Yeah ok, I'll give you cute.

She's got the crazy eyes though.
 
2012-12-08 02:18:29 PM  
I'd settle for a diminished IQ if it meant spending more time above ground. Call me crazy...
 
2012-12-08 02:21:28 PM  
Because dead kids are known for their high iqs.
 
2012-12-08 02:23:16 PM  
She's clearly not fit to be a parent. Take custody away from her.
 
2012-12-08 02:24:45 PM  
You're "not bonkers," yet you named your son "Neon?"
 
2012-12-08 02:33:26 PM  

SilentStrider: She's got the crazy eyes though.


Indeed.

And saying something to the effect of "I'M NOT CRAZY" is just one big ol' red flag for a high level of craziness.
 
2012-12-08 03:05:30 PM  
I guess she just doesn't care for the glow of Neon
 
2012-12-08 03:08:57 PM  
He's English, how much lower can his IQ go?

//dat's a crazy lookin' biatch
 
2012-12-08 03:29:31 PM  
I've seen people go through the chemo and radiation. They still died, just slowly and in more pain. Prolonging a life of agony is never nice and there is no guarantee that this will cure him.
 
2012-12-08 03:29:51 PM  
Potentially, death will lower a person's IQ even more.
 
2012-12-08 03:48:33 PM  

AbbeySomeone: I've seen people go through the chemo and radiation. They still died, just slowly and in more pain. Prolonging a life of agony is never nice and there is no guarantee that this will cure him.



"You MIGHT not live, son, so we figure, fark it."
 
2012-12-08 03:57:22 PM  
This is going to be one of those dusty threads, right?

/someone get the SwiftJet out
 
2012-12-08 04:02:24 PM  

SilentStrider: Yeah ok, I'll give you cute.

She's got the crazy eyes though.


and is a complete and total moron. They basically need the courts to appoint a guardian ad litem. Problem solved.
 
2012-12-08 04:03:30 PM  

OtherBrotherDarryl: Potentially, death will lower a person's IQ even more.


death would increase the mother's IQ.
 
2012-12-08 04:04:20 PM  
Damn, lady... let the kid have a radio, already.

/dnrta
 
2012-12-08 04:09:09 PM  
Not as low as hers, it appears.
 
2012-12-08 04:17:03 PM  
Props to the doc who likened radiotherapy to "frying the brain."
 
2012-12-08 04:18:54 PM  
Since what I was going to say has already been covered, I'll just say:

1. She looks a bit like Chloe Sevigny.
2. Neon? Really?
 
2012-12-08 04:28:40 PM  
Anybody suss out what country this took place in?
 
2012-12-08 04:51:46 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Props to the doc who likened radiotherapy to "frying the brain."


I'm gonna have to go ahead and assume that that is not what he said, rather he gave a detailed and technical explanation of what's involved and she translated it in her head to "frying the brain". Although I wouldn't bet a lot on that, I still think it's more likely.
 
2012-12-08 04:51:48 PM  

AbbeySomeone: I've seen people go through the chemo and radiation. They still died, just slowly and in more pain. Prolonging a life of agony is never nice and there is no guarantee that this will cure him.


This is true. I wish my uncles had listened and not put my aging grandmother through chemotherapy. Her aging , obese body couldn't handle it and she would have preferred to just die naturally.

A child though? Worth the risk IMO.
 
2012-12-08 04:57:43 PM  
I had gamma knife radiation on my brain tumor and it didn't fry anything but the tumor. So that was nice.
 
2012-12-08 05:00:35 PM  
She has investigated natural remedies abroad.
Yup too stupid to live.
 
2012-12-08 05:01:40 PM  

namatad: She has investigated natural remedies abroad.
Yup too stupid to live.


and before the natural tards show up, I have NO problem with you using natural remedies yourself, but when you insist on using them on your kids? well you should be charged with attempted murder or murder when they die.
 
2012-12-08 05:04:17 PM  

ToxicMunkee: I had gamma knife radiation on my brain tumor and it didn't fry anything but the tumor. So that was nice.


moegolf.files.wordpress.com

"So iv'e got that going for me, which is nice"

/first thing that popped in my head
 
2012-12-08 05:06:44 PM  
Yes, the boy will probably have some cognitive impairment after the procedure. It may well work and he'll recover, with some changes. My best friend's son had cancer at age 9, and now in his 20s, there's no question that his very capable and bright mind was affected. Hearing loss. Stunted growth. Rendered sterile. Diminished social skills. But, he is alive, and quite thoroughly functional. His parents recognized this risk and that as a survivor, their kid would be unlikely to be the same afterward. Proved true. Frustruating, to be sure.

But he is alive.
 
2012-12-08 05:07:54 PM  

GAT_00: She's clearly not fit to be a parent. Take custody away from her.


That's what it sounds like she's working on. Poor kid.
 
2012-12-08 05:36:14 PM  

DMMidwest: Yes, the boy will probably have some cognitive impairment after the procedure. It may well work and he'll recover, with some changes. My best friend's son had cancer at age 9, and now in his 20s, there's no question that his very capable and bright mind was affected. Hearing loss. Stunted growth. Rendered sterile. Diminished social skills. But, he is alive, and quite thoroughly functional. His parents recognized this risk and that as a survivor, their kid would be unlikely to be the same afterward. Proved true. Frustruating, to be sure.

But he is alive.

This woman would rather that her child die, than have her dreams and expectations dashed. If he dies for lack of treatment, she should die too.
 
2012-12-08 05:57:06 PM  

cretinbob: He's English, how much lower can his IQ go?


American.
 
2012-12-08 05:57:41 PM  

dickfreckle: You're "not bonkers," yet you named your son "Neon?"


Hey now, that's a fine name. Noble, even.
 
2012-12-08 05:58:38 PM  
Where's the mom? All I saw was a pic of the dad.

/it's a man, baby.
 
2012-12-08 05:59:42 PM  
Sure she's cute.. but stupid. Very stupid.
 
2012-12-08 06:00:58 PM  

Mister Peejay: dickfreckle: You're "not bonkers," yet you named your son "Neon?"

Hey now, that's a fine name. Noble, even.


stickerish.com
 
2012-12-08 06:01:37 PM  
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-12-08 06:01:47 PM  

Gawdzila: Sure she's cute.. but stupid. Very stupid.


She has some duck lips going on there.
 
2012-12-08 06:02:14 PM  

dickfreckle: You're "not bonkers," yet you named your son "Neon?"


I don't see a problem with that.
25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-12-08 06:03:18 PM  
It's pronounced Nay-OWN.
 
2012-12-08 06:04:24 PM  

AbbeySomeone: I've seen people go through the chemo and radiation. They still died, just slowly and in more pain. Prolonging a life of agony is never nice and there is no guarantee that this will cure him.


I've seen people go through chemo and radiation, too. It cured them of cancer. They went on to live a very happy and productive life. Years later, they're still doing great and they are happy to be alive. I've also seen people who died after chemo and radiation.

/Chemo and radiation don't always work, but they're the best we have at this point.
 
2012-12-08 06:05:00 PM  
He's seven. This is a perfect age for a little brain trauma since he's at peak neuroplasticity.

Reminds me of an anti-vaccer co-worker who claimed vaccines made his kids retarded. After I met his wife I realized that maybe it was a genetic issue, she was totally introverted.
 
2012-12-08 06:07:27 PM  
I stopped reading after I saw the boy's name.

Bonkers? surely not
 
2012-12-08 06:07:31 PM  
www.theautolog.com
 
2012-12-08 06:08:36 PM  

wildcardjack: He's seven. This is a perfect age for a little brain trauma since he's at peak neuroplasticity.

Reminds me of an anti-vaccer co-worker who claimed vaccines made his kids retarded. After I met his wife I realized that maybe it was a genetic issue, she was totally introverted.


Yeah, reminds me of a guy I work with whose kids have issues. He's a flaming nutcase, like tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist nuts. Of course, no correlation in his mind at all.
 
2012-12-08 06:09:42 PM  

Slaxl: BarkingUnicorn: Props to the doc who likened radiotherapy to "frying the brain."

I'm gonna have to go ahead and assume that that is not what he said, rather he gave a detailed and technical explanation of what's involved and she translated it in her head to "frying the brain". Although I wouldn't bet a lot on that, I still think it's more likely.


As opposed to frying the brain with drugs, which is clearly what this woman did to herself.
 
2012-12-08 06:11:18 PM  

Molavian: wildcardjack: He's seven. This is a perfect age for a little brain trauma since he's at peak neuroplasticity.

Reminds me of an anti-vaccer co-worker who claimed vaccines made his kids retarded. After I met his wife I realized that maybe it was a genetic issue, she was totally introverted.

Yeah, reminds me of a guy I work with whose kids have issues. He's a flaming nutcase, like tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist nuts. Of course, no correlation in his mind at all.


It's probably the only thing in his life that doesn't have a connection/correlation.

/In his mind
 
2012-12-08 06:13:14 PM  
New Zealander Ms Roberts, of Tiverton, Devon, told the court she was "forced" into it and is not a "bonkers mother."


That's cheating, subby. 
But damn, she named him Neon? Did she have this radiotherapy done in the past?
 
2012-12-08 06:13:21 PM  
You know, with the new imaging technology available, the destruction of healthy cells is vary minimal. The mom is ether an idiot, or the doctor didn't inform her properly. Ether way, it's a fail that the kid is going to pay for. :(
 
2012-12-08 06:13:54 PM  

simplicimus: Anybody suss out what country this took place in?


Can't be America. Not many single mothers here can afford healthcare for themselves let alone their children.
 
2012-12-08 06:14:00 PM  

namatad: namatad: She has investigated natural remedies abroad.
Yup too stupid to live.

and before the natural tards show up, I have NO problem with you using natural remedies yourself, but when you insist on using them on your kids? well you should be charged with attempted murder or murder when they die.


Read yesterday that she's a "great believer in homeotherapy" - if that's the "alternative" that she wanted the kid would be farked. Expensive water .... yeah that should do it.
 
2012-12-08 06:14:13 PM  

Slaxl: BarkingUnicorn: Props to the doc who likened radiotherapy to "frying the brain."

I'm gonna have to go ahead and assume that that is not what he said, rather he gave a detailed and technical explanation of what's involved and she translated it in her head to "frying the brain". Although I wouldn't bet a lot on that, I still think it's more likely.


That's usually the case. Most of the time, docs simply fail to give out information in a way their patients understand, and this is what the patient walks away thinking.

/I've also seen the same phenomenon with cops
//I'm going to start calling professionals on this when I see them talking technical talk to lay people.
 
2012-12-08 06:17:08 PM  
I bet that kid's not vaccinated, either
 
2012-12-08 06:17:12 PM  
If you read other reports on the matter, and not just the Sun's version, you'll see that she doesn't come across as quite so daft. For example, she is fine with him receiving chemotherapy. The issue seems to be whether he needs radio therapy as well. Despite the certainty with which so many farkers view the case, the judge has not ruled yet, saying that the medical picture is changing.
 
2012-12-08 06:17:39 PM  

loveblondieo: Since what I was going to say has already been covered, I'll just say:

1. She looks a bit like Chloe Sevigny.
2. Neon? Really?


ANd like Chloe, she's probably been in movies where she's given oral.
 
2012-12-08 06:19:07 PM  
"if I do chemotherapy, it could damage you."
"And if you don't, it's gonna kill me. Now, a headache I can get over. I'm not sure I'm gonna get over being dead anytime soon."
 
2012-12-08 06:20:04 PM  

Mister Peejay: dickfreckle: You're "not bonkers," yet you named your son "Neon?"

Hey now, that's a fine name. Noble, even.


Ouch. That one hurt. My chemist wife is going to get a kick out of it tonight, though.
 
2012-12-08 06:20:17 PM  

anfrind: "if I do chemotherapy, it could damage you."
"And if you don't, it's gonna kill me. Now, a headache I can get over. I'm not sure I'm gonna get over being dead anytime soon."


If 12/21/12 is the zombie apocalypse, then maybe.
 
2012-12-08 06:21:53 PM  
But I am Bonkers.
 
2012-12-08 06:22:23 PM  
The Old Lady is a RN, she sadly as a lot of stories like this one, one I remember is this woman that came in for some reason and they found she had early stage (think she called it stage 1A or something) cervical cancer, the woman was told that with treatment she had a 90+% chance of survival, instead of coming in for treatment she opted for "natural remedies" herbal teas, infusion therapy (whatever the fark that is) etc, when that didn't work she flew to Mexico for some kind of cancer "boot camp", when that still didn't cure her she finally came in only to find that the cancer had spread and now her chances were less than 10%, so of course she is now blaming the hospital because they didn't clearly tell her that ignoring their advice for 4 years might endanger her chances of survival....
 
2012-12-08 06:25:33 PM  
neon...not the brightest of choices...lets try PLASMA!!!!
 
2012-12-08 06:26:23 PM  
How about you stop the ship from sinking and then worry about how clean the decks are?!? Silly twit.
 
2012-12-08 06:28:38 PM  

anfrind: "if I do chemotherapy, it could damage you."
"And if you don't, it's gonna kill me. Now, a headache I can get over. I'm not sure I'm gonna get over being dead anytime soon."


Mr. Garibaldi sees what you did there.
 
HBK
2012-12-08 06:29:20 PM  
25.media.tumblr.com

Well, just look at it did to this guy!
 
2012-12-08 06:29:40 PM  

Pribar: infusion therapy (whatever the fark that is)


Herbal tea douches, basically.
 
2012-12-08 06:32:17 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Props to the doc who likened radiotherapy to "frying the brain."


I'm sure that's exactly what he said. "We need to fry his brain, so if you'll sign here... Yes, 'fry the brain..." No, that is the technical terminology... Look, do you want us to fry his brain or not?"
 
2012-12-08 06:34:07 PM  

MooseUpNorth: Pribar: infusion therapy (whatever the fark that is)

Herbal tea douches, basically.


So her corpse will be clean and fresh with just a hint of mint at least huh?
 
2012-12-08 06:34:10 PM  

Pribar: The Old Lady is a RN, she sadly as a lot of stories like this one, one I remember is this woman that came in for some reason and they found she had early stage (think she called it stage 1A or something) cervical cancer, the woman was told that with treatment she had a 90+% chance of survival, instead of coming in for treatment she opted for "natural remedies" herbal teas, infusion therapy (whatever the fark that is) etc, when that didn't work she flew to Mexico for some kind of cancer "boot camp", when that still didn't cure her she finally came in only to find that the cancer had spread and now her chances were less than 10%, so of course she is now blaming the hospital because they didn't clearly tell her that ignoring their advice for 4 years might endanger her chances of survival....


Reminds me of - now stay with me for a bit - my brother's ex-fiance's mother. She had breast cancer and had it removed via surgery (which is standard for lower stage breast cancers). At the same time, she started the macrobiotics diet, a fad diet that purports to cure cancer. It doesn't, but that's what the founder wants you to believe (and curiously, the founder and his daughter both died of cancer, even though they were both on this diet). For years (every since I met her about 5-6 years ago, and probably for longer than that) she swore up and down that it was the diet that cured her of cancer, and those "western medicine death mongers" had nothing to do with it.
 
2012-12-08 06:34:26 PM  

jaytkay: I bet that kid's not vaccinated, either


Look at how healthy he is!
 
2012-12-08 06:38:45 PM  
i49.tinypic.com
 
2012-12-08 06:39:27 PM  

Pribar: MooseUpNorth: Pribar: infusion therapy (whatever the fark that is)

Herbal tea douches, basically.

So her corpse will be clean and fresh with just a hint of mint at least huh?


Yeah. You know, SCAM practitioners piss me off so much since my normally pragmatic father's been taken in with the bullshiat, I can't even joke about it right now.
 
2012-12-08 06:41:34 PM  

MooseUpNorth: Pribar: MooseUpNorth: Pribar: infusion therapy (whatever the fark that is)

Herbal tea douches, basically.

So her corpse will be clean and fresh with just a hint of mint at least huh?

Yeah. You know, SCAM practitioners piss me off so much since my normally pragmatic father's been taken in with the bullshiat, I can't even joke about it right now.


In that case, you might enjoy this:

Link (Takes a minute to load. Sorry)
 
2012-12-08 06:41:46 PM  

Mister Peejay: dickfreckle: You're "not bonkers," yet you named your son "Neon?"

Hey now, that's a fine name. Noble, even.

lolthulhu.com
 
2012-12-08 06:43:01 PM  
Without treatment, the boy is more sure to die, and will do it sooner. This will help Mum put it all behind her much quicker, and most importanly, avoid all that cancer-stricken teen angst she's sure to get thrown at her if he lives into adolescence.
 
2012-12-08 06:43:24 PM  

mgshamster: In that case, you might enjoy this:


*gets out the chainsaw*
 
2012-12-08 06:44:41 PM  

slimfast: [i49.tinypic.com image 400x300]


Took long enough
 
2012-12-08 06:45:44 PM  

breakfast_in_bedlam: ToxicMunkee: I had gamma knife radiation on my brain tumor and it didn't fry anything but the tumor. So that was nice.

[moegolf.files.wordpress.com image 850x518]

"So iv'e got that going for me, which is nice"

/first thing that popped in my head


Don't make him angry. You wouldn't like him when he's angry.
 
2012-12-08 06:47:14 PM  

mgshamster: Pribar: The Old Lady is a RN, she sadly as a lot of stories like this one, one I remember is this woman that came in for some reason and they found she had early stage (think she called it stage 1A or something) cervical cancer, the woman was told that with treatment she had a 90+% chance of survival, instead of coming in for treatment she opted for "natural remedies" herbal teas, infusion therapy (whatever the fark that is) etc, when that didn't work she flew to Mexico for some kind of cancer "boot camp", when that still didn't cure her she finally came in only to find that the cancer had spread and now her chances were less than 10%, so of course she is now blaming the hospital because they didn't clearly tell her that ignoring their advice for 4 years might endanger her chances of survival....

Reminds me of - now stay with me for a bit - my brother's ex-fiance's mother. She had breast cancer and had it removed via surgery (which is standard for lower stage breast cancers). At the same time, she started the macrobiotics diet, a fad diet that purports to cure cancer. It doesn't, but that's what the founder wants you to believe (and curiously, the founder and his daughter both died of cancer, even though they were both on this diet). For years (every since I met her about 5-6 years ago, and probably for longer than that) she swore up and down that it was the diet that cured her of cancer, and those "western medicine death mongers" had nothing to do with it.


a macrobiotic diet simply enjoins one to eat bland, nutrious food from as local a source as possible and maintain a balanced diet and good digestive habits. there's nothing "fad" about it. it certainly won't cure cancer but statistically, it can lower your exposure and therefore your risk, to carcinogens.
 
2012-12-08 06:50:38 PM  

namatad: SilentStrider: Yeah ok, I'll give you cute.

She's got the crazy eyes though.

and is a complete and total moron. They basically need the courts to appoint a guardian ad litem. Problem solved.


You know, every time I get to the point where I'm thinking, "You know, the government really shouldn't be allowed to take away someone's kid" an article like this comes up and proves me wrong. She'd rather choose herbal tea and magnetic field therapy for her son over a potentially life-saving treatment. Where are the storm troopers when you need them.

The sad thing is, it takes years and a fortune to adopt a child, but any loony moron who can figure out how to get a dick in her vagina can have a kid hassle-free.
 
2012-12-08 06:51:55 PM  

dickfreckle: You're "not bonkers," yet you named your son "Neon?"


She's clearly planning on him being a baseball and football superstar.

www.biography.com
 
2012-12-08 06:52:42 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Props to the doc who likened radiotherapy to "frying the brain."


$10 says that 'doctor' does not have an M.D. degree.
 
HBK
2012-12-08 06:54:07 PM  

stiletto_the_wise: The sad thing is, it takes years and a fortune to adopt a child, but any loony moron who can figure out how to get a dick in her vagina can have a kid hassle-free.


If there are any women who are having trouble figuring this out, I can help.

/no fatties
 
2012-12-08 06:54:28 PM  

gweilo8888: cretinbob: He's English, how much lower can his IQ go?

American.


Californian
 
2012-12-08 06:54:29 PM  

mgshamster: At the same time, she started the macrobiotics diet, a fad diet that purports to cure cancer.


I've honestly never heard macrobiotic dieting framed in that regard. Just thought it was a high-brow way of saying "I eat simple, local, organic foods".
 
2012-12-08 06:55:23 PM  
Who knew they had chavs in Devon?
 
2012-12-08 06:56:50 PM  
" But a lawyer representing health authorities told the court the alternative to radiotherapy is "death".

Death is ALWAYS the inevitable homecoming. Suck it up.

Once you get to a certain point of STUPID, does it really matter anymore?
 
2012-12-08 06:56:55 PM  

willfullyobscure: mgshamster: Pribar: The Old Lady is a RN, she sadly as a lot of stories like this one, one I remember is this woman that came in for some reason and they found she had early stage (think she called it stage 1A or something) cervical cancer, the woman was told that with treatment she had a 90+% chance of survival, instead of coming in for treatment she opted for "natural remedies" herbal teas, infusion therapy (whatever the fark that is) etc, when that didn't work she flew to Mexico for some kind of cancer "boot camp", when that still didn't cure her she finally came in only to find that the cancer had spread and now her chances were less than 10%, so of course she is now blaming the hospital because they didn't clearly tell her that ignoring their advice for 4 years might endanger her chances of survival....

Reminds me of - now stay with me for a bit - my brother's ex-fiance's mother. She had breast cancer and had it removed via surgery (which is standard for lower stage breast cancers). At the same time, she started the macrobiotics diet, a fad diet that purports to cure cancer. It doesn't, but that's what the founder wants you to believe (and curiously, the founder and his daughter both died of cancer, even though they were both on this diet). For years (every since I met her about 5-6 years ago, and probably for longer than that) she swore up and down that it was the diet that cured her of cancer, and those "western medicine death mongers" had nothing to do with it.

a macrobiotic diet simply enjoins one to eat bland, nutrious food from as local a source as possible and maintain a balanced diet and good digestive habits. there's nothing "fad" about it. it certainly won't cure cancer but statistically, it can lower your exposure and therefore your risk, to carcinogens.


As a toxicologist, I strongly contest that it will lower anyone's exposure to carcinogens. They'll just get their carcinogens from a different source.

/You're right about the "fad" part; I used the wrong word.
//Additionally, the diet, when strictly followed, will lead one to malnutrition.
 
2012-12-08 06:58:55 PM  
Let her have her way. It will take her genes out of the pool.
 
2012-12-08 07:02:23 PM  
Why does cute have a well established stupid bias?
 
2012-12-08 07:02:26 PM  

orbister: If you read other reports on the matter, and not just the Sun's version, you'll see that she doesn't come across as quite so daft. For example, she is fine with him receiving chemotherapy. The issue seems to be whether he needs radio therapy as well. Despite the certainty with which so many farkers view the case, the judge has not ruled yet, saying that the medical picture is changing.


The Guardian also has the story

Chemo alone has a much lower survival rate than radio and chemo.

She was gone online and is now an expert on cancer while those Doctors who have cured hundreds of people are going to put her son through treatment he doesn't need.

/Too much crazy
//Give the kid to his farther, he wants the best for his son.
 
2012-12-08 07:04:09 PM  

Mister Peejay: dickfreckle: You're "not bonkers," yet you named your son "Neon?"

Hey now, that's a fine name. Noble, even.


images2.wikia.nocookie.net

/took me a second to get the joke, 'cos I'm a little slow you see
 
2012-12-08 07:04:26 PM  
Before the hearing, Ms Roberts - separated from Neon's dad - told how a doctor described radiotherapy to her as "frying the brain". She said: "I fear they are going to fry my son's brain when there are other ways to proceed."

Yes, there are other ways to proceed. Like having your son lose his mind while dying a horrible, painful death. The kid's dad may be a bum, but he might just be the kid's best chance for survival
 
2012-12-08 07:04:39 PM  

Killer Cars: mgshamster: At the same time, she started the macrobiotics diet, a fad diet that purports to cure cancer.

I've honestly never heard macrobiotic dieting framed in that regard. Just thought it was a high-brow way of saying "I eat simple, local, organic foods".


The Cancer Prevention Diet: Michio Kushi's Macrobiotic Blueprint for the Prevention and Relief of Disease

Note that Kushi is the inventor of the macrobiotic diet.
 
2012-12-08 07:09:24 PM  

NotoriousW.O.P: I'd settle for a diminished IQ if it meant spending more time above ground. Call me crazy...


It's easier to pretend the natural treatment will work than accept that there's no good answer.

AbbeySomeone: I've seen people go through the chemo and radiation. They still died, just slowly and in more pain. Prolonging a life of agony is never nice and there is no guarantee that this will cure him.


To choose quality of life over quantity is sometimes the right choice. That's not what she's doing, though.
 
2012-12-08 07:10:09 PM  

KrispyKritter: [www.theautolog.com image 400x600]


Is there a car in that photo? I'm not completely sure...


/yowza!
 
2012-12-08 07:13:49 PM  

KrispyKritter: [www.theautolog.com image 400x600]


No idea what that has to do with the article, but I approve.
 
2012-12-08 07:14:41 PM  

AbbeySomeone: They still died, just slowly and in more pain.


She isn't arguing that radiation will not work and increase suffering, she's arguing some made-up "fact" about reduced mental capacity. That's crazy, no matter what his odds are of recovering after additional treatment.

/ Also, everyone still dies; all medical treatment is simply prolonging the inevitable
 
2012-12-08 07:15:53 PM  

mgshamster: The Cancer Prevention Diet: Michio Kushi's Macrobiotic Blueprint for the Prevention and Relief of Disease

Note that Kushi is the inventor of the macrobiotic diet.


Interesting. I don't "diet" necessarily (although I to try to eat as healthy as I can), so I normally only hear of these things in the form of second-hand, watered-down descriptions from coworkers and such.
 
2012-12-08 07:16:04 PM  

Begoggle: KrispyKritter: [www.theautolog.com image 400x600]

No idea what that has to do with the article, but I approve.


The car is a Neon.
 
2012-12-08 07:18:50 PM  

Killer Cars: mgshamster: The Cancer Prevention Diet: Michio Kushi's Macrobiotic Blueprint for the Prevention and Relief of Disease

Note that Kushi is the inventor of the macrobiotic diet.

Interesting. I don't "diet" necessarily (although I to try to eat as healthy as I can), so I normally only hear of these things in the form of second-hand, watered-down descriptions from coworkers and such.


Eating healthy is good; just have to make sure we stay within the realm of reality. :)
 
2012-12-08 07:19:02 PM  

Dogsbody: How about you stop the ship from sinking and then worry about how clean the decks are?!? Silly twit.


He had the tumour removed a year ago.
 
2012-12-08 07:21:10 PM  

stiletto_the_wise: You know, every time I get to the point where I'm thinking, "You know, the government really shouldn't be allowed to take away someone's kid" an article like this comes up and proves me wrong. She'd rather choose herbal tea and magnetic field therapy for her son over a potentially life-saving treatment.


If it was as clear cut as you seem to think, the judge would surely have ruled in favour of treatment already?
 
2012-12-08 07:22:08 PM  
Have a family friend with a daughter who was born with a tumor either in her brain or right by her brain stem. They used radiation to kill it and she wound up with brain damage because of it.

Times have changed of course, nowadays they're more careful about limiting the radiation dosage, but she's not crazy for being worried about this. This kid has a brain tumor as well, if I were his parent I'd certainly resist radiation therapy.
 
2012-12-08 07:22:45 PM  
She'd rather have a dead son than a son who is alive but might be a 'tard. Tuff sh*t baby, in life you can't have it all!
 
2012-12-08 07:23:07 PM  

willfullyobscure: it can lower your exposure and therefore your risk, to carcinogens


It can also increase you exposure, and therefore your risk. It doesn't control for carcinogens or radioactivity or any other useful measure of cancer risk -- for all you know that local rice is grown in contaminated soil can contains quite a bit more I-131 than commodity rice. It's a diet that you're hoping or guessing reduces your cancer risk, but as history has proven, hope and guesses are not strongly correlated with success.
 
2012-12-08 07:23:15 PM  
I can understand being against chemotherapy.... there's lots of evidence that radiation and surgery are just as effective without chemo and without all the extra negative side-effects. However, unless she has some other option.... like targeted antibodies or genetically-enhanced white blood cell therapy she wants to try on her kid I say whip out the gamma rays (or whatever they use).
 
2012-12-08 07:26:46 PM  

orbister: If it was as clear cut as you seem to think, the judge would surely have ruled in favour of treatment already?


No, because children don't have rights, and parents do. This isn't a decision about how to treat the child, it's a decision about whether or not the mother is capable of deciding how to treat the child.

Even if the judge decides she is not capable, he will likely not order treatment directly, but instead will assign a guardian ad litem for medical purposes (or some other sort of guardian), who would then make their own decisions about the child's treatment.
 
2012-12-08 07:31:30 PM  
Unfortunately, I could see some of my Facebook friends taking a similar position.
 
2012-12-08 07:32:50 PM  
Better dead than stupid?
 
2012-12-08 07:37:59 PM  

guises: Have a family friend with a daughter who was born with a tumor either in her brain or right by her brain stem. They used radiation to kill it and she wound up with brain damage because of it.

Times have changed of course, nowadays they're more careful about limiting the radiation dosage, but she's not crazy for being worried about this. This kid has a brain tumor as well, if I were his parent I'd certainly resist radiation therapy.


Are you sure that having a bundle of malignant cells growing inside her brain didn't cause some of the damage? Also, without either radiation treatment or chemotherapy, the outcome is total brain (and body) death. Brain damage vs. no living brain at all seems like a fairly straightforward choice.
 
2012-12-08 07:39:29 PM  

StashMonster: namatad: namatad: She has investigated natural remedies abroad.
Yup too stupid to live.

and before the natural tards show up, I have NO problem with you using natural remedies yourself, but when you insist on using them on your kids? well you should be charged with attempted murder or murder when they die.

Read yesterday that she's a "great believer in homeotherapy" - if that's the "alternative" that she wanted the kid would be farked. Expensive water .... yeah that should do it.


While it might be "sad" that she will probably kill the kid with her delusions, it also means that he wont be passing on those defective genes/memes. So society will improve, if slowly.
People who believe in homeopathy should also be required to opt-out of the real world medical part of society.

"OOOOOO sorry, we dont have any homeopathic solutions to your broken legs, please go see your homeopath. Sorry, we are not allowed to treat people of your religion."

lawl
 
2012-12-08 07:42:12 PM  

OtherBrotherDarryl: Potentially, death will lower a person's IQ even more.


Thank you. Came here to say THIS.
 
2012-12-08 07:43:21 PM  
Give the looney woman a choice either willingly submit her son to get this life saving treatment or be stripped of custody permanently.
 
2012-12-08 07:46:46 PM  
Perhaps she's worried that with enough radiation he'll be different....perhaps Argon or Krypton.
 
2012-12-08 07:47:05 PM  

Pribar: The Old Lady is a RN, she sadly as a lot of stories like this one, one I remember is this woman that came in for some reason and they found she had early stage (think she called it stage 1A or something) cervical cancer, the woman was told that with treatment she had a 90+% chance of survival, instead of coming in for treatment she opted for "natural remedies" herbal teas, infusion therapy (whatever the fark that is) etc, when that didn't work she flew to Mexico for some kind of cancer "boot camp", when that still didn't cure her she finally came in only to find that the cancer had spread and now her chances were less than 10%, so of course she is now blaming the hospital because they didn't clearly tell her that ignoring their advice for 4 years might endanger her chances of survival....


They should give her the EXTRA SPECIAL, sealed box under ground treatment. Tell her that while it will be a bit dark and quiet, that it is 100% sure cure treatment for her cancer and her being a grade-A moron. Then bury her alive.
TADA, problem solved.
 
2012-12-08 07:50:24 PM  
This is what happens when our culture teaches us to question or doubt 'science' without valuing the critical thinking skills or basic knowledge necessary to actually make informed judgments. It's easy for people to disregard years of research and vast accumulations of data (even in summarized form) as too difficult to understand, whereas some quack telling you to eat this mushroom and you'll live to be 150 is easy to understand and hard to disprove. Combined with a general lack of discipline and an everyone-is-special or there-are-no-losers approach to raising children that we've been dealing with for a while now and you get people with absolutely no ability to make informed decisions with a steadfast, stubborn belief that their opinion has as much value as anyone's.

Lady, you are not special. You are not intelligent. You do not know better than professional medical doctors. You do not understand the risks of your choices. You are an idiot and would be best served following the advice of people who know and understand more than you.

However, speaking for myself: Everybody, this is her child. It only has as much potential as she is able to give it. Knowing what little of her we do, it's just as well the child die young before it can do any real damage. Stupid people need to be allowed to off themselves and their spawn without interference. You've got better things to do than try to save people from themselves.
 
2012-12-08 07:52:51 PM  

Teknowaffle: Because dead kids are known for their high iqs.


HOUSE!
 
2012-12-08 07:55:47 PM  

Metalithic: Are you sure that having a bundle of malignant cells growing inside her brain didn't cause some of the damage? Also, without either radiation treatment or chemotherapy, the outcome is total brain (and body) death. Brain damage vs. no living brain at all seems like a fairly straightforward choice.


Yes they can say with reasonable confidence that it was the radiation that did it, not the tumor. Partly because that's what another doctor told them later on, when it became clear that their daughter was not at full mental capacity, but also because brain tumors can cause damage through swelling but they don't generally damage the tissue around them directly (to the best of my knowledge, not an expert).

The assertion that the choice is as simple as radiation or death is, I think, probably false. It'd be difficult to get a straight answer about the case in the story at this point though, since it's gone to trial people are going to try and frame it in the starkest terms possible.
 
2012-12-08 07:56:35 PM  

letrole: Without treatment, the boy is more sure to die, and will do it sooner. This will help Mum put it all behind her much quicker, and most importanly, avoid all that cancer-stricken teen angst she's sure to get thrown at her if he lives into adolescence.


After all, Cancer is a Learned Behaviour.

Actually, I kind of agree with you. If the child's best chance of survival is chemo+radio, and she's not willing to do the best thing for her child, she deserves all that Darwin can throw at her.

/Fark would be better if you retired letrole, however.
 
2012-12-08 07:57:18 PM  

namatad: "OOOOOO sorry, we dont have any homeopathic solutions to your broken legs, please go see your homeopath. Sorry, we are not allowed to treat people of your religion."



There's a religion of homeopathy?
 
2012-12-08 07:57:48 PM  
This is part of the problem with informed consent.

Informed consent is a phrase often used in law to indicate that the consent a person gives meets certain minimum standards. As a literal matter, in the absence of fraud, it is redundant. An informed consent can be said to have been given based upon a clear appreciation and understanding of the facts, implications, and future consequences of an action. In order to give informed consent, the individual concerned must have adequate reasoning faculties and be in possession of all relevant facts at the time consent is given.

This woman, clearly does not have a clear understanding of the facts, nor does she have adequate reasoning faculties. That being said, I am not sure how many people ever understand what the doctor is saying. I have a science and stats background and a fark/wikipedia MD, but in the end, I still have to trust that the doctors have a better understanding than I do.

While I continue to prove them wrong, I still have to listen when they talk about pros and cons about my treatment. Once they are convinced by tests to actually listen to my symptoms. I dont know how many times I have had an expert tell me that my previous doctors had failed to properly treat my condition. Under-treating in order to prevent over-treating??? sigh
 
2012-12-08 08:01:23 PM  

Darkrover2: Perhaps she's worried that with enough radiation he'll be different....perhaps Argon or Krypton.


lulz
 
2012-12-08 08:02:42 PM  
Another cute mom who wanted to block treatment for her kid.
a.abcnews.com
 
2012-12-08 08:04:11 PM  
The less IQ you have to spare, the more impact losing IQ can have.

Really. I think it was a lead poisoning study, showed that lower IQ kids fared the worst. Moving from 140 to 130 moved kids from smart to not quite as smart. Not nearly as much of an impact as moving them from 90 to 80 - under-average to "simple".

Don't know about the kid, but the mother probably doesn't have much IQ to spare. Even if it makes her kid dumber, dumb is better than dead. It's not the cancer in the tumor that will kill her kid, they've removed that. What will kill him is all the tiny bits of cancer floating around his body. Only radiation and chemo can kill that.
 
2012-12-08 08:05:23 PM  

GilRuiz1: namatad: "OOOOOO sorry, we dont have any homeopathic solutions to your broken legs, please go see your homeopath. Sorry, we are not allowed to treat people of your religion."


There's a religion of homeopathy?


Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.
Religion is a collection of belief systems.

so yes, it is a religion. not all religions are required to conform to a narrow definition including jesus and gods.

We have a couple of other religions currently evolving in our society.
Elvisism - belief that Elvis is the king and has risen from the dead (or never died.)
Veganims - belief that eating or using anything which is the product of a non-consenting animal is a moral sin. (I have to assume that they are ok with consenting animal products because humans produce things ... Dont get me started on yeast and bacteria.)
Ecoism - belief that recycling and saving the planet is moral requirement and those who dont think this are sinners.

In the end, these people think that there is something wrong with me for not conforming to their beliefs. Which is also true for the believers of the "normal" religions.

/note: I am not saying that all vegans are religious nuts (etc), but that many vegans have taken their beliefs to the stage of it being a moral imperative and the rest of us are sinners. farkem
 
2012-12-08 08:06:07 PM  

EggSniper: This is what happens when our culture teaches us to question or doubt 'science' without valuing the critical thinking skills or basic knowledge necessary to actually make informed judgments. It's easy for people to disregard years of research and vast accumulations of data (even in summarized form) as too difficult to understand, whereas some quack telling you to eat this mushroom and you'll live to be 150 is easy to understand and hard to disprove. Combined with a general lack of discipline and an everyone-is-special or there-are-no-losers approach to raising children that we've been dealing with for a while now and you get people with absolutely no ability to make informed decisions with a steadfast, stubborn belief that their opinion has as much value as anyone's.

Lady, you are not special. You are not intelligent. You do not know better than professional medical doctors.


There's a general problem with this mentality. Sometimes, people get advanced degrees and then masquerade as experts while exposing things not true. See: Dr. Oz, Dr. Gerson, Dr. Chopra, Dr. Ullman, Dr. Null... the list goes on.

Also, see the Dunning-Kruger effect.
 
2012-12-08 08:08:18 PM  

mgshamster:

There's a general problem with this mentality. Sometimes, people get advanced degrees and then masquerade as experts while exposing espousing things not true. See: Dr. Oz, Dr. Gerson, Dr. Chopra, Dr. Ullman, Dr. Null... the list goes on.

Also, see the Dunning-Kruger effect.


FTFM
 
2012-12-08 08:08:32 PM  
radiation treatment and chemo kill more people than cancer does.

"oh, he died of cancer." nope. died from the treatment.
 
2012-12-08 08:19:51 PM  
She has investigated natural remedies abroad.

Sorry lady your wrong and you're an idiot.
 
2012-12-08 08:20:32 PM  
Lady, his IQ isn't getting lowered by chemo, it's by being in proximity to the toxic levels of derp you're emitting.
 
2012-12-08 08:21:45 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Props to the doc who likened radiotherapy to "frying the brain."


It's OK. She has a collection of tin foil hats he can use to block the waves!
 
2012-12-08 08:23:17 PM  
I see anything woo-ish has already been addressed.

I shall leave by saying mgshamster is right - people are guilty far too often of talking in technical terms. It's something I'll admit to doing far too often, I've had to learn to consciously break things down for family members and parents on transports, and in facilities.
 
2012-12-08 08:25:02 PM  

namatad: I am not saying that all vegans are religious nuts (etc), but that many vegans have taken their beliefs to the stage of it being a moral imperative and the rest of us are sinners. farkem



Ah, that makes sense. Thanks, namatad!
 
2012-12-08 08:35:02 PM  
s7.postimage.org
I don't know if she's cute or bonkers... but she's definitely got the 'blue steel' thing going on, which is nice.
 
2012-12-08 08:36:03 PM  
Still no cure for duckface.
 
2012-12-08 08:45:11 PM  
mgshamster:

Check your ultrafark.
 
2012-12-08 08:49:26 PM  
I need a license for my car. I need a license to have a dog. I need a license to own a gun (Canadian). I need a license to go farking fishing! But I can father a child and be a parent who is responsible for another human life and I need no license at all. I am not saying I should need a license for fishing and such but the hypocrisy of the government in the area of licensing and training is ridiculous. This "mother" should not be allowed to parent a child.
 
2012-12-08 08:59:53 PM  

namatad: /note: I am not saying that all vegans are religious nuts (etc), but that many vegans have taken their beliefs to the stage of it being a moral imperative and the rest of us are sinners. farkem


I do honestly think it's great that as a whole, we've become more aware and make more conscious decisions on the food we consume, and how it's raised, cultivated, etc. That said, you almost see the same righteousness out of the "I only eat organic" crowd. I, too, like to buy organic stuff when I can. Organic, seasonal and local foods generally taste better. I'm far from wealthy, but I'm fortunate enough to afford these things which can be more expensive than your atypical mass-produced and hormone-injected fare. I can tell myself that free-range chicken I just bought lived (probably) a much happier and fuller life before it met its eventual demise and actually feel good about it.

I won't, however, pretend its some moral imperative that EVERYONE needs to go out of their way to support seasonal farmers and growers who use humane and sustainable methods because many in this world, and even in our own communities, can't afford or don't have the same access to these things.
 
2012-12-08 09:21:45 PM  
EggSniper: ...You do not know better than professional medical doctors....

mgshamster: There's a general problem with this mentality. Sometimes, people get advanced degrees and then masquerade as experts while exposing things not true. See: Dr. Oz, Dr. Gerson, Dr. Chopra, Dr. Ullman, Dr. Null... the list goes on.

Also, see the Dunning-Kruger effect.


Nothing wrong with questioning the experts, if one is equipped with the knowledge and understanding to do so. Getting a second or third opinion before committing to treatment shouldn't offend a competent doctor. I wonder how amenable insurance companies are to such measures, though.

/Has a Ph.D.
//Is an expert in everything
 
2012-12-08 09:27:56 PM  

adenosine: dickfreckle: You're "not bonkers," yet you named your son "Neon?"

I don't see a problem with that.
[25.media.tumblr.com image 300x224]


i13.photobucket.com

That kid's got a bright future. I see his name in lights.
 
2012-12-08 09:30:22 PM  

Killer Cars: "I only eat organic" crowd


DONT get me started on the Organic Food tards.
ALL food, by definition, is organic.

I agree that local, almost always, tastes better and is probably better for you (picked later probably have more vitamins and what not)

But in the end, whatever they have at the store ...
 
2012-12-08 09:39:15 PM  

namatad: namatad: She has investigated natural remedies abroad.
Yup too stupid to live.

and before the natural tards show up, I have NO problem with you using natural remedies yourself, but when you insist on using them on your kids? well you should be charged with attempted murder or murder when they die.


Have you geniuses ever actually tried natural remedies? Just because a big-name drug producer didn't slap a label on it does not mean it doesn't work. My mom and I were running under the same assumption as you when I tried an herbal tea to see if it helped my period clotting--I ended up having two periods in a month because, while it might have stopped the clotting, having more estrogen in my system made me more sensitive to whatever my mom, who was menstruating, pumped out. Lesson highly learned.

/This mom is an idiot. That doesn't change the fact that we have not discovered everything, or that some natural remedies work really damn well.
 
2012-12-08 09:47:44 PM  

gweilo8888: cretinbob: He's Englishbutt-hurt, how much lower can his IQ go?

American.land of the brave and free

 
2012-12-08 09:48:19 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-08 09:51:49 PM  

PsiChick: This mom is an idiot. That doesn't change the fact that we have not discovered everything, or that some natural remedies work really damn well.


Which "natural" remedies work well on Brain Cancer, PsiChick?
 
2012-12-08 09:54:27 PM  
I finding it refreshing to read a "parent refuses medical treatment for their child" story that doesn't involve Jesus.
 
2012-12-08 09:58:58 PM  
It's her son, she has every right to choose what she thinks is in his best interest. There is no guarantee that the cancer won't recur even if he goes through chemo/radiation. She doesn't want to risk her son becoming seriously impaired, for some that is a fate worse than death.

She should look into alternative treatment at the Burzynski Clinic . There is a very interesting documentary titled Burzynski - Cancer is Serious Business that details what a racket the cancer treatment business can be. I saw it on Netflix, definitely worth the watch...
 
2012-12-08 10:01:55 PM  

BronyMedic: PsiChick: This mom is an idiot. That doesn't change the fact that we have not discovered everything, or that some natural remedies work really damn well.

Which "natural" remedies work well on Brain Cancer, PsiChick?


which "science-based medicine" remedies work well on brain cancer, Mr Ponyfag? post some cures and survival rates and some science, biatch.
 
2012-12-08 10:07:13 PM  

mgshamster: willfullyobscure: mgshamster: Pribar: The Old Lady is a RN, san lower your exposure and therefore your risk, to carcinogens.

As a toxicologist, I strongly contest that it will lower anyone's exposure to carcinogens. They'll just get their carcinogens from a different source.

/You're right about ...


As a toxicologist, you're going to have to get a hell of a lot more specific before that statement means more than my assertion that pears are a tree that fruits on Mars, and you should know better.
 
2012-12-08 10:08:44 PM  

BronyMedic: Which "natural" remedies work well on Brain Cancer, PsiChick?


PsiChick: /This mom is an idiot.


Don't be a dumbass, Brony. Plenty of natural remedies out there that work, and lots of modern medicines are just ways to repackage some of the basic chemicals- for example, you'll find a lot of the same stuff in honey as you will in commercial cough syrups, and asprin is just a synthetic form of stuff you can get from a couple different tree barks. There is a lot of bullshiat out there, but roots and herbs can have an effect. PsiChick wasn't claiming that herbal tea would cure cancer, she was saying that there are some herbal remedies that aren't bullshiat, even if this one is.
 
2012-12-08 10:15:34 PM  

PsiChick: Have you geniuses ever actually tried natural remedies? Just because a big-name drug producer didn't slap a label on it does not mean it doesn't work.


HERPA DERPA??
DURPA LUKRA???!

we are talking about apples and nucler bombs here
you have a problem with you hormones and clotting, and you take magic tea, which did what? gave you two periods a months? whatever, your example is pretty hard to understand from the words that you are using.

no one is denying the efficacy of reality. that some "herbs" and foods have pharmacological effects.
dont get me started on phytoestrogens or diary. the reality is that a lot of our meds came from nature, or synthetic versions of nature, or derived from nature, or mimic nature.

but we are talking cancer, specific cancer
and the mom wanted to use placebo effect to treat it. (homeopathic = placebo, esp since there is nothing in the vials but water/alcohol.)

to argue anything else is plain silly.

/melatonin is wonderful and natural
/bah, whatever ... you are completely correct, your herbal tea and annecdotal story is a perfect analogy.
 
2012-12-08 10:16:39 PM  

profplump: willfullyobscure: it can lower your exposure and therefore your risk, to carcinogens

It can also increase your exposure, and therefore your risk. It doesn't control for carcinogens or radioactivity or any other useful measure of cancer risk -- for all you know that local rice is grown in contaminated soil can contains quite a bit more I-131 than commodity rice. It's a diet that you're hoping or guessing reduces your cancer risk, but as history has proven, hope and guesses are not strongly correlated with success.


Don't be a retard all your life. All cancer treatment to date is hope and guesses, and a mild baseline of clinical data about drug effects we still don't really understand. Eating local and healthy isn't a bad thing unless you are blind believer/skeptic tool. Tell you what, I'll eat a balanced diet of vegetables and grains and meats, and not get diabetes; you do what you like, mah niqqah.
 
2012-12-08 10:21:25 PM  

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: It's her son, she has every right to choose what she thinks is in his best interest.


No she doesn't. Children are not property.
 
2012-12-08 10:23:25 PM  

RatMaster999: adenosine: dickfreckle: You're "not bonkers," yet you named your son "Neon?"

I don't see a problem with that.
[25.media.tumblr.com image 300x224]

[i13.photobucket.com image 720x480]

That kid's got a bright future. I see his name in lights.


He'll be a lonely little guy.

NO ATTRACTION
 
2012-12-08 10:28:29 PM  

BronyMedic: PsiChick: This mom is an idiot. That doesn't change the fact that we have not discovered everything, or that some natural remedies work really damn well.

Which "natural" remedies work well on Brain Cancer, PsiChick?


Do I look like an herbologist to you? Go do a few decades of research yourself. As cptjeff pointed out, there may well not be, but that doesn't mean herbal remedies are by default bad. What do you think brand-name pills come from? Chemicals synthesized from thin air? They process plants to get the chemicals out of them. Those plants do actually have the damn chemicals.

namatad: you have a problem with you hormones and clotting, and you take magic tea, which did what? gave you two periods a months? whatever, your example is pretty hard to understand from the words that you are using.


*sigh* To be clearer: Most young women clot when they have their periods. It's normal, but it was annoying me, so I wanted to try something to get rid of it. A compound in red clover leaf tea (which may not be estrogen) can help. I drank the tea. The estrogen, which is also in the tea, made me so sensitive to the hormones my menstruating mother was emitting that I ended up on her cycle--which was wilder than all hell, and if I had kept on it, could have gotten me sick from the lack of blood (I can't spell the term).

but we are talking cancer, specific cancer
and the mom wanted to use placebo effect to treat it. (homeopathic = placebo, esp since there is nothing in the vials but water/alcohol.)

to argue anything else is plain silly.


Again: I am not farking arguing that there's brain cancer treatments via herbal remedies, because I wouldn't know. You do realize people spend lifetimes studying this, right? There's a reason for that. The mom had every reason to search for some option beyond radiotherapy. Doesn't mean she should have ignored the doctors, that's just stupid. It does mean that even I would look for options that supplement it, or replace it if I could find valid evidence it worked (and yes, my standards of evidence are college-level, probably unlike yours given that you wrote off an entire field of potential medicine).
 
2012-12-08 10:32:53 PM  

PsiChick: It does mean that even I would look for options that supplement it, or replace it if I could find valid evidence it worked


If there was an alternative to radiotherapy, I'm quite sure that medical science would be all over it. We're not talking about pharmaceutical companies shilling their latest cure for depression or impotence here.
 
2012-12-08 10:36:18 PM  

whatshisname: PsiChick: It does mean that even I would look for options that supplement it, or replace it if I could find valid evidence it worked

If there was an alternative to radiotherapy, I'm quite sure that medical science would be all over it. We're not talking about pharmaceutical companies shilling their latest cure for depression or impotence here.


Well, I have no clue if there is one or not, but that doesn't change the fact that your implied statement that no alternative medicine worked and she should be judged based on trying to find one is 100% wrong.
 
2012-12-08 10:38:34 PM  

PsiChick: Well, I have no clue if there is one or not, but that doesn't change the fact that your implied statement that no alternative medicine worked and she should be judged based on trying to find one is 100% wrong.


She wants to withhold a proven medical treatment. She should lose custody of her child for that. Please show us evidence of an alternative treatment for brain cancer.
 
2012-12-08 10:39:35 PM  

Pribar: The Old Lady is a RN, she sadly as a lot of stories like this one, one I remember is this woman that came in for some reason and they found she had early stage (think she called it stage 1A or something) cervical cancer, the woman was told that with treatment she had a 90+% chance of survival, instead of coming in for treatment she opted for "natural remedies" herbal teas, infusion therapy (whatever the fark that is) etc, when that didn't work she flew to Mexico for some kind of cancer "boot camp", when that still didn't cure her she finally came in only to find that the cancer had spread and now her chances were less than 10%, so of course she is now blaming the hospital because they didn't clearly tell her that ignoring their advice for 4 years might endanger her chances of survival....


my BF's friend had a combo of AIDS and cancer. She didn't want to take meds and instead pursued alternative remedies. She crashed fast and died young.
 
2012-12-08 10:45:44 PM  

namatad: DMMidwest: Yes, the boy will probably have some cognitive impairment after the procedure. It may well work and he'll recover, with some changes. My best friend's son had cancer at age 9, and now in his 20s, there's no question that his very capable and bright mind was affected. Hearing loss. Stunted growth. Rendered sterile. Diminished social skills. But, he is alive, and quite thoroughly functional. His parents recognized this risk and that as a survivor, their kid would be unlikely to be the same afterward. Proved true. Frustruating, to be sure.

But he is alive.
This woman would rather that her child die, than have her dreams and expectations dashed. If he dies for lack of treatment, she should die too.


Yup. Not like he can't kill himself later if he's not happy with his quality of life post-radiation therapy.
 
2012-12-08 10:47:07 PM  
Just think, a few decades ago there was no cure for cancer. Now there are many forms of cancer which are not just treatable but actually curable. I wonder if things would be different if she was the one with cancer instead of her kid.
 
2012-12-08 10:48:20 PM  

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: It's her son, she has every right to choose what she thinks is in his best interest. There is no guarantee that the cancer won't recur even if he goes through chemo/radiation. She doesn't want to risk her son becoming seriously impaired, for some that is a fate worse than death.

She should look into alternative treatment at the Burzynski Clinic . There is a very interesting documentary titled Burzynski - Cancer is Serious Business that details what a racket the cancer treatment business can be. I saw it on Netflix, definitely worth the watch...


Ah yes the movie that the Village Voice said and I quote "violates every basic rule of ethical filmmaking" do some basic googling, the place is a multi million dollar scam on cancer patients, they are so bad that if you criticize them they threaten to sue you unless you take down any bad press you give them,
 
2012-12-08 10:49:39 PM  

whatshisname: cirrhosis_and_halitosis: It's her son, she has every right to choose what she thinks is in his best interest.

No she doesn't. Children are not property.


The law requires parents to care and nurture children until 18 years of age, and that includes making decisions in their best interest. Children are even more responsibility than property, parents are also responsible for their actions.

The tumor has been removed, her son is out of imminent danger, she should explore alternatives while monitoring for recurrence of the original cancer. I believe that she would be negligent not to explore alternatives as she would be putting her child at risk by blindly following the advice of doctors. Doctors are not infallible and western medicine is far from an exact science in regards to cancer treatment. I would get a second opinion for any major life decision.
 
2012-12-08 10:50:41 PM  
Aflack!
 
2012-12-08 10:53:12 PM  

whatshisname: PsiChick: Well, I have no clue if there is one or not, but that doesn't change the fact that your implied statement that no alternative medicine worked and she should be judged based on trying to find one is 100% wrong.

She wants to withhold a proven medical treatment. She should lose custody of her child for that. Please show us evidence of an alternative treatment for brain cancer.


How exactly are the two related?
 
2012-12-08 10:53:43 PM  

PsiChick: whatshisname: PsiChick: It does mean that even I would look for options that supplement it, or replace it if I could find valid evidence it worked

If there was an alternative to radiotherapy, I'm quite sure that medical science would be all over it. We're not talking about pharmaceutical companies shilling their latest cure for depression or impotence here.

Well, I have no clue if there is one or not, but that doesn't change the fact that your implied statement that no alternative medicine worked and she should be judged based on trying to find one is 100% wrong.


Do you know what they call "alternative medicine" and "herbal remedies" which have been proven to actually work??

Medicine.

Everything else is placebo, quackery, or worse.
/no. humans with working brains, understand that there are new things to discover in the world. but people arguing that alternative herbals are "real" are deluded. Unless there is a double blind study showing that your magic hokum, isnt magic hokum, it is just magic hokum.
/PANIC!!!! big pharma is trying to keep everyone sick!!! LOL
 
2012-12-08 10:54:00 PM  

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: Doctors are not infallible and western medicine is far from an exact science in regards to cancer treatment. I would get a second opinion for any major life decision.


You can get a second, third and 47th opinion on this matter and they'd all be the same. Except from that guy in Mexico who's making millions trying to cure people with some cactus extract (I just made that up, but you get the idea).

Western medicine is the reason we no longer die at 40.
 
2012-12-08 10:54:34 PM  
So, what made Her stupid?
 
2012-12-08 10:55:16 PM  

PsiChick: How exactly are the two related?


The two what?
 
2012-12-08 10:56:51 PM  

cuzsis: Yup. Not like he can't kill himself later if he's not happy with his quality of life post-radiation therapy.


You know, that is the best answer.
when your choices are:
1) short life - with almost certain death from cancer
and
2) long life - with some or much lost function

well there really isnt a choice is there?
It is one thing for an adult to decide that they would rather suicide than continue on with diminished capacity. but when adults choose to punish their child with illness, rather than know, proper treatment, how is it anything other than abuse??

dont get me started on the anti-vaccine tards
hmmm maybe just punching them in the face when they open their mouths would be a start.
 
2012-12-08 11:00:43 PM  

BronyMedic: PsiChick: This mom is an idiot. That doesn't change the fact that we have not discovered everything, or that some natural remedies work really damn well.

Which "natural" remedies work well on Brain Cancer, PsiChick?


Taxol. :)

/Well, maybe not brain cancer, but still.
 
2012-12-08 11:02:28 PM  

whatshisname: You can get a second, third and 47th opinion on this matter and they'd all be the same. Except from that guy in Mexico who's making millions trying to cure people with some cactus extract (I just made that up, but you get the idea).

Western medicine is the reason we no longer die at 40.


Go a step further, get all of those opinions and then properly evaluate them for known risks and rewards.
If someone is selling a 100$ cure, with no risks and no "evidence" or studies to back up their claim, you have to question what they are actually selling.

If someone had a magic cure for cancer, big pharma would KILL to get their hands on that.
You think they make enough money selling chemo?
The amount of money which could be made curing cancer is incomprehensibly more.
Cancer from bacon? no worries
Smoking? no worries
tanning/skin cancer? no worries

the doctors and insurance companies would be all over a cover up of a cure.
/on the other hand, dont get me started on how long it took to cure ulcers. from when they first discovered that they were caused by bacteria until they were treated that way in the US. Oh wait, they had to wait until patents ran out??? sigh
 
2012-12-08 11:02:34 PM  

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: whatshisname: cirrhosis_and_halitosis: It's her son, she has every right to choose what she thinks is in his best interest.

No she doesn't. Children are not property.

The law requires parents to care and nurture children until 18 years of age, and that includes making decisions in their best interest. Children are even more responsibility than property, parents are also responsible for their actions.

The tumor has been removed, her son is out of imminent danger, she should explore alternatives while monitoring for recurrence of the original cancer. I believe that she would be negligent not to explore alternatives as she would be putting her child at risk by blindly following the advice of doctors. Doctors are not infallible and western medicine is far from an exact science in regards to cancer treatment. I would get a second opinion for any major life decision.


This farking chestnut again? Doctors aren't perfect so the opinion of any self declared expert are therefore equally valid. I'm not saying they should blindly trust one doctor, but the opinion of one genuine expert is far better than those of a hundred kooks and morons. There are plenty of other oncologists she could get a second opinion from, and they would likely all say something very similar, which she still wouldn't like, so instead she's going off on her own.
 
2012-12-08 11:03:42 PM  

Pribar: Ah yes the movie that the Village Voice said and I quote "violates every basic rule of ethical filmmaking" do some basic googling, the place is a multi million dollar scam on cancer patients, they are so bad that if you criticize them they threaten to sue you unless you take down any bad press you give them,


I admit the documentary style is a bit preachy but the information is valuable. The FDA wouldn't have approved his therapy if it didn't have merit, it is currently the only FDA-allowed alternative to chemo/radiation in the United States. the reviews are mixed, maybe you should actually watch it before dismissing it based on the expert medical advice of a film reviewer at the Village Voice.
 
2012-12-08 11:03:46 PM  

PsiChick: Do I look like an herbologist to you? Go do a few decades of research yourself. As cptjeff pointed out, there may well not be, but that doesn't mean herbal remedies are by default bad. What do you think brand-name pills come from? Chemicals synthesized from thin air? They process plants to get the chemicals out of them. Those plants do actually have the damn chemicals.


scranton.mylittlefacewhen.com

Holy shiat, you're disingenious. You stepped into this, now answer the question: What "Natural" remedy has been shown to cure cancer? We're not talking about what cptjeff pointed out. We're not talking about honey to soothe a sore throat, or even to promote healing of pressure sores. We're not talking about birch bark and asprin. The comment you made was in a thread about the treatment of cancer. You decided to mouth off about "natural" cures, and then backpedal like an olympic swimmer when called out on it.

What you are describing is not a "natural remedy", they're compounds from plants which have been purified, concentrated, and demonstrated to be effective in the treatment of solid tumors and other forms of cancer. In otherwords, science-based medicine.

There is a MAJOR difference between saying an herb can be taken in a lab, broke down to isolate an active chemical, and that chemical concentrated and used in a form which won't kill the person it's used on to attack a specific type of cancer, and saying an herb can cure cancer. One is a factual statement. The other is not.

If you have no knowledge about what you're talking about, why in the name of the FSM would you come on here, and spout it off like you do, and NOT expect to be criticized for it.
 
2012-12-08 11:03:48 PM  

mgshamster: Taxol. :)

/Well, maybe not brain cancer, but still.


Taxol is drug extracted from plants.
It is not a natural remedy.
Natural remedies do NOT come from big pharma.
They come from whole food stores and herbal stores.
lol
 
2012-12-08 11:08:09 PM  

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: I admit the documentary style is a bit preachy but the information is valuable. The FDA wouldn't have approved his therapy if it didn't have merit, it is currently the only FDA-allowed alternative to chemo/radiation in the United States. the reviews are mixed, maybe you should actually watch it before dismissing it based on the expert medical advice of a film reviewer at the Village Voice.


I had to tab back to read who you were talking about, but I had a good idea when you said this.

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: She should look into alternative treatment at the Burzynski Clinic .


Uh, no. Burzynski's "Antineoplaston" therapy is not FDA Approved. It's not even under trials to be FDA approved. Burzynski operates under the guise of doing a study on his "drug", using a sham IRB which skirts the human experimentation rules of the FDA. His bad behavior, deceptive marketing practices, and refusal to release information and statistics about his "ongoing study", despite charging patients hundreds of thousands of dollars to recieve this treatment, are well documented.
 
2012-12-08 11:08:52 PM  

orbister: Dogsbody: How about you stop the ship from sinking and then worry about how clean the decks are?!? Silly twit.

He had the tumour removed a year ago.


But they are still worried about recurrence. Which is always a problem with cancer if you don't FINISH THE TREATMENT, as this crazy woman is refusing to do.

It comes down to two "maybes" which is always bad. He "might" have a recurrence of cancer (or he might not) or he "might" have a reduced mental capacity (or he might not). The problem is that if there is a recurrence of the tumor, there will probably not be a second chance to remove it. It will most certainly kill him--in which case there will DEFINITELY be a reduced mental capacity.

Unfortunately, medicine is never certain. And you can't wait in cases like brain tumors to see IF it "might' come back. Doctors have to proceed as if it will. Because if it does, there will be no second chance to fix it later.
 
2012-12-08 11:10:37 PM  

Phoenix87ta: Mister Peejay: dickfreckle: You're "not bonkers," yet you named your son "Neon?"

Hey now, that's a fine name. Noble, even.

Ouch. That one hurt. My chemist wife is going to get a kick out of it tonight, though.


Tell her to enjoy it. All the other good chemistry jokes argon.
 
2012-12-08 11:11:17 PM  
Maybe she should start praying more. Surely Jesus wouldn't allow her precious baby to die if she prayed hard enough

/Ducks and runs
 
2012-12-08 11:12:07 PM  

namatad: Do you know what they call "alternative medicine" and "herbal remedies" which have been proven to actually work??

Medicine.

Everything else is placebo, quackery, or worse.
/no. humans with working brains, understand that there are new things to discover in the world. but people arguing that alternative herbals are "real" are deluded. Unless there is a double blind study showing that your magic hokum, isnt magic hokum, it is just magic hokum.
/PANIC!!!! big pharma is trying to keep everyone sick!!! LOL


Do you know what they called willow bark before they had a brand name for asprin? An herbal remedy. 'Big pharma' is not trying to keep everyone sick, and there is no 'magic hokum', plants have farking chemicals in them and we will probably never be able to officially name all of them. You need to study how the scientific method works, because it most certainly does not run under the assumption that anything that isn't official is quackery. That's a short road to the wrong side of history.

whatshisname: PsiChick: How exactly are the two related?

The two what?


Your premise was twofold: The mother is bad for not listening to the doctors, and all alternative medicines are bullshiat. I do not disagree with the first. I do disagree with the second. However, you then restated your premise. I would like to know why the first has jack farking shiat to do with the second.

BronyMedic: Holy shiat, you're disingenious. You stepped into this, now answer the question: What "Natural" remedy has been shown to cure cancer?


...What? I'm sorry? You claimed that natural remedies are always bullshiat, and I have to prove there's a natural remedy for cancer (and, if you had any idea what you were talking about, you would have actually specified the type,) or I'm the one in the wrong?

Do you know what the phrase 'moving the goalposts' means?
 
2012-12-08 11:12:07 PM  

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: Pribar: Ah yes the movie that the Village Voice said and I quote "violates every basic rule of ethical filmmaking" do some basic googling, the place is a multi million dollar scam on cancer patients, they are so bad that if you criticize them they threaten to sue you unless you take down any bad press you give them,

I admit the documentary style is a bit preachy but the information is valuable. The FDA wouldn't have approved his therapy if it didn't have merit, it is currently the only FDA-allowed alternative to chemo/radiation in the United States. the reviews are mixed, maybe you should actually watch it before dismissing it based on the expert medical advice of a film reviewer at the Village Voice.


My wife (the RN)has done the research, in 35 years, Buryzinksi has not advanced beyond phase 1 and phase 2 trials(These early phase trials test what dose of treatment people should have, how safe the treatment is, and how well it works), he has published no peer reviewed papers on his treatments and has been claiming for years now that he is about to begin phase 3 trials, you know the ones that verify whether a new treatment is better than standard treatment, he keeps delaying those for some "unknown" reason, given all that I think that the Village Voice film reviewer may know more than you
 
2012-12-08 11:12:11 PM  

DMMidwest: Yes, the boy will probably have some cognitive impairment after the procedure. It may well work and he'll recover, with some changes. My best friend's son had cancer at age 9, and now in his 20s, there's no question that his very capable and bright mind was affected. Hearing loss. Stunted growth. Rendered sterile. Diminished social skills. But, he is alive, and quite thoroughly functional. His parents recognized this risk and that as a survivor, their kid would be unlikely to be the same afterward. Proved true. Frustruating, to be sure.

But he is alive.


Lowered quality of life (due to hearing loss, stunted growth and diminished social skills) and inability to reproduce. I suppose there's a chance these negative side effects wouldn't have happened, but I wonder if the parents' decision to put their kid through this amounts to their selfish interest in keeping him alive because they couldn't accept his death?

I'm not saying they made the wrong decision, or that it's an easy decision to make, but there is a fine line between saving someone's life and prolonging it for the sake of upholding our somewhat irrational, cultural fear of death. Hooray for medical science!
 
2012-12-08 11:17:45 PM  

PsiChick: ...What? I'm sorry? You claimed that natural remedies are always bullshiat, and I have to prove there's a natural remedy for cancer (and, if you had any idea what you were talking about, you would have actually specified the type,) or I'm the one in the wrong?


Actually, I asked you what "natural remedy" was the cure for brain cancer, Psi. That would generally be inferred, considering that's what this discussion was about.

If you don't believe me, here:

BronyMedic: Which "natural" remedies work well on Brain Cancer, PsiChick?


And then you have this glorious doublespeak gem.

PsiChick: Do you know what the phrase 'moving the goalposts' means?


Yes. Yes I do. It's what you demonstrated so gloriously when you tried to backlpeddle out of that comment.
 
2012-12-08 11:17:58 PM  

PsiChick: Your premise was twofold: The mother is bad for not listening to the doctors, and all alternative medicines are bullshiat. I do not disagree with the first. I do disagree with the second. However, you then restated your premise. I would like to know why the first has jack farking shiat to do with the second.


Because the first (refusing conventional treatment) is almost always related to the second (looking for alternative treatments) .Except in those rare case where religion rears its ugly head and the reason for refusing treatment is because God says so.

I don't think alternative treatments are all bullshiat. I understand in the placebo effect.
 
2012-12-08 11:20:49 PM  

whatshisname: cirrhosis_and_halitosis: Doctors are not infallible and western medicine is far from an exact science in regards to cancer treatment. I would get a second opinion for any major life decision.

You can get a second, third and 47th opinion on this matter and they'd all be the same. Except from that guy in Mexico who's making millions trying to cure people with some cactus extract (I just made that up, but you get the idea).

Western medicine is the reason we no longer die at 40.


whatshisname: cirrhosis_and_halitosis: Doctors are not infallible and western medicine is far from an exact science in regards to cancer treatment. I would get a second opinion for any major life decision.

You can get a second, third and 47th opinion on this matter and they'd all be the same. Except from that guy in Mexico who's making millions trying to cure people with some cactus extract (I just made that up, but you get the idea).

Western medicine is the reason we no longer die at 40.


You are correct, of course the opinions of 99 out of 100 doctors who were taught the same things in the same medical schools would likely be the same. Does that mean that the one doctor who thinks a little differently is wrong? Many overtreatments are recommended because they cover the doctor and hospitals ass from a malpractice suit, not because they are necessary.
 
2012-12-08 11:22:26 PM  

BronyMedic: You decided to mouth off about "natural" cures, and then backpedal like an olympic swimmer when called out on it.


I'm sorry, but your reading comprehension utterly sucks.
 
2012-12-08 11:26:08 PM  

whatshisname: I don't think alternative treatments are all bullshiat. I understand in the placebo effect.


The problem is they are selling the placebo effect as false hope and a false cure, and bilking despirate people out of their money.

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: Does that mean that the one doctor who thinks a little differently is wrong?


Burzynski is not a "doctor doing things differently". He's blatently lying to his patients, and taking them for MILLIONS of dollars each year, with not even a single curvival benefit demonstrated, despite his "study" going on for 30 years.
 
2012-12-08 11:27:22 PM  

BronyMedic: Yes. Yes I do. It's what you demonstrated so gloriously when you tried to backlpeddle out of that comment.


You put words in her mouth. She never said or otherwise implied that there was a natural remedy for cancer- she was saying not to knock the entire concept, just because it's stupid in this case. You took that and wildly misinterpreted it to mean something it didn't.
 
2012-12-08 11:29:12 PM  

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: Does that mean that the one doctor who thinks a little differently is wrong?


Maybe not, but until there's some evidence that what they're doing is effective, they shouldn't trump treatments known to be effective. That's what the issue is here - someone ignoring known medicine and going on a search for "alternative" treatments.
 
2012-12-08 11:31:05 PM  

cptjeff: BronyMedic: You decided to mouth off about "natural" cures, and then backpedal like an olympic swimmer when called out on it.

I'm sorry, but your reading comprehension utterly sucks.


Really? I'll quote her original point.
I'm sorry, but you're just as bad as her. This is what she soapboxed on, on a thread about a parent eskewing science based medicine treatment for alternative medicine.

PsiChick: Have you geniuses ever actually tried natural remedies? Just because a big-name drug producer didn't slap a label on it does not mean it doesn't work. My mom and I were running under the same assumption as you when I tried an herbal tea to see if it helped my period clotting--I ended up having two periods in a month because, while it might have stopped the clotting, having more estrogen in my system made me more sensitive to whatever my mom, who was menstruating, pumped out. Lesson highly learned.

/This mom is an idiot. That doesn't change the fact that we have not discovered everything, or that some natural remedies work really damn well.

Comparing drinking plant estrogens for normalizing menstration with treating cancer. That's what we're equating here. Maybe before you talk about reading comprehension, you should read what you're defending. In addition, maybe you should realize that PsiChick is one of the biggest promoters of "alternative medicine" on FARK. The fact you're choosing to white knight her because I called her out on her BS is quite telling.
 
2012-12-08 11:32:57 PM  

BronyMedic: PsiChick: ...What? I'm sorry? You claimed that natural remedies are always bullshiat, and I have to prove there's a natural remedy for cancer (and, if you had any idea what you were talking about, you would have actually specified the type,) or I'm the one in the wrong?

Actually, I asked you what "natural remedy" was the cure for brain cancer, Psi. That would generally be inferred, considering that's what this discussion was about.

If you don't believe me, here:

BronyMedic: Which "natural" remedies work well on Brain Cancer, PsiChick?

And then you have this glorious doublespeak gem.

PsiChick: Do you know what the phrase 'moving the goalposts' means?

Yes. Yes I do. It's what you demonstrated so gloriously when you tried to backlpeddle out of that comment.

namatad: She has investigated natural remedies abroad.
Yup too stupid to live.

and before the natural tards show up, I have NO problem with you using natural remedies yourself, but when you insist on using them on your kids? well you should be charged with attempted murder or murder when they die.


Oh? What was that? You asked me what, again? Or, wait a minute...did you imply that natural remedies are inherently bullshiat?

Yeah, uh, you're an idiot.

whatshisname: Because the first (refusing conventional treatment) is almost always related to the second (looking for alternative treatments) .Except in those rare case where religion rears its ugly head and the reason for refusing treatment is because God says so.

I don't think alternative treatments are all bullshiat. I understand in the placebo effect.


A) The example I gave you directly counters the placebo effect, since I don't know my mother's schedule. I'm sure someone somewhere thinks women are all little giggling dolts who share menstruation calendars over coffee, but here in reality-land, that doesn't happen. And if you'd done a basic google search, you'd see the other reason I chose to share the red clover tea story is because a few studies actually have shown a non-placebo-effect result, yet it's still called an herbal remedy. Should make you think a bit.

B) Well, yes, most people don't wake up in the morning and say "gee, I have a giant tumor making me cough up blood in my lung, I think I won't treat it and see what happens." However, it still has nothing to do with whether natural remedies are all bullshiat or not. Think of it this way: We both see an animal. I claim it's a cat. You claim it's a dog. If I say "Either it's a dog or the sky isn't blue", the sky may not be blue and it may or may not be a dog, because the two are not farking related. Your claim that all natural remedies are placebo effect is a different claim on facts than whether or not this woman should have listened to a doctor. You are wrong about the first. I am not disagreeing with you on the second, although I do not reach your level of vehemence.
 
2012-12-08 11:33:45 PM  

willfullyobscure: mgshamster: willfullyobscure: mgshamster: Pribar: The Old Lady is a RN, san lower your exposure and therefore your risk, to carcinogens.

As a toxicologist, I strongly contest that it will lower anyone's exposure to carcinogens. They'll just get their carcinogens from a different source.

/You're right about ...

As a toxicologist, you're going to have to get a hell of a lot more specific before that statement means more than my assertion that pears are a tree that fruits on Mars, and you should know better.


I would love to! Be warned, though, that because of this thread, I now have a 12 year old bottle of vintage port, and my coherence will likely decrease as the night goes on. Also, as I'm a bit drunk, I may slip back and forth between technical talk and layman's speech, so if there's anything you're confused on, call me on it. I'll be happy to try and clarify.

First off, more than 99.9% of all chemicals consumed are natural. When it comes to pesticides, approximately 99.99% of those are natural. One of the reasons people choose the macrobiotic diet is to eat natural organic foods (specifically to avoid pesticides and synthetic chemicals). However, Ames tests (these are the tests to determine if a chemical is mutagenic - that is, causes mutations to DNA, which is one of the early steps required to cause cancer. Realize, too, that all cancer causing chemicals are mutagenic, although not all mutagenic chemicals cause cancer) have shown that the percentage of natural pesticides that cause cancer is no different than the percentage of synthetic pesticides that cause cancer. Both are around 50%, which is to be expected, because our body doesn't even notice the difference between a chemical produced in nature and one produced in the lab. I should note that these are only chemicals which have been shown to cause cancer in lab rats, so it doesn't necessarily mean they cause cancer in humans. Additionally, the dose required to cause cancer is much higher than the dose to which we humans are usually exposed (I say usually, because a certain type of job may increase one's exposure to a specific chemical, or an accident may happen that exposes people to a high dose).

So at best, avoiding synthetic chemicals and synthetic pesticides (I know, it's a bit redundant) by eating only natural and organic foods only really reduces one's exposure by 1% as compared to those who don't avoid these at all. But that's not really an accurate number, though, because even if one didn't avoid foods that used synthetic pesticides, the doses of these chemicals one receives is so minute that it's negligible (in most circumstances).

To add to all this, very few cancers are caused by synthetic chemicals one consumes in their diet. Most cancers are cause by other toxic sources that we are exposed to beyond our diet. And yet others are caused by viruses, some by bacteria, and some even from spontaneous DNA mutations!

The most important lesson of all is that the dose makes the poison. Even if one is exposed to a compound that is known to cause cancers, you have to be exposed to enough of it to make a difference biochemically. Otherwise, your body will repair any DNA damage done, remove the chemical from your body, and go on with business as usual.

/Citations can be provided upon request, although if you want additional reading material, I suggest starting here.
//You also might want to refresh up on any definitions, such as chemical, compound, etc..., if needed
 
2012-12-08 11:33:50 PM  

cptjeff: BronyMedic: Yes. Yes I do. It's what you demonstrated so gloriously when you tried to backlpeddle out of that comment.

You put words in her mouth. She never said or otherwise implied that there was a natural remedy for cancer- she was saying not to knock the entire concept, just because it's stupid in this case. You took that and wildly misinterpreted it to mean something it didn't.


PsiChick is one of the most prolific promoters of alternative medicine on FARK. That's the reason I called her out over it.
 
2012-12-08 11:37:27 PM  

CreamFilling: This farking chestnut again? Doctors aren't perfect so the opinion of any self declared expert are therefore equally valid. I'm not saying they should blindly trust one doctor, but the opinion of one genuine expert is far better than those of a hundred kooks and morons. There are plenty of other oncologists she could get a second opinion from, and they would likely all say something very similar, which she still wouldn't like, so instead she's going off on her own.


Depending where you live, and your means (which if you have enough money to spend on quacks, we assume she has some means), you travel to medical centers which are KNOWN for dealing with this type of illness, something like the mayo or cleveland clinics and get an opinion from the best of the best.
They might know about the most recent whatever, where your local cancer doc might be less informed.

Or you can go online and find a miracle cure. LOL
 
2012-12-08 11:40:07 PM  

PsiChick: Oh? What was that? You asked me what, again? Or, wait a minute...did you imply that natural remedies are inherently bullshiat?

Yeah, uh, you're an idiot.


Oh, the one claiming victory from logical fallacies is now using ad hominem. Cute.

Uh, PsiChick? You were the one that seems to confuse compounds derived from plants in a lab, purified into an effective clinical agent, and then used based on studies proving their efficacy on patients for conditions they can treat safely with someone saying an "herb" can cure something. You're not a herbologist, remember?

You decided to come into a thread about a woman who was trying to keep her son from recieving one of the only effective treatments for his cancer - a treatment that gives him the BEST chance of survival there is - for some alternative medical therapy she heard about in Mexico, and spout off about how people shouldn't discount natural cures just because they don't have a drug label on them, and because your N=2 account of drinking "natural" plant estrogens, which are scientifically demonstrated to have an effect on the human body, helped to normalize your menstral cycle. You then proceeded to backpeddle, do the very same thing with moving the goalpost you accused me of, and then try to say that's not waht you really meant.

In addition, you're using specific buzzwords that are commonly associated with the alternative medicine crowd, and then getting pissy because people who call you out for it don't know exactly what you mean by it?

Cry me a river.
 
2012-12-08 11:41:57 PM  

BronyMedic: cirrhosis_and_halitosis: She should look into alternative treatment at the Burzynski Clinic .


these people scare the crap out of me.
On the other hand, the best thing about these people, is that they tend to die.
 
2012-12-08 11:43:03 PM  

PsiChick:
A) B)


I wasn't around for A) and on B) I think you're drawing conclusions where none were really intended. That being said, 99% of the time when conventional medicine is refused, the patient/caregiver/priest has something else in mind. If it's an "alternative" cure, it's an alternative to something, isn't it?
 
2012-12-08 11:44:39 PM  

namatad: BronyMedic: cirrhosis_and_halitosis: She should look into alternative treatment at the Burzynski Clinic .

these people scare the crap out of me.
On the other hand, the best thing about these people, is that they tend to die.


I can't share your elation that the despriate and gullable die because a conman snake-oil salesman uses his MD and his pockets lined with the money of the dead and dying to produce propaganda films and continue a 30 year abomination of a human study.
 
2012-12-08 11:46:31 PM  

mgshamster: As a toxicologist, I strongly contest that it will lower anyone's exposure to carcinogens. They'll just get their carcinogens from a different source.

/You're right about ...


Yup, natural != pure or safe.
 
2012-12-08 11:46:46 PM  

whatshisname: I don't think alternative treatments are all bullshiat.


This is probably true. I would agree that not all of them are bullshiat. The majority are, but probably not all of them. The problem is that because alt-med treatments are not adequately tested, it's nearly impossible to distinguish the ones that are good from the ones that are bad. Now to be fair, many of the ones that are bad can easily be recognized as such (such as homeopathy, detox schemes, colon cleansers, etc...). But it all goes back to whether a specific treatment not only shows efficacy, but also has a greater benefit than it does a risk, and the vast majority of alt-med treatments either do not have enough research to show that it's worth it, or there is enough research and they failed (yet people still try to sell them as if they work - these are the ones I call scammers and con men).
 
2012-12-08 11:47:03 PM  

BronyMedic: Comparing drinking plant estrogens for normalizing menstration with treating cancer. That's what we're equating here. Maybe before you talk about reading comprehension, you should read what you're defending. In addition, maybe you should realize that PsiChick is one of the biggest promoters of "alternative medicine" on FARK. The fact you're choosing to white knight her because I called her out on her BS is quite telling.


Rhetoric is such an interesting discipline. It helps us learn what is and is not equating ('oranges and apples are the same' is equating, 'oranges might not be apples but they are still a fruit' is not), comparing (see prior example), promoting (saying 'no, apples are not always red, there are in fact green apples' is not promoting either red or green apples), and white knighting (which would imply that I am incapable of defending myself and cptjeff is trying to get laid).

It's a pity you never studied rhetoric. I'm sure you never meant to use those logical fallacies or insult people, but without knowing proper debating techniques...
 
2012-12-08 11:47:13 PM  

BronyMedic: whatshisname: I don't think alternative treatments are all bullshiat. I understand in the placebo effect.

The problem is they are selling the placebo effect as false hope and a false cure, and bilking despirate people out of their money.

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: Does that mean that the one doctor who thinks a little differently is wrong?

Burzynski is not a "doctor doing things differently". He's blatently lying to his patients, and taking them for MILLIONS of dollars each year, with not even a single curvival benefit demonstrated, despite his "study" going on for 30 years.


I saw the documentary a few years ago but if I recall correctly a major drug company tried to buy him out and when he refused they proceeded with trials of a slightly altered version of his therapy. Maybe his treatment is effective, maybe not, but if he was truly harming and bilking his patients the FDA should have shut him down years ago. The mother is smart to seek alternatives to the known horrible side effects of chemo/radiation.
 
2012-12-08 11:47:18 PM  

whatshisname: I wasn't around for A) and on B) I think you're drawing conclusions where none were really intended. That being said, 99% of the time when conventional medicine is refused, the patient/caregiver/priest has something else in mind. If it's an "alternative" cure, it's an alternative to something, isn't it?


A) Is the fact that she thinks drinking a tea made from herbs containing high amounts of plant estrogens is the vetting of claimed Natural Cures because it helped to normalize her menstration.

Of course, I seriously hope that PsiChick has seen a doctor about her dysmenorrhea. My wifes was caused by endometriosis.
 
2012-12-08 11:47:36 PM  

BronyMedic: I can't share your elation


not elated, but in the end, they are too stupid to live.
there is no downside to society. and the only way to ever expose the quacks is dead people.
of course, these people show up years later, much sicker, complaining about how the doctors failed them.

farkem
/which is not the same as elation
 
2012-12-08 11:49:16 PM  

PsiChick: Derp, KFC Double Down style.


That's nice, Psi. Keep posting more alternative medicine trash. It's always fun to shoot you down when you do.
 
2012-12-08 11:50:35 PM  

BronyMedic: Comparing drinking plant estrogens for normalizing menstration with treating cancer.


She wasn't making that comparison. At all. That's where you wildly misinterpreted her post and put words in her mouth. She was offering some refutation to the general sentiment in the thread that all natural remedies whatsoever are worthless, which is a perfectly valid point. You, on the other hand, seem to be an obstinate moron.

BronyMedic: In addition, maybe you should realize that PsiChick is one of the biggest promoters of "alternative medicine" on FARK


That may be true, but it's irrelevant to the point at hand. I don't know and I don't care- with that particular post, your interpretation was wildly off base.

BronyMedic: The fact you're choosing to white knight her because I called her out on her BS is quite telling.


I reacted for the same reason I hate fox news- I don't have a lot of patience for people who get outraged over things they imagined.
 
2012-12-08 11:53:39 PM  

mgshamster: I would agree that not all of them are bullshiat. The majority are, but probably not all of them. The problem is that because alt-med treatments are not adequately tested, it's nearly impossible to distinguish the ones that are good from the ones that are bad.


I'm curious, have any "alternative" medicines in the past 25 or 50 years resulted in effective new medicines or techniques?
 
2012-12-08 11:54:53 PM  

Day_Old_Dutchie: RatMaster999: adenosine: dickfreckle: You're "not bonkers," yet you named your son "Neon?"

I don't see a problem with that.
[25.media.tumblr.com image 300x224]

[i13.photobucket.com image 720x480]

That kid's got a bright future. I see his name in lights.

He'll be a lonely little guy.

NO ATTRACTION


That was awesome.
 
2012-12-08 11:56:22 PM  

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: I saw the documentary a few years ago but if I recall correctly a major drug company tried to buy him out and when he refused they proceeded with trials of a slightly altered version of his therapy. Maybe his treatment is effective, maybe not, but if he was truly harming and bilking his patients the FDA should have shut him down years ago. The mother is smart to seek alternatives to the known horrible side effects of chemo/radiation.


Burzynski has made claims like that for the past few decades. He always plays the role of the poor, pitiful Gallileo who was persecuted for his beliefs. In reality, all he did was extract various mineral compounds and waste peptides from urine, and inject them back into his patients. He has an army of lawyers on standby to threaten to sue, file false DMCA notices, and harass people who publically criticise him, or who call for published research on his "experimental therapy" that he has been running since 1976.

This is what the National Cancer Institute, the leading US Agency for the research of cancer and therapies to combat it, has to say about the Antineoplastons:

•Antineoplastons are drugs composed of chemical compounds that are naturally present in the urine and blood. They are an experimental cancer therapy that is purported to provide a natural biochemical substance that is excreted and therefore lacking in people with cancer.
•Antineoplastons were first proposed as a possible cancer treatment in 1976.
•Antineoplastons were originally isolated from human urine but are now synthesized from readily available chemicals in the developer's laboratory.
•Antineoplastons are not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the prevention or treatment of any disease.
•No randomized controlled trials showing the effectiveness of antineoplastons have been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.
•Antineoplaston side effects can include serious neurologic toxicity.
•Nonrandomized clinical trials investigating the anticancer efficacy of antineoplastons are underway at the developer's institute.

By Nonrandomized Clinical Trials, they mean that if you pay the exorbant fee the Burzynski clinic charges it's patients, up to 200,000 dollars, they will put you in the clinical trial after you have been reviewed by an in-house Institutional Review Board that is stacked with friends and coworkers of Burzynski.

In over 30 years of studying his "Anti-Neoplaston Therapy", Burzynski has not published a SINGLE study on it's effectiveness or safety, instead relying on "patient testimonials", many of whom are dead far before the expected life expectancy of a patient recieving the gold-standard treatment protocols.
 
2012-12-08 11:58:33 PM  

AbbeySomeone: I've seen people go through the chemo and radiation. They still died, just slowly and in more pain. Prolonging a life of agony is never nice and there is no guarantee that this will cure him.


There are cancers that you should treat aggesively and there are cancers where you should consider palliative care. With pancreatic cancer and a lot of brain cancers the odds of succesfully treating the cancer are near zero. I had a friend die of pancreatic cancer (he was diagnosed at stage 3) earlier this year and he went with agressive chemo, I suggested to him that steroids and painkillers and just hanging out with his family might be a good option. His kids weren't ready for that, so instead of 3 months of hanging out with their dad they spent 3 months visiting their dad in hospital rooms.

This "mum" doesn't sound like the brightest bulb, and her reasoning is silly, but she may be making the right choice in avoiding a treatment that is likely to fail.
 
2012-12-09 12:01:00 AM  

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: BronyMedic: whatshisname: I don't think alternative treatments are all bullshiat. I understand in the placebo effect.

The problem is they are selling the placebo effect as false hope and a false cure, and bilking despirate people out of their money.

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: Does that mean that the one doctor who thinks a little differently is wrong?

Burzynski is not a "doctor doing things differently". He's blatently lying to his patients, and taking them for MILLIONS of dollars each year, with not even a single curvival benefit demonstrated, despite his "study" going on for 30 years.

I saw the documentary a few years ago but if I recall correctly a major drug company tried to buy him out and when he refused they proceeded with trials of a slightly altered version of his therapy. Maybe his treatment is effective, maybe not, but if he was truly harming and bilking his patients the FDA should have shut him down years ago. The mother is smart to seek alternatives to the known horrible side effects of chemo/radiation.


God do I wish there were a better alternative than chemo and radiation therapy. Unfortunately, there isn't at this point. If there was, rest assured that pharmaceutical companies would be rushing to get in on the cash they'd get from such a treatment.

As for the FDA and the Burzynski Clinic, there have been ongoing FDA investigations into his clinic, but so far he's been allowed to stay open due to him knowing the regulations well enough to game the system.

See, it's easier to stay open when you're still running clinical trials. Usually, each phase of the clinical trials (there can be up to either 4 or 5, I can't remember in my drunken state) takes months to just a few years. Not only has Burzynski not done any toxicity testing, but he skipped several phases of clinical trials, and went straight to Phase 4 - trials on people with the disease, and he's been at that same Phase for 30 years without ever publishing his results.

So even if his hypothesis worked, would you really trust a clinic that bypassed ethical regulations and ethical practices of scientific research? We know chemo/rad works (at least some of the time); would you trust a clinic that bypassed the law in order to provide it? Is that worth your life?

I can understand that if a person is desperate, and everything else has failed, that they might try Gearson or Burzynski, but it's a mistake to go to them first. Especially considering how unethical they are.
 
2012-12-09 12:01:06 AM  

whatshisname: mgshamster: I would agree that not all of them are bullshiat. The majority are, but probably not all of them. The problem is that because alt-med treatments are not adequately tested, it's nearly impossible to distinguish the ones that are good from the ones that are bad.

I'm curious, have any "alternative" medicines in the past 25 or 50 years resulted in effective new medicines or techniques?


I think you are confusing "alternative" with voodoo and witchcraft. How else would medicine advance if there wasn't at least one doctor/researcher who decided to approach things in an "alternative" way to the status quo?
 
2012-12-09 12:01:08 AM  

cptjeff: That may be true, but it's irrelevant to the point at hand. I don't know and I don't care- with that particular post, your interpretation was wildly off base.


That's nice.

cptjeff: BronyMedic: Comparing drinking plant estrogens for normalizing menstration with treating cancer.

She wasn't making that comparison. At all. That's where you wildly misinterpreted her post and put words in her mouth. She was offering some refutation to the general sentiment in the thread that all natural remedies whatsoever are worthless, which is a perfectly valid point. You, on the other hand, seem to be an obstinate moron.

BronyMedic: In addition, maybe you should realize that PsiChick is one of the biggest promoters of "alternative medicine" on FARK

That may be true, but it's irrelevant to the point at hand. I don't know and I don't care- with that particular post, your interpretation was wildly off base.

BronyMedic: The fact you're choosing to white knight her because I called her out on her BS is quite telling.

I reacted for the same reason I hate fox news- I don't have a lot of patience for people who get outraged over things they imagined.


You're saying in one breath you don't care about the reason WHY I reacted the way I did to her statement, and then the next you don't care about her past on FARK?

You're talking about someone who has made various kook claims on FARK that were in no way trolls, including claiming to be a Psychic who could fortell events like 9/11 (But that she couldn't tell anyone because to prevent it would have meant harm to her), or the fact that she's a prolific pusher of alternative medicine, including anti-science and anti-vaccination on this website.

But yes. Continue to equate it to fox news. You seem so fair and balanced.
 
2012-12-09 12:01:10 AM  

BronyMedic: PsiChick: Derp, KFC Double Down style.

That's nice, Psi. Keep posting more alternative medicine trash. It's always fun to shoot you down when you do.


Do you know why science can't find a cure for cancer? Because there's more than one type. A lot more. I am not an expert on either cancer or herblore, so why in the name of all unholy fark would I claim that alternative medicine would cure cancer? Yeah. I never did. That was ALL you. I drew a line between the mother's idiocy and the claim that alternative medicine NEVER works, and disagreed with you on only ONE of those two points. You need to read my entire posts, not just copypasta a few sentences and claim you shot me down.

whatshisname: PsiChick:
A) B)

I wasn't around for A) and on B) I think you're drawing conclusions where none were really intended. That being said, 99% of the time when conventional medicine is refused, the patient/caregiver/priest has something else in mind. If it's an "alternative" cure, it's an alternative to something, isn't it?


A and B were your entire thesis. Go re-read the thread. And I don't care if they're doing it because the voices in their heads told them to, your original premise about alternative medicine is still scientificially wrong.

/Go back. Re-read the thread. The entire thing. Read ALL of my posts. THEN respond. I am typing the same thing over and over and it's seriously getting annoying.
 
2012-12-09 12:09:40 AM  

PsiChick: Do you know why science can't find a cure for cancer? Because there's more than one type. A lot more. I am not an expert on either cancer or herblore, so why in the name of all unholy fark would I claim that alternative medicine would cure cancer? Yeah. I never did. That was ALL you. I drew a line between the mother's idiocy and the claim that alternative medicine NEVER works, and disagreed with you on only ONE of those two points. You need to read my entire posts, not just copypasta a few sentences and claim you shot me down.


What you are doing is NOT alternative medicine, Psi. You're using a biologically active herb which contains large amount of "bioidentical" plant hormones to stabilize your estrogen levels and normalize your menstration. Which, since you are doing, I REALLY hope you are seeing an actual doctor about, because you're treating a symptom of a potentially serious underlying medical condition, and putting yourself at the same risk factors as if you were undergoing hormone replacement therapy by doing so. (While I dislike your beliefs, and the way you're willing to be apologetic for people who slimily take advantage of the despirate and gullable, I really don't want to see you get hurt.) You're basically invoking the Vindication of All Kooks Correllary to the Theory of Crank Magnetism by stating that because drinking a tea which contains a high concentration of plant estrogens helps you, that is the vindication of "alternative medicine" as functional and efficient.

While no, you're right, you never said that verbatum, your posting history on this website combined with what you said would easily lead someone to believe that is what you are trying to infer, especially when you do it on a FARK topic about a woman trying to keep her son from undergoing cancer treatment to try some alternative therapy.
 
2012-12-09 12:10:05 AM  

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: I think you are confusing "alternative" with voodoo and witchcraft. How else would medicine advance if there wasn't at least one doctor/researcher who decided to approach things in an "alternative" way to the status quo?


That definition of "alternative" is quite different from the one being touted here.
 
2012-12-09 12:11:43 AM  
FTA: "Radiotherapy could damage his future."

If his tumor isn't treated, he won't HAVE a future.

Choice is: live child with a few IQ points missing, or dead "genius".

Dumb b*tch.
 
2012-12-09 12:11:59 AM  

BronyMedic: or the fact that she's a prolific pusher of alternative medicine, including anti-science and anti-vaccination on this website.


Again, I do not care. You wildly misinterpreted what was actually written, intentionally or otherwise, and made an unfounded accusation, then made all sorts of attacks, personal attacks included, based solely on what you imagined she said, regardless of what was actually said. No matter what somebody's history is, that is always going to be problematic. And yes, that's how the Fox outrage machine tends to operate.
 
2012-12-09 12:14:26 AM  

cptjeff: BronyMedic: or the fact that she's a prolific pusher of alternative medicine, including anti-science and anti-vaccination on this website.

Again, I do not care. You wildly misinterpreted what was actually written, intentionally or otherwise, and made an unfounded accusation, then made all sorts of attacks, personal attacks included, based solely on what you imagined she said, regardless of what was actually said. No matter what somebody's history is, that is always going to be problematic. And yes, that's how the Fox outrage machine tends to operate.


I guess I'll take a cue from you then. I don't care what you think, then.
 
2012-12-09 12:16:28 AM  

whatshisname: mgshamster: I would agree that not all of them are bullshiat. The majority are, but probably not all of them. The problem is that because alt-med treatments are not adequately tested, it's nearly impossible to distinguish the ones that are good from the ones that are bad.

I'm curious, have any "alternative" medicines in the past 25 or 50 years resulted in effective new medicines or techniques?


Some, but this is a matter of semantics rather than any true "alternative medicine" being shown to work.

First off, the alt-med group as a whole is unethical in some regards (this is by no means a statement on any individual practitioner NOR any individual who chooses to try alternative therapies). The reason I say it's unethical is because the alt-med group likes to take scientifically proven treatments and claim it as their own. Additionally, the definition of was alt-med is has changed over the decades.

For example, diet and exercise have been shown scientifically to be beneficial to our health. A balanced diet and regulate exercise can prevent heart disease and other disease. The alt-med crowd have consistently stated that "western medicine" doctors never talk to patients about diet and exercise, despite the fact that this is blatantly false.

Here's the way I, as a scientist, look at the whole situation:

I don't care if it's "western," "eastern," "alternative," conventional," or any other label anyone might want to put on it. Here's what I care about:

Has it:
1) Been shown to work?
2) Been shown not to work?
3) Not enough research yet.

If 2 or 3, we should not be using it. If 1, then are the benefits worth the risk? If yes, we should be using it. If not, then we should not be using it.

Now, you asked me which alt-med treatments have been shown to work in the past few decades. If we consider that alt-med consists of everything in categories 2 and 3 (and sometimes in 1-no). Anything in category three has the potential to work, and these alt-med treatments are the ones that become useful. Typically, these are herbal remedies, and this website (it takes a minute to load) shows the current research on herbal remedies (from the good to the bad). I strongly recommend browsing it; if you click on a bubble, it'll take you to some relevant research on the herbal supplement. Now, with that, there are a lot of problems with the manufacturing of supplements. The regs to run a plant are pathetic, and a lot of times products are simply made poorly. Recently, the FDA has been cracking down on it, but there are still issues. This article covers a lot of the problems.

I made a joke (well, kind of a joke) earlier about natural remedies and curing brain cancer; I answer BronyMedic's challenge with "taxol." Taxol is a natural chemical. It's produced by the Pacific Yew Tree. It is a chemotherapeutic agent (commonly known as "chemo therapy"). If we define anything natural as "alternative medicine" (which I have encountered people who have made that claim before) then technically we can state that the alt-med treatment of pacific yew bark has been shown to be effective when the specific chemical is extracted and used to treat cancers. Of course, there's not enough taxol in the trees to meet the demand for the drug, so we have to make it synthetically.

/Time to get another glass of port.
 
2012-12-09 12:19:32 AM  

mgshamster: If we define anything natural as "alternative medicine" (which I have encountered people who have made that claim before) then technically we can state that the alt-med treatment of pacific yew bark has been shown to be effective when the specific chemical is extracted and used to treat cancers.


That tactic is specifically what Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon who goes by the blogging name ORAC, labeled as the "Vindication of all Kooks" corollary to the Theory of Crank Magnetism.
 
2012-12-09 12:23:08 AM  

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: whatshisname: mgshamster: I would agree that not all of them are bullshiat. The majority are, but probably not all of them. The problem is that because alt-med treatments are not adequately tested, it's nearly impossible to distinguish the ones that are good from the ones that are bad.

I'm curious, have any "alternative" medicines in the past 25 or 50 years resulted in effective new medicines or techniques?

I think you are confusing "alternative" with voodoo and witchcraft. How else would medicine advance if there wasn't at least one doctor/researcher who decided to approach things in an "alternative" way to the status quo?


For those of you following my posts, THIS is absolutely correct. Thank you for bringing this up, cirrhosis_and_halitosis. The issue is when people start selling these "alternative ways" (so to speak) before the research has been done to determine if they work AND to determine if they are safe.

In addition, sometimes a treatment is safe for the general population, but very dangerous to a small subset of the population. An excellent example of this is Merck's Vioxx. Vioxx was, according to those it helped, a wonder drug. It was the best treatment for arthritis that the patients had ever had. The problem was that it increased one's risk for heart attacks. Now, if you're a normal person, this isn't an issue. But if you are a person with a preexisting heart condition, then it is very dangerous. Merck could have come out from the beginning and said that people with heart conditions shouldn't take this medicine - it would be a "counter recommendation." But they didn't; instead they chose to hide it, and because of such people died, the drug was removed from the market, those who benefited from the drug could no longer, and Merck lost a lot of money and consumer trust.
 
2012-12-09 12:26:08 AM  

mgshamster: still running clinical trials. Usually, each phase of the clinical trials (there can be up to either 4 or 5, I can't remember in my drunken state) takes months to just a few years. Not only has Burzynski not done any toxicity testing, but he skipped several phases of clinical trials, and went straight to Phase 4 - trials on people with the disease, and he's been at that same Phase for 30 years without ever publishing his results.

So even if his hypothesis worked, would you really trust a clinic that bypassed ethical regulations and ethical practices of scientific research? We know chemo/rad works (at least some of the time); would you trust a clinic that bypassed the law in order to provide it? Is that worth your life?

I can understand that if a person is desperate, and everything else has failed, that they might try Gearson or Burzynski, but it's a mistake to go to them first. Especially considering how unethical they are.


I'm glad you mentioned Max Gerson, that is another that I would explore if I were ever diagnosed. Of course I am approaching her dilemma from what I would choose for myself. For me I would risk death over certainty of diminished mental faculties as I wan't blessed with much to begin with. ;-)

And I know that Burzynski and Gerson are ripe targets for conspiracy theorists claiming that they are being persecuted but medicine is BIG BUSINESS. There is no denying that drug companies would have an incentive to suppress an alternative that couldn't be patented as they have quarterly earnings to mind.
 
2012-12-09 12:27:54 AM  

BronyMedic: mgshamster: If we define anything natural as "alternative medicine" (which I have encountered people who have made that claim before) then technically we can state that the alt-med treatment of pacific yew bark has been shown to be effective when the specific chemical is extracted and used to treat cancers.

That tactic is specifically what Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon who goes by the blogging name ORAC, labeled as the "Vindication of all Kooks" corollary to the Theory of Crank Magnetism.


I'm familiar with Gorski. I used to follow his blogs, but got bored of them about a year or so ago because he stopped varying his topics.
 
2012-12-09 12:31:54 AM  

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: I'm glad you mentioned Max Gerson, that is another that I would explore if I were ever diagnosed. Of course I am approaching her dilemma from what I would choose for myself. For me I would risk death over certainty of diminished mental faculties as I wan't blessed with much to begin with. ;-)


A good friend of mine died because of the Gerson therapy and it's promotion of itsself over chemotherapy (Many promoters will tell people to stop treatment completely.)

One of the number one killers of cancer patients is inability to meet their nutritional demands. Why anyone would want to purposfully go on a diet and regiment of coffee enemas which intentionally jacks with their digestion and electrolyte levels, and has been shown worse than useless (a 2009 study by the NIH NICAM had to be haulted because everyone was dying at an alarming rate.) is beyond ,e.
 
2012-12-09 12:32:29 AM  

mgshamster: Even if one is exposed to a compound that is known to cause cancers, you have to be exposed to enough of it to make a difference biochemically. Otherwise, your body will repair any DNA damage done, remove the chemical from your body, and go on with business as usual. Had


Got a real kick out of this one. Was involved in several discussions @ this with Dr. Lester Crawford (former Sec. HEW) in the mid/late '80,s. (As I recall, he is Dr. Pharm.). His unwavering position was that there is no safe level of a carcinogen. Statistically, he is probably correct; in the real world, not so much.
 
2012-12-09 12:32:50 AM  

BronyMedic: What you are doing is NOT alternative medicine, Psi. You're using a biologically active herb which contains large amount of "bioidentical" plant hormones to stabilize your estrogen levels and normalize your menstration. Which, since you are doing, I REALLY hope you are seeing an actual doctor about, because you're treating a symptom of a potentially serious underlying medical condition, and putting yourself at the same risk factors as if you were undergoing hormone replacement therapy by doing so. (While I dislike your beliefs, and the way you're willing to be apologetic for people who slimily take advantage of the despirate and gullable, I really don't want to see you get hurt.) You're basically invoking the Vindication of All Kooks Correllary to the Theory of Crank Magnetism by stating that because drinking a tea which contains a high concentration of plant estrogens helps you, that is the vindication of "alternative medicine" as functional and efficient.

While no, you're right, you never said that verbatum, your posting history on this website combined with what you said would easily lead someone to believe that is what you are trying to infer, especially when you do it on a FARK topic about a woman trying to keep her son from undergoing cancer treatment to try some alternative therapy.


I believe I mentioned the tea had a negative side effect. Why the hell would I continue using it? It's not an antibiotic, the effects are pretty damn clear-cut. Also, where are you getting this 'symptom of a problem' thing from? I did actually research it, and nothing I've seen would indicate that it's abnormal for, absent any other symptoms, a heavyset twenty-year-old girl who's always been a bleeder to clot. (And estrogen was not the chemical intended to treat that, btw. Red clover is a plant. It produces multiple compounds. Estrogen is just a side effect, which is why I used it for a month--I wanted to test how it would affect me. End result a CSS.)

So either alternative medicine is always wrong or a magic bullet? I don't think there's anyone who would claim that. I don't even claim it's usually effective, we don't have the statistics to support that. I just claim that it's neither a magic bullet nor completely ineffective--you have to research on your own to find out what your specific remedy is and how it works.
 
2012-12-09 12:34:37 AM  
I don't see what she's so worried about, they could have a few "oopsies" during the operation and the kid would still be at least as smart as she is.
 
2012-12-09 12:38:57 AM  

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: mgshamster: still running clinical trials. Usually, each phase of the clinical trials (there can be up to either 4 or 5, I can't remember in my drunken state) takes months to just a few years. Not only has Burzynski not done any toxicity testing, but he skipped several phases of clinical trials, and went straight to Phase 4 - trials on people with the disease, and he's been at that same Phase for 30 years without ever publishing his results.

So even if his hypothesis worked, would you really trust a clinic that bypassed ethical regulations and ethical practices of scientific research? We know chemo/rad works (at least some of the time); would you trust a clinic that bypassed the law in order to provide it? Is that worth your life?

I can understand that if a person is desperate, and everything else has failed, that they might try Gearson or Burzynski, but it's a mistake to go to them first. Especially considering how unethical they are.

I'm glad you mentioned Max Gerson, that is another that I would explore if I were ever diagnosed. Of course I am approaching her dilemma from what I would choose for myself. For me I would risk death over certainty of diminished mental faculties as I wan't blessed with much to begin with. ;-)

And I know that Burzynski and Gerson are ripe targets for conspiracy theorists claiming that they are being persecuted but medicine is BIG BUSINESS. There is no denying that drug companies would have an incentive to suppress an alternative that couldn't be patented as they have quarterly earnings to mind.


Well, here's the thing about drugs: you can't patent them. It's true. You cannot patent a chemical. You can patent how to make the chemical, but not the chemical itself or any treatment related to it. Competing pharmaceutical companies do this all the time: they analyze the drug of a competitor and then find a new way to make it. Once they do, they can now produce a competing product. The company my wife works for just did this with a drug, and they are going to start producing it in mass quantities soon.

So IF the Gerson and Burzynski remedies work, rest assured that there are other companies out there trying to copy it. Big Pharma doesn't try to block potential competitors (despite the conspiracy theories), they try to take them over or out-market them with the same treatment.

Of course, you can't use the same treatment if you haven't done toxicity testing, efficacy testing, and clinical trials, which neither Gerson or Burzynski have.

And outside of all this, remember, you still have honest scientists who study all these chemicals outside of the pharmaceutical world (usually university researchers, like me) who try to keep the information free flowing and available to all. Once it gets out in the scientific world that a treatment doesn't work, you start to see it's use decrease in the medical world. You also have doctors who don't care about the pharmaceutical politics, and only care about what is good for their patient (you also have corrupt ones, but hey, we're talking about human nature here, and there's a broad spectrum of personalities in every field).
 
2012-12-09 12:45:24 AM  

BronyMedic: cirrhosis_and_halitosis: I'm glad you mentioned Max Gerson, that is another that I would explore if I were ever diagnosed. Of course I am approaching her dilemma from what I would choose for myself. For me I would risk death over certainty of diminished mental faculties as I wan't blessed with much to begin with. ;-)

A good friend of mine died because of the Gerson therapy and it's promotion of itsself over chemotherapy (Many promoters will tell people to stop treatment completely.)

One of the number one killers of cancer patients is inability to meet their nutritional demands. Why anyone would want to purposfully go on a diet and regiment of coffee enemas which intentionally jacks with their digestion and electrolyte levels, and has been shown worse than useless (a 2009 study by the NIH NICAM had to be haulted because everyone was dying at an alarming rate.) is beyond ,e.


I'm curious if your friend was treated at the Gerson Clinic in TJ or if he administered himself. I've found conflicting outlines for the treatment, four enemas a day would obviously not be healthy.

My roundabout point from previous posts is that there IS a good alternative to chemo/radiation, we just don't know if it has been found yet. It doesn't hurt to do due diligence since the existing treatment has marginal degrees of effectiveness with a certainty of nasty side effects.
 
2012-12-09 12:45:57 AM  

cirrhosis_and_halitosis:

And I know that Burzynski and Gerson are ripe targets for conspiracy theorists claiming that they are being persecuted but medicine is BIG BUSINESS. There is no denying that drug companies would have an incentive to suppress an alternative that couldn't be patented as they have quarterly earnings to mind.


However look at it from the flip side, if you were Mr Burzynski and had found a effective cancer treatment wouldn't you be pushing it in every peer reviewed journal you could and have the FDA review your trials so you could go mainstream with it instead of obfuscating at every turn and dragging out what is normally a 10 year study to over 35 years?
 
2012-12-09 12:46:32 AM  

crabsno termites: mgshamster: Even if one is exposed to a compound that is known to cause cancers, you have to be exposed to enough of it to make a difference biochemically. Otherwise, your body will repair any DNA damage done, remove the chemical from your body, and go on with business as usual. Had

Got a real kick out of this one. Was involved in several discussions @ this with Dr. Lester Crawford (former Sec. HEW) in the mid/late '80,s. (As I recall, he is Dr. Pharm.). His unwavering position was that there is no safe level of a carcinogen. Statistically, he is probably correct; in the real world, not so much.


Well, the FDA and EPA's official position on this is that there is no safe level of a carcinogen, and when it comes to regulations, they stand by this pretty strongly. And for purposes of public safety, that's the best position to take. So if he worked for the government, that would be his official opinion on it by default. However, biochemically, it's simply not true. The chance that a single chemical (which is above "no safe level") will be able to get into the cell, get past the cytosomes with the detox enzymes, get past the nucleic membrane, to the DNA, cause a mutation in a spot that will increase the rate of mitosis, avoid getting fixed by the DNA repair enzymes, and then copy itself fast enough to grow out of control, grow to a point that is a physiological concern, and then be able to metastasize, is beyond my ability to calculate.

But when we combine legal speak with scientific speak, both "Dr. Pharm" and myself can be correct, even though they are opposite statements.
 
2012-12-09 12:48:04 AM  
lower his IQ below her's? that will take a LOT of radiation.
 
2012-12-09 12:53:25 AM  

BronyMedic: You're talking about someone who has made various kook claims on FARK that were in no way trolls, including claiming to be a Psychic who could fortell events like 9/11 (But that she couldn't tell anyone because to prevent it would have meant harm to her), or the fact that she's a prolific pusher of alternative medicine, including anti-science and anti-vaccination on this website.


To be fair, PsyChick has calmed down a lot of these claims over the years. I don't think I've seen her claim psychic abilities in years.

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: BronyMedic: cirrhosis_and_halitosis: I'm glad you mentioned Max Gerson, that is another that I would explore if I were ever diagnosed. Of course I am approaching her dilemma from what I would choose for myself. For me I would risk death over certainty of diminished mental faculties as I wan't blessed with much to begin with. ;-)

A good friend of mine died because of the Gerson therapy and it's promotion of itsself over chemotherapy (Many promoters will tell people to stop treatment completely.)

One of the number one killers of cancer patients is inability to meet their nutritional demands. Why anyone would want to purposfully go on a diet and regiment of coffee enemas which intentionally jacks with their digestion and electrolyte levels, and has been shown worse than useless (a 2009 study by the NIH NICAM had to be haulted because everyone was dying at an alarming rate.) is beyond ,e.

I'm curious if your friend was treated at the Gerson Clinic in TJ or if he administered himself. I've found conflicting outlines for the treatment, four enemas a day would obviously not be healthy.

My roundabout point from previous posts is that there IS a good alternative to chemo/radiation, we just don't know if it has been found yet. It doesn't hurt to do due diligence since the existing treatment has marginal degrees of effectiveness with a certainty of nasty side effects.


To be fair, that "marginal degree of effectiveness" varies from cancer to cancer. Sometimes, it's a very low chance, other times it is incredibly high. Sometimes, you don't even need chemo or radiation to get rid of cancer. Sometimes, simple surgery is enough to remove it. "Cancer" is such a variable beast that it's hard to talk about what is effective and what isn't. Unfortunately, I am not well versed enough to get into the details about one type of cancer verses the next. We would need to talk to a cancer specialist for that, and I don't think there's one in this thread. I do know the basics, though, as part of my toxicology education.
 
2012-12-09 12:56:00 AM  

mgshamster: crabsno termites: mgshamster: Even if one is exposed to a compound that is known to cause cancers, you have to be exposed to enough of it to make a difference biochemically. Otherwise, your body will repair any DNA damage done, remove the chemical from your body, and go on with business as usual. Had

Got a real kick out of this one. Was involved in several discussions @ this with Dr. Lester Crawford (former Sec. HEW) in the mid/late '80,s. (As I recall, he is Dr. Pharm.). His unwavering position was that there is no safe level of a carcinogen. Statistically, he is probably correct; in the real world, not so much.

Well, the FDA and EPA's official position on this is that there is no safe level of a carcinogen, and when it comes to regulations, they stand by this pretty strongly. And for purposes of public safety, that's the best position to take. So if he worked for the government, that would be his official opinion on it by default. However, biochemically, it's simply not true. The chance that a single chemical (which is above "no safe level") will be able to get into the cell, get past the cytosomes with the detox enzymes, get past the nucleic membrane, to the DNA, cause a mutation in a spot that will increase the rate of mitosis, avoid getting fixed by the DNA repair enzymes, and then copy itself fast enough to grow out of control, grow to a point that is a physiological concern, and then be able to metastasize, is beyond my ability to calculate.

But when we combine legal speak with scientific speak, both "Dr. Pharm" and myself can be correct, even though they are opposite statements.


Enough rep's, enough resources . . . Like the lady (UNM) in the '70's whose Doctoral research showed Si to be an essential nutrient for rats. Works on paper and in vivo. So what - anyone ever report a Si deficiency? As I said, in the real world, not so much.

/ still think that was his personal position as well.
 
2012-12-09 12:57:41 AM  

mgshamster: AbbeySomeone: I've seen people go through the chemo and radiation. They still died, just slowly and in more pain. Prolonging a life of agony is never nice and there is no guarantee that this will cure him.

I've seen people go through chemo and radiation, too. It cured them of cancer. They went on to live a very happy and productive life. Years later, they're still doing great and they are happy to be alive. I've also seen people who died after chemo and radiation.

/Chemo and radiation don't always work, but they're the best we have at this point.


My mom went through them in 1990 and she got another five years. The second round with cancer was what killed her. My dad had both in 2005 and he just remarried this year. He's a little weird these days but still pretty much 'my dad'.

No, there's no guarantee, but if you have people to live for, isn't it worth the risk??
 
2012-12-09 01:00:01 AM  

mgshamster: To be fair, PsyChick has calmed down a lot of these claims over the years. I don't think I've seen her claim psychic abilities in years.


You're right. And I will admit to PsiChick that her past behavior has colored the way I view things she posts on FARK.
 
2012-12-09 01:04:36 AM  

BronyMedic: mgshamster: To be fair, PsyChick has calmed down a lot of these claims over the years. I don't think I've seen her claim psychic abilities in years.

You're right. And I will admit to PsiChick that her past behavior has colored the way I view things she posts on FARK.


Also, and this may be because I'm drunk, but I'm pretty sure she's been here longer than 2011 (which is what her profile says). Or am I confusing people?

/Moar alcohol!
//Sorry to talk about you as if you weren't here, Psi.
 
HBK
2012-12-09 01:07:41 AM  

mgshamster: BronyMedic: mgshamster: To be fair, PsyChick has calmed down a lot of these claims over the years. I don't think I've seen her claim psychic abilities in years.

You're right. And I will admit to PsiChick that her past behavior has colored the way I view things she posts on FARK.

Also, and this may be because I'm drunk, but I'm pretty sure she's been here longer than 2011 (which is what her profile says). Or am I confusing people?

/Moar alcohol!
//Sorry to talk about you as if you weren't here, Psi.


That sounds about right. I've been ignoring what the "college sophomore with psychic abilities" has posted for about a year and a half.
 
2012-12-09 01:18:07 AM  
As opposed to the cancer spreading and killing him?
 
2012-12-09 01:24:54 AM  

p51d007: As opposed to the cancer spreading and killing him?


Thanks for summing up the thread to date.

but...but...parental choice!!!
but...but...alternative medicine!!!
 
2012-12-09 01:30:33 AM  

BronyMedic: mgshamster: To be fair, PsyChick has calmed down a lot of these claims over the years. I don't think I've seen her claim psychic abilities in years.

You're right. And I will admit to PsiChick that her past behavior has colored the way I view things she posts on FARK.


I guess I'm more willing to forgive this kind of thinking, as I used to think the same thing about myself once upon a time. I used to believe I had some sort of "psychic" power, that I was able to know what other people were feeling (empathic beyond normal observation could allow). Of course, I was also very religious, and at the time I followed the pagan religion. I believed magical powers and demons and angels and gods of all sorts were real and active, and only certain people had the ability to see them (of which I was not one). Most of this went away as I became more educated, but it took years. Many, many years. Most of this was back when I was 18-21. It's been over a decade now, but I can't deny my past. As we used to say in the army, "Never forget where you came from, those you lead are likely there now." Paraphrased, and it doesn't quite fit to this situation, but you get the point.
 
2012-12-09 01:53:29 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: Props to the doc who likened radiotherapy to "frying the brain."


Kiwis seem to be hypersensitive to the concept of radiation. It's not like they don't come from the most naturally radioactive island in the world or anything.
 
2012-12-09 01:54:35 AM  

simplicimus: Anybody suss out what country this took place in?


New Zealander Ms Roberts, of Tiverton, Devon, told the court she was "forced" into it and is not a "bonkers mother".

Didn't you read the article?
 
2012-12-09 01:55:15 AM  

itsfullofstars: I finding it refreshing to read a "parent refuses medical treatment for their child" story that doesn't involve Jesus.


In New Zealand, radiation is the devil.
 
2012-12-09 02:55:53 AM  

PsiChick: BronyMedic: PsiChick: ...What? I'm sorry? You claimed that natural remedies are always bullshiat, and I have to prove there's a natural remedy for cancer (and, if you had any idea what you were talking about, you would have actually specified the type,) or I'm the one in the wrong?

Actually, I asked you what "natural remedy" was the cure for brain cancer, Psi. That would generally be inferred, considering that's what this discussion was about.

If you don't believe me, here:

BronyMedic: Which "natural" remedies work well on Brain Cancer, PsiChick?

And then you have this glorious doublespeak gem.

PsiChick: Do you know what the phrase 'moving the goalposts' means?

Yes. Yes I do. It's what you demonstrated so gloriously when you tried to backlpeddle out of that comment.

namatad: She has investigated natural remedies abroad.
Yup too stupid to live.

and before the natural tards show up, I have NO problem with you using natural remedies yourself, but when you insist on using them on your kids? well you should be charged with attempted murder or murder when they die.

Oh? What was that? You asked me what, again? Or, wait a minute...did you imply that natural remedies are inherently bullshiat?

Yeah, uh, you're an idiot.

whatshisname: Because the first (refusing conventional treatment) is almost always related to the second (looking for alternative treatments) .Except in those rare case where religion rears its ugly head and the reason for refusing treatment is because God says so.

I don't think alternative treatments are all bullshiat. I understand in the placebo effect.

A) The example I gave you directly counters the placebo effect, since I don't know my mother's schedule. I'm sure someone somewhere thinks women are all little giggling dolts who share menstruation calendars over coffee, but here in reality-land, that doesn't happen. And if you'd done a basic google search, you'd see the other reason I chose to share the red clover tea story is because a few stud ...


How about you give us one example of efficacy in any area.
 
2012-12-09 02:56:14 AM  

cretinbob: He's English, how much lower can his IQ go?


It can go to American.
 
2012-12-09 04:00:47 AM  

BronyMedic: mgshamster:

Check your ultrafark.



Sorry I abandoned you in that other thread, BronyMedic.

Rain check?
 
2012-12-09 04:03:09 AM  

profplump: No, because children don't have rights, and parents do. This isn't a decision about how to treat the child, it's a decision about whether or not the mother is capable of deciding how to treat the child.

Even if the judge decides she is not capable, he will likely not order treatment directly, but instead will assign a guardian ad litem for medical purposes (or some other sort of guardian), who would then make their own decisions about the child's treatment.


Have you any evidence for any of that, or did you make it all up?
 
2012-12-09 04:12:19 AM  

EggSniper: Lady, you are not special. You are not intelligent. You do not know better than professional medical doctors.


Friends of mine had to fight hard against intelligent doctors who were pressuring them to turn off life support for their "brain damaged" one year old, It's probably a good thing he did, because it turned out after a couple of weeks in intensive care that he was actually showing an extremely rare reaction to two drugs taken in combination, and when the dose of one of them was halved the "brain damage" disappeared in an hour or two.

Of course that's just an anecdote, but unless you want doctors to have the right to treat anyone, adult or child, without agreement then the need for informed consent is there. And it may not be as easy a decision to make as you think.
 
2012-12-09 04:16:48 AM  

namatad: This woman, clearly does not have a clear understanding of the facts, nor does she have adequate reasoning faculties.


If you believe that anyone who disagrees with doctors is deficient either in understanding or reasoning, why bother with informed consent at all.

Suppose you had a tumour and were told that, while chemotherapy gave you a 90% chance of surviving, chemotherapy plus radio therapy would give you a 95% chance of surviving plus a 50% chance of significant brain damage. Would you find that an easy decision to make? I certainly wouldn't, and it has nothing to do with my remarkable powers of understanding and reasoning.
 
2012-12-09 04:23:29 AM  

whatshisname: Western medicine is the reason we no longer die at 40.


FTFY. Average life expectancy was low in Ye Olde Days because so many people died in infancy and childhood. One you made it to your teens, you had a pretty good chance of getting through to your seventies or better, until the industrial revolution introduced huge rates of occupational disease.
 
2012-12-09 04:33:06 AM  

orbister: EggSniper: Lady, you are not special. You are not intelligent. You do not know better than professional medical doctors.

Friends of mine had to fight hard against intelligent doctors who were pressuring them to turn off life support for their "brain damaged" one year old, It's probably a good thing he did, because it turned out after a couple of weeks in intensive care that he was actually showing an extremely rare reaction to two drugs taken in combination, and when the dose of one of them was halved the "brain damage" disappeared in an hour or two.

Of course that's just an anecdote, but unless you want doctors to have the right to treat anyone, adult or child, without agreement then the need for informed consent is there. And it may not be as easy a decision to make as you think.



Fav'd.
 
2012-12-09 04:35:08 AM  

namatad: Depending where you live, and your means (which if you have enough money to spend on quacks, we assume she has some means), you travel to medical centers which are KNOWN for dealing with this type of illness, something like the mayo or cleveland clinics and get an opinion from the best of the best.


That's a good point. If I had had to make a decision like the one here, I would want to know that the doctor proposing the treatment had significant experience of and proven good outcomes in similar cases. There are far too many cases of doctors assuming that they are capable of carrying out procedures or administering treatments that are actually out of their areas of competence.

That, for example, is why, following the Bristol Child Heart Surgery scandal (GIYF) we now have moves in the UK to reduce by about half the number of hospitals carrying out heart surgery in children. The "I'm a doctor, I've read this up, I'll have a go" approach resulted and results in far more deaths than necessary.

If I was advised on cancer treatment for a child from somewhere like Great Ormond Street children's hospital, I would take the advice very seriously. They treat hundreds of children with cancer every year and I would trust them to know what they were doing. If, on the other hand, the advice came from a local hospital which saw a case like this every five years, I would definitely want a second opinion from somewhere more experienced.
 
2012-12-09 04:42:05 AM  

rewind2846: If his tumor isn't treated, he won't HAVE a future.

Choice is: live child with a few IQ points missing, or dead "genius".


How many times does it have to be pointed out. She has already agreed to chemotherapy. She agreed to surgery a year ago. She simply has not yet been convinced that the additional life expectancy from adding radiotherapy is worth the risk of brain damage. Absent the statistical evidence in this case (all we have is a tabloid newspaper trying to paint her as an idiot) none of us can even begin to come to a conclusion.
 
2012-12-09 04:48:06 AM  

pellies: How about you give us one example of efficacy in any area.


St John's Wort for depression. Mind you, it's what proper doctors use as firat choice for mild to moderate depression in Germany, so maybe it's proper medicine now.
 
2012-12-09 04:51:42 AM  

orbister: rewind2846: If his tumor isn't treated, he won't HAVE a future.

Choice is: live child with a few IQ points missing, or dead "genius".

How many times does it have to be pointed out. She has already agreed to chemotherapy. She agreed to surgery a year ago. She simply has not yet been convinced that the additional life expectancy from adding radiotherapy is worth the risk of brain damage. Absent the statistical evidence in this case (all we have is a tabloid newspaper trying to paint her as an idiot) none of us can even begin to come to a conclusion.



WARNING:

Trying to talk sense on Fark can be irreversibly frustrating.
 
2012-12-09 05:02:58 AM  

pellies: A) The example I gave you directly counters the placebo effect, since I don't know my mother's schedule. I'm sure someone somewhere thinks women are all little giggling dolts who share menstruation calendars over coffee, but here in reality-land, that doesn't happen. And if you'd done a basic google search, you'd see the other reason I chose to share the red clover tea story is because a few stud ...

How about you give us one example of efficacy in any area.



I'd answer, but I'm too farking STONED on herbs that have no noteworthy demonstrable affect on human physiology.


;-)
 
2012-12-09 05:04:27 AM  

Amos Quito: Trying to talk sense on Fark can be irreversibly frustrating.


Particularly when self-righteous people are having the fun of screaming "ignorant biatch" at people from behind their keyboards.
 
2012-12-09 05:13:13 AM  

whatshisname: cirrhosis_and_halitosis: It's her son, she has every right to choose what she thinks is in his best interest.

No she doesn't. Children are not property.



Not property of who?

The parent, or the State?
 
2012-12-09 05:19:13 AM  

BronyMedic: cirrhosis_and_halitosis: I admit the documentary style is a bit preachy but the information is valuable. The FDA wouldn't have approved his therapy if it didn't have merit, it is currently the only FDA-allowed alternative to chemo/radiation in the United States. the reviews are mixed, maybe you should actually watch it before dismissing it based on the expert medical advice of a film reviewer at the Village Voice.

I had to tab back to read who you were talking about, but I had a good idea when you said this.

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: She should look into alternative treatment at the Burzynski Clinic .

Uh, no. Burzynski's "Antineoplaston" therapy is not FDA Approved. It's not even under trials to be FDA approved. Burzynski operates under the guise of doing a study on his "drug", using a sham IRB which skirts the human experimentation rules of the FDA. His bad behavior, deceptive marketing practices, and refusal to release information and statistics about his "ongoing study", despite charging patients hundreds of thousands of dollars to recieve this treatment, are well documented.



Do you mean that SOMEONE is offering treatments for cancer, and that the patients often die ANYWAY????

Say it ain't so!
 
2012-12-09 05:29:42 AM  

PsiChick: I believe I mentioned the tea had a negative side effect. Why the hell would I continue using it? It's not an antibiotic, the effects are pretty damn clear-cut. Also, where are you getting this 'symptom of a problem' thing from? I did actually research it, and nothing I've seen would indicate that it's abnormal for, absent any other symptoms, a heavyset twenty-year-old girl who's always been a bleeder to clot. (And estrogen was not the chemical intended to treat that, btw. Red clover is a plant. It produces multiple compounds. Estrogen is just a side effect, which is why I used it for a month--I wanted to test how it would affect me. End result a CSS.)


I guess it's a CSS, but you seem to be using it as evidence that alternative medicine works. And it's not. It's not even anecdotal evidence really, since it's a story about one person, for one month, that didn't work. Menstrual synchronization is likely a myth better explained by confirmation bias, external factors, and simple math. From a biochemical and evolutionary standpoint, menstrual dissynchronization is more likely.

But that wasn't my point. Because this alternative "treatment" is out there, it allowed you to skip seeing an actual medical professional who probably would have recommended evaluating you to see what the root of the problem was rather than trying to treat an isolated symptom. All I know about you from a medical standpoint is that you're a heavyset 20-something with irregular and heavy periods. Your doctor would probably like to check your thyroid level, potentially more "female' hormone levels, and the endometrial lining. To a medical professional or halfway decent second year med student, your condition would scream hormonal imbalance with a legitimate concern for malignancy. Clotting disorders and anatomic abnormalities fall somewhere much lower on the list. If it is a thyroid disorder or PCOS those conditions are very treatable (with allopathic medicine). If it is malignancy or pre-malignancy you'd certainly like to find out sooner rather than later, and it warrants close observation and/or treatment. In any event, the last thing anyone would want to give you would be estrogens, not only because they're likely to be ineffective but also because they could be potentially very dangerous. Even checking out red clover on Wikipedia would tell you that, so it's really irresponsible of whoever recommended that to you. Bottom line, get yourself checked out by someone with the means to do a full evaluation.
 
2012-12-09 05:30:03 AM  

orbister: whatshisname: Western medicine is the reason we no longer die at 40.

FTFY. Average life expectancy was low in Ye Olde Days because so many people died in infancy and childhood. One you made it to your teens, you had a pretty good chance of getting through to your seventies or better, until the industrial revolution introduced huge rates of occupational disease.


The main reason people died in infancy and childhood was due to illnesses such as cholera, tuberculosis, smallpox, which are now preventable with modern treatments like antibiotics and vaccines. People had a better chance of living into old age if they survived childhood, but individuals over the age of sixty were very rare until recently.
Treatments that work (that is, produce a statistically significant positive effect) are patented-they make money. Some "natural" medicines are unprocessed plant compounds that have genuine therapeutic effects, but of which there are already more effective synthetic versions being used by actual doctors. Often, the "natural" version, being essentially unregulated, is either diluted to uselessness (as in homeopathic treatments) or has drawbacks that the synthetic version does not (as with willow bark vs. aspirin). The rest of the "cures" that are not used by people with PhD's are the ones that could not be sold as traditional medicine, usually because they do not stand up to testing using the scientific method, and the FDA or other agencies won't touch them because they cannot be proven to work or are too dangerous.
Patented medicines do often have side effects, and doctors are not infallible, but seeking "alternative" treatments is abandoning the concept of science altogether-"alternative medicine" is by definition unproven and unscientific.
That said, choosing almost certain death over possibly diminished mental capacity is a difficult choice.
 
2012-12-09 05:38:44 AM  

Metalithic: That said, choosing almost certain death over possibly diminished mental capacity AND an almost certain death anyway is a difficult choice.



FTFY

/Actually death is a given
//Always wins
///Only a matter of when


////Does quality of life count?
 
2012-12-09 05:43:44 AM  

mgshamster: I made a joke (well, kind of a joke) earlier about natural remedies and curing brain cancer; I answer BronyMedic's challenge with "taxol." Taxol is a natural chemical. It's produced by the Pacific Yew Tree. It is a chemotherapeutic agent (commonly known as "chemo therapy"). If we define anything natural as "alternative medicine" (which I have encountered people who have made that claim before) then technically we can state that the alt-med treatment of pacific yew bark has been shown to be effective when the specific chemical is extracted and used to treat cancers. Of course, there's not enough taxol in the trees to meet the demand for the drug, so we have to make it synthetically.


The other problem is that taxol in yew bark isn't anywhere near therapeutic levels. You'd have to take in about a ton of bark every day to get a dosage equivalent to what they give as a synthetic. Oh, and you'd need to inject all that bark intravenously. Other than that, it's a perfectly viable alternative.
 
2012-12-09 05:56:46 AM  

orbister: St John's Wort for depression. Mind you, it's what proper doctors use


Ah yes, St John's Wort, the herb which the best meta-analysis shows has a huge effect. Not on depression, mind you, it does a nothing to treat that any better than placebo, but it does manage to induce or inhibit the metabolism of damn near every other drug you take, possibly to deleterious effect.

"Proper doctors" in Germany, you say? What is the German onomatopoeia for the noise a duck makes.
 
2012-12-09 06:05:00 AM  

Neuticle: orbister: St John's Wort for depression. Mind you, it's what proper doctors use

Ah yes, St John's Wort, the herb which the best meta-analysis shows has a huge effect. Not on depression, mind you, it does a nothing to treat that any better than placebo, but it does manage to induce or inhibit the metabolism of damn near every other drug you take, possibly to deleterious effect.

"Proper doctors" in Germany, you say? What is the German onomatopoeia for the noise a duck makes.



I just took two capsules of Valerian root as I set off to peacefully slumber, so I'm getting a SNORE out of your reply.

/Buenas noches
 
2012-12-09 06:37:01 AM  

Amos Quito: Metalithic: That said, choosing almost certain death over possibly diminished mental capacity AND an almost certain death anyway is a difficult choice.


FTFY

/Actually death is a given
//Always wins
///Only a matter of when


////Does quality of life count?


You're right. I should have said almost certain, immediate probably painful death in childhood (morphine isn't "alternative"), vs. the possibility of living to adulthood (the survival rate for children with treatment varies by cancer type but most are fairly high) with perhaps diminished cognitive abilities.
I'm not saying that the mother is wrong, but let's be honest about what's at stake. Radiation or chemotherapy could give him a chance to grow up and lead a somewhat normal life, while not treating is basically a death sentance over several months, unless the tumor has been misdiagnosed. If the mother decides her child is better off dead than impaired, I would understand her logic, even if I might not make the same choice. But if she thinks that she can really cure her son with homeopathy and yoga or similar "therapies," I'm afraid she is just making an unfortunate mistake.
 
2012-12-09 06:43:46 AM  

mgshamster: willfullyobscure: mgshamster: willfullyobscure: mgshamster: Pribar: The Old Lady is a RN, san lower your exposure and therefore your risk, to carcinogens.

As a toxicologist, I strongly contest that it will lower anyone's exposure to carcinogens. They'll just get their carcinogens from a different source.

/You're right about ...

As a toxicologist, you're going to have to get a hell of a lot more specific before that statement means more than my assertion that pears are a tree that fruits on Mars, and you should know better.

I would love to! Be warned, though, that because of this thread, I now have a 12 year old bottle of vintage port, and my coherence will likely decrease as the night goes on. Also, as I'm a bit drunk, I may slip back and forth between technical talk and layman's speech, so if there's anything you're confused on, call me on it. I'll be happy to try and clarify.

First off, more than 99.9% of all chemicals consumed are natural. When it comes to pesticides, approximately 99.99% of those are natural. One of the reasons people choose the macrobiotic diet is to eat natural organic foods (specifically to avoid pesticides and synthetic chemicals). However, Ames tests (these are the tests to determine if a chemical is mutagenic - that is, causes mutations to DNA, which is one of the early steps required to cause cancer. Realize, too, that all cancer causing chemicals are mutagenic, although not all mutagenic chemicals cause cancer) have shown that the percentage of natural pesticides that cause cancer is no different than the percentage of synthetic pesticides that cause cancer. Both are around 50%, which is to be expected, because our body doesn't even notice the difference between a chemical produced in nature and one produced in the lab. I should note that these are only chemicals which have been shown to cause cancer in lab rats, so it doesn't necessarily mean they cause cancer in humans. Additionally, the dose required to cause cancer is much higher than the dose to which we humans are usually exposed (I say usually, because a certain type of job may increase one's exposure to a specific chemical, or an accident may happen that exposes people to a high dose).

So at best, avoiding synthetic chemicals and synthetic pesticides (I know, it's a bit redundant) by eating only natural and organic foods only really reduces one's exposure by 1% as compared to those who don't avoid these at all. But that's not really an accurate number, though, because even if one didn't avoid foods that used synthetic pesticides, the doses of these chemicals one receives is so minute that it's negligible (in most circumstances).

To add to all this, very few cancers are caused by synthetic chemicals one consumes in their diet. Most cancers are cause by other toxic sources that we are exposed to beyond our diet. And yet others are caused by viruses, some by bacteria, and some even from spontaneous DNA mutations!

The most important lesson of all is that the dose makes the poison. Even if one is exposed to a compound that is known to cause cancers, you have to be exposed to enough of it to make a difference biochemically. Otherwise, your body will repair any DNA damage done, remove the chemical from your body, and go on with business as usual.

/Citations can be provided upon request, although if you want additional reading material, I suggest starting here.
//You also might want to refresh up on any definitions, such as chemical, compound, etc..., if needed


this is unsound, I said carcinogenic, not natural. i have an excellent scientific education, you smarmy little herpaderp. my assertion was that a macrobiotic diet theoretically lowers exposure and therefore absolute risk, for example to charred meat. you haven't refuted that in the slightest. you've amply demonstrated your resounding faith in "stuff that sounds all science-y" instead of evidence, so thanks for that anyway.
 
2012-12-09 06:55:28 AM  

Metalithic: Amos Quito: Metalithic: That said, choosing almost certain death over possibly diminished mental capacity AND an almost certain death anyway is a difficult choice.


FTFY

/Actually death is a given
//Always wins
///Only a matter of when


////Does quality of life count?

You're right. I should have said almost certain, immediate probably painful death in childhood (morphine isn't "alternative"), vs. the possibility of living to adulthood (the survival rate for children with treatment varies by cancer type but most are fairly high) with perhaps diminished cognitive abilities.
I'm not saying that the mother is wrong, but let's be honest about what's at stake. Radiation or chemotherapy could give him a chance to grow up and lead a somewhat normal life, while not treating is basically a death sentance over several months, unless the tumor has been misdiagnosed. If the mother decides her child is better off dead than impaired, I would understand her logic, even if I might not make the same choice. But if she thinks that she can really cure her son with homeopathy and yoga or similar "therapies," I'm afraid she is just making an unfortunate mistake.


Oops, it seems there is more to the story I didn't see. I was not aware that the mother was accepting actual medical treatment. Since she is apparently allowing chemotherapy, none of what I said really applies to this case. I made an overly hasty (and false) assumption. I have read so many stories about "natural" treatment fanatics who refuse all doctor or hospital prescribed medications and believe that they can cure anything with homeopathic tinctures, I automatically thought this woman was one of them (my cousin thought she "cured" her cystic fibrosis with elemental silver and herbal drops-she hadn't). I farked up. Commence beratement.
 
2012-12-09 09:20:56 AM  

AbbeySomeone: I've seen people go through the chemo and radiation. They still died, just slowly and in more pain. Prolonging a life of agony is never nice and there is no guarantee that this will cure him.


Ya know what will definitely kill him? Not removing the tumor. Yes the procedures can be torturous, but the alternative is that child's death.
 
2012-12-09 09:24:21 AM  

Amos Quito: Do you mean that SOMEONE is offering treatments for cancer, and that the patients often die ANYWAY????

Say it ain't so!


Except that it's been pointed out in this thread by multiple people what kind of a fraud Burzynski is, that he relies on a marketing director to produce literal "propaganda films" about his clinic, and that he has not published a single study in the last 30 years regarding the efficacy or even the five year survival of his patients who pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to be included in his "non-randomized clinical trial", the applicants to which after they pay their fee are approved by a sham institutional review board.

Burzynski faced immense public criticism in the UK in 2011 because his clinic ran an appeal in local papers to raise 200,000 GBP (320,720 USD) to treat a child who had an inoperable brain tumor who was on palliative care at the time.

Burzynski is so able to defend his research, in fact, that he retains a law firm which specializes in false DCMA notices, legal threats, and harassment of his critics to defend him whenever his practice is called into question.
 
2012-12-09 09:48:47 AM  
Why, exactly, would a doctor - faced with a gravely ill child and a frightened parent - use those words to describe a course of treatment?

That having been said, the mom could well be hastening her son's death.
 
2012-12-09 12:21:08 PM  

Metalithic: The main reason people died in infancy and childhood was due to illnesses such as cholera, tuberculosis, smallpox, which are now preventable with modern treatments like antibiotics and vaccines. People had a better chance of living into old age if they survived childhood, but individuals over the age of sixty were very rare until recently.


It's quite interesting to go round churchyards in the rural west of Scotland and look at the ages at death. The graves fall generally into three categories: deaths in infancy, young men drowning in their twenties (fishing area) and then a lot of men and women dying in their 70s, 80s and 90s. Pre-industrialisation, living into your 80s was pretty common - with the level of deaths in childhood, that's what made the average lifespan respectable.

Lest you wonder, I am wholly, totally, unequivocally in favour of modern, western, evidence-based medicine.
 
2012-12-09 12:26:20 PM  

The Wizard of Frobozz: [i.imgur.com image 400x856]


came here to post a duck face pic but you beat me to it.
Rats. What the hell we can always use another ridiculing duck face pic.

i.imgur.com
 
2012-12-09 12:44:05 PM  

Neuticle: "Proper doctors" in Germany, you say? What is the German onomatopoeia for the noise a duck makes.


Odd it may sound, but the German medical profession really does believe in Johanniskraut for depression. Mind you, the American medical profession believes in Prozac, for which the evidence is no better.
 
2012-12-09 12:44:57 PM  

willfullyobscure: this is unsound, I said carcinogenic, not natural. i have an excellent scientific education, you smarmy little herpaderp. my assertion was that a macrobiotic diet theoretically lowers exposure and therefore absolute risk, for example to charred meat. you haven't refuted that in the slightest. you've amply demonstrated your resounding faith in "stuff that sounds all science-y" instead of evidence, so thanks for that anyway.


Well I never!
img407.imageshack.us

I did try to be sincere and give an honest explanation, but you seem more to want to troll and be insulting rather than engage in open discussion. Ah well, I guess it was just another post for the lurkers, rather than someone who was responding genuinely to what I was saying. I take it that you didn't read past the first two sentences, because I did talk about carcinogens, I just talked about them in a way that would be directly linked to the macrobiotic diet. I explained this in the third sentence of my explanation. Maybe I should have put it first, but I was drunk and this is Fark, so I don't really care.

And really, I have no way of knowing your scientific knowledge, as you have nothing in your profile and you made no mention of your scientific background. I honestly didn't know if I was talking to someone who was a complete layman or a fellow scientist; I had no way of knowing how to address you, so I assumed a lack of knowledge rather than complete understanding. My mistake; I'll try not to do that in the future.

Well, let's go through this in a different way:

1) You made the hypothesis that macrobiotics lowers exposure; it's your burden to come up with the proof. And lowering exposure to benzo[a]pyrene from one food source isn't going to reduce your chances of getting cancer. BaP comes from so many other sources (pretty much any plant material burning, such as cigarettes and any wood or coal burning; it also comes from car exhaust) that not eating meat to avoid it is silly. Sure, you shouldn't have a diet that consists only of heavily cooked meats (and if you do that, cancer should be the least of your worries), but that's not what we're talking about here, is it? We're talking about macrobiotics vs a normal balanced diet, not macrobiotics vs an unbalanced diet. And as I said before, one has to be exposed to a dose high enough to make a difference, so try again.

2) The primary means to reducing one's risk of cancer is to stop smoking and to stay in a healthy weight range. Also to avoid long unprotected exposure to the sun, and (and I know this is blasphemy on fark) limit one's alcohol consumption. Diet is only a factor when one's diet is not balanced, such as the original macrobiotic diet when followed strictly. I will note that their new diet recommendations look awfully similar to the science-based food pyramid, except they have their own crack-pot theories as to why it is healthy (yin and yang foods? please).

3) Did you know that several high level macrobiotic leaders have died of cancer, to include the founder, his wife, and their daughter? Looks like the diet didn't prevent them from getting cancer!

4) There is no diet that will reduce risk when compared to a normal balanced diet. When eating a balanced healthy diet, your exposure worries should be other environmental causes, such as toxins in the water or air, your work environment, UV light, radiation, etc.

5) When we're talking about a hypothetical NOAEL of 1ppm, it's pointless to compare exposures of 1ppb vs 2ppb and state that 1 is better than 2 because it reduces risk. Now, these are just made up figures, but the point is that eating a couple small portions of red meat per week (normal recommendation) isn't going to be better or worse than eating a couple of small portions per month (macrobiotic recommendation). It's when you have an unbalanced diet, such as eating a large portion of red meat everyday that increases the risk.

So yeah, your turn to prove your hypothesis, rather than just being a dick.

/I would have bothered to get references for my last post upon request (and I said this), but since you decided to be a dick, I won't.
//Sciency sounding words? That's funny; I tried to reduce the use of sciency words in order to communicate to a larger audience.
///I even provided a link that talks about exposure of carcinogenic chemicals, if you even bothered to read past the title of it.
/Slashies!
 
2012-12-09 12:45:04 PM  

Metalithic: Oops, it seems there is more to the story I didn't see. I was not aware that the mother was accepting actual medical treatment. Since she is apparently allowing chemotherapy, none of what I said really applies to this case. I made an overly hasty (and false) assumption. I have read so many stories about "natural" treatment fanatics who refuse all doctor or hospital prescribed medications and believe that they can cure anything with homeopathic tinctures, I automatically thought this woman was one of them (my cousin thought she "cured" her cystic fibrosis with elemental silver and herbal drops-she hadn't). I farked up. Commence beratement.


You are a gent, sir, and I salute you.
 
2012-12-09 12:46:21 PM  

PopeBadass: Ya know what will definitely kill him? Not removing the tumor.


You want them to remove the tumour ... again?
 
2012-12-09 12:51:02 PM  

orbister: Metalithic: Oops, it seems there is more to the story I didn't see. I was not aware that the mother was accepting actual medical treatment. Since she is apparently allowing chemotherapy, none of what I said really applies to this case. I made an overly hasty (and false) assumption. I have read so many stories about "natural" treatment fanatics who refuse all doctor or hospital prescribed medications and believe that they can cure anything with homeopathic tinctures, I automatically thought this woman was one of them (my cousin thought she "cured" her cystic fibrosis with elemental silver and herbal drops-she hadn't). I farked up. Commence beratement.

You are a gent, sir, and I salute you.



Hear here!
 
2012-12-09 02:09:01 PM  

CreamFilling: I guess it's a CSS, but you seem to be using it as evidence that alternative medicine works. And it's not. It's not even anecdotal evidence really, since it's a story about one person, for one month, that didn't work. Menstrual synchronization is likely a myth better explained by confirmation bias, external factors, and simple math. From a biochemical and evolutionary standpoint, menstrual dissynchronization is more likely.

But that wasn't my point. Because this alternative "treatment" is out there, it allowed you to skip seeing an actual medical professional who probably would have recommended evaluating you to see what the root of the problem was rather than trying to treat an isolated symptom. All I know about you from a medical standpoint is that you're a heavyset 20-something with irregular and heavy periods. Your doctor would probably like to check your thyroid level, potentially more "female' hormone levels, and the endometrial lining. To a medical professional or halfway decent second year med student, your condition would scream hormonal imbalance with a legitimate concern for malignancy. Clotting disorders and anatomic abnormalities fall somewhere much lower on the list. If it is a thyroid disorder or PCOS those conditions are very treatable (with allopathic medicine). If it is malignancy or pre-malignancy you'd certainly like to find out sooner rather than later, and it warrants close observation and/or treatment. In any event, the last thing anyone would want to give you would be estrogens, not only because they're likely to be ineffective but also because they could be potentially very dangerous. Even checking out red clover on Wikipedia would tell you that, so it's really irresponsible of whoever recommended that to you. Bottom line, get yourself checked out by someone with the means to do a full evaluation.


Well, since I've already been checked for those exact problems, which weren't found, I didn't actually think I should be worried about a problem that didn't exist.

However, if you want statistical evidence, St. John's Wort is already being prescribed in Germany as the first treatment for mild to moderate depression, as another poster was kind enough to point out. So if even MDs will use herbal remedies...

pellies: How about you give us one example of efficacy in any area.


Up. But you got a lot of replies, too.
 
2012-12-09 02:36:15 PM  

PsiChick: Well, since I've already been checked for those exact problems, which weren't found, I didn't actually think I should be worried about a problem that doesn't exist.


No, a problem does exist, you just haven't found out exactly what it is yet. If they've ruled out the serious thing it may not be all that important to you to find out what the problem is, but using an herbal remedy that is entirely inappropriate for the symptoms you are having doesn't seem like the answer.
 
2012-12-09 03:05:16 PM  

CreamFilling: PsiChick: Well, since I've already been checked for those exact problems, which weren't found, I didn't actually think I should be worried about a problem that doesn't exist.

No, a problem does exist, you just haven't found out exactly what it is yet. If they've ruled out the serious thing it may not be all that important to you to find out what the problem is, but using an herbal remedy that is entirely inappropriate for the symptoms you are having doesn't seem like the answer.


Women's cycles have a huge range of normative behaviors. I am young. Clotting and irregularity are completely normal. Hell, even my mother had the same problems at my age, and she's a health nut. I used red clover tea because it is used to treat that exact symptom, the side effects were just emphatic.

I appreciate that you're worried, but biological organisms are pretty weird things. I'm okay, I promise. :)
 
2012-12-09 03:29:54 PM  

PsiChick: CreamFilling: PsiChick: Well, since I've already been checked for those exact problems, which weren't found, I didn't actually think I should be worried about a problem that doesn't exist.

No, a problem does exist, you just haven't found out exactly what it is yet. If they've ruled out the serious thing it may not be all that important to you to find out what the problem is, but using an herbal remedy that is entirely inappropriate for the symptoms you are having doesn't seem like the answer.

Women's cycles have a huge range of normative behaviors. I am young. Clotting and irregularity are completely normal. Hell, even my mother had the same problems at my age, and she's a health nut. I used red clover tea because it is used to treat that exact symptom, the side effects were just emphatic.

I appreciate that you're worried, but biological organisms are pretty weird things. I'm okay, I promise. :)


You're not all that young, and what you're describing seems to be out of the ordinary if you've already tried both medical and alternative treatments. As for your mother, health nuts can get sick too, and a family history tends to suggest pathology over normal.

Every reputable resource I can find suggests that red clover would be specifically contraindicated for the symptoms you've described. That may explain the so-called side effects you experienced. In reality, that may have been precisely what you should have expected.
 
2012-12-09 03:32:16 PM  
Oops, posted too soon...
Maybe you are ok. I hope you are and the odds are on your side. But nothing you've posted leads me to believe that you're handling this appropriately.
 
2012-12-09 05:54:13 PM  

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: There is no denying that drug companies would have an incentive to suppress an alternative that couldn't be patented as they have quarterly earnings to mind.


If it can't be patented, the biggest companies, with the best advertising budgets and the wholly-owned factories are exactly the companies that will benefit the most.

Have you ever had a hard time buying aspirin?
 
2012-12-09 07:49:35 PM  

orbister: Odd it may sound, but the German medical profession really does believe in Johanniskraut for depression. Mind you, the American medical profession believes in Prozac, for which the evidence is no better.


WARNING: SCIENCE AHEAD

I'm no White Knight defending SSRIs & TCAs. They are not the wonder drugs that the pharm companies made them out to be, and they should absolutely not be prescribed like candy. The evidence of benefit for them is not great either, but there is more literature.

The evidence in favour of St John's Wort is complicated. For mild depression*, the studies have been of questionable quality. Meta-analysis of its effect in moderate to severe depression has shown it is slightly better than placebo and around as effective as SSRIs & TCAs. But here is the interesting part: If you remove the German-language studies**, the results show St John's Wort is only as effective as a placebo, but still as effective as SSRIs & TCAs. (None of the non-Germanic studies show a positive result.) So what this meta-analysis really shows is that St John's Wort and SSRIs & TCAs are both only about as effective as placebo, and while side-effects of St John's Wort were fewer than SSRIs & TCAs, the danger of medication interactions is much higher.

*Mild depression is usually best treated with cognitive therapy and counselling, not pills of any kind. And what is "natural" about taking 1 gram / day of purified extract of a plant that is not part of any normal diet?

**So what are German speakers doing differently than the rest of the world? Do they have a unique type of depression that responds more favourably to St John's Wort? I doubt that. The more likely cause is that the German studies are biased (publication, selection etc), which is what the reviewer basically said, in diplomatic science-y terms.

PsiChick: However, if you want statistical evidence, St. John's Wort is already being prescribed in Germany as the first treatment for mild to moderate depression, as another poster was kind enough to point out. So if even MDs will use herbal remedies...


Depression has a huge negative impact on quality of life, and treating it is very difficult, so it is understandable that we try anything we can think of, as long as there is even a minute chance it will work. In effect, the first line treatment in Germany is a placebo, but do not forget that the placebo effect is VERY real, so even if the drug is no better than placebo, it may still technically work.
 
2012-12-09 07:53:59 PM  

Neuticle: PsiChick: However, if you want statistical evidence, St. John's Wort is already being prescribed in Germany as the first treatment for mild to moderate depression, as another poster was kind enough to point out. So if even MDs will use herbal remedies...

Depression has a huge negative impact on quality of life, and treating it is very difficult, so it is understandable that we try anything we can think of, as long as there is even a minute chance it will work. In effect, the first line treatment in Germany is a placebo, but do not forget that the placebo effect is VERY real, so even if the drug is no better than placebo, it may still technically work.


Then how about willow bark?
 
2012-12-09 08:43:45 PM  

PsiChick: Then how about willow bark?


What point are you trying to make? I never brought up salicylates, nor do I deny that the naturally occurring forms are as effective if given in equivalent doses. Your link shows that fact, but that is entirely irrelevant to St John's Wort.

But to stay on this new topic:
We know why Willow bark works. The mechanism of action of salicylates is well understood, and today we can easily and cheaply synthesize stable, more potent, chemically pure derivatives.

If we can make the pure active ingredient cheaper (and if we want, more effective) synthetically, why would we go through all the trouble and expense to grind up bark, extract and purify it? Heck, the synthetic form is probably better for the environment to boot, since the yields are high and you are not chopping down whole plants to get a tiny amount of chemical.
 
2012-12-09 09:19:21 PM  

Neuticle: PsiChick: Then how about willow bark?

What point are you trying to make? I never brought up salicylates, nor do I deny that the naturally occurring forms are as effective if given in equivalent doses. Your link shows that fact, but that is entirely irrelevant to St John's Wort.

But to stay on this new topic:
We know why Willow bark works. The mechanism of action of salicylates is well understood, and today we can easily and cheaply synthesize stable, more potent, chemically pure derivatives.

If we can make the pure active ingredient cheaper (and if we want, more effective) synthetically, why would we go through all the trouble and expense to grind up bark, extract and purify it? Heck, the synthetic form is probably better for the environment to boot, since the yields are high and you are not chopping down whole plants to get a tiny amount of chemical.


You were replying to my post from a long-winded discussion on the topic of 'alternative medicines are not in fact the devil and do occasionally work'. I assumed you were replying to that--in which case I can point to an alternative medicine besides St. John's Wort. I would contradict you on St. John's Wort itself, since I'm slightly suspicious that Germany of all countries is suddenly so biased in exactly one case, but I have an eight-page paper due, so let's just assume you were replying to my topic and stay with something even you acknowledge as working.
 
2012-12-09 09:56:18 PM  

PsiChick: Neuticle: PsiChick: Then how about willow bark?

What point are you trying to make? I never brought up salicylates, nor do I deny that the naturally occurring forms are as effective if given in equivalent doses. Your link shows that fact, but that is entirely irrelevant to St John's Wort.

But to stay on this new topic:
We know why Willow bark works. The mechanism of action of salicylates is well understood, and today we can easily and cheaply synthesize stable, more potent, chemically pure derivatives.

If we can make the pure active ingredient cheaper (and if we want, more effective) synthetically, why would we go through all the trouble and expense to grind up bark, extract and purify it? Heck, the synthetic form is probably better for the environment to boot, since the yields are high and you are not chopping down whole plants to get a tiny amount of chemical.

You were replying to my post from a long-winded discussion on the topic of 'alternative medicines are not in fact the devil and do occasionally work'. I assumed you were replying to that--in which case I can point to an alternative medicine besides St. John's Wort. I would contradict you on St. John's Wort itself, since I'm slightly suspicious that Germany of all countries is suddenly so biased in exactly one case, but I have an eight-page paper due, so let's just assume you were replying to my topic and stay with something even you acknowledge as working.


You're making the wrong comparison, just as alternative medicine proponents insist. You should compare herbs to standard of care, not placebo.
 
2012-12-09 10:12:28 PM  

CreamFilling: You're making the wrong comparison, just as alternative medicine proponents insist. You should compare herbs to standard of care, not placebo.


What do you think they compare new drugs against?
 
2012-12-09 10:31:57 PM  

PsiChick: CreamFilling: You're making the wrong comparison, just as alternative medicine proponents insist. You should compare herbs to standard of care, not placebo.

What do you think they compare new drugs against?


For efficacy they compare them to the standard of care. For side effects they compare then to placebo. Alternative medicine typically insists on doing the opposite.
 
2012-12-10 12:51:03 AM  

CreamFilling: PsiChick: CreamFilling: You're making the wrong comparison, just as alternative medicine proponents insist. You should compare herbs to standard of care, not placebo.

What do you think they compare new drugs against?

For efficacy they compare them to the standard of care. For side effects they compare then to placebo. Alternative medicine typically insists on doing the opposite.


Well put! I'm using that one
 
2012-12-10 02:45:51 AM  

PsiChick: since I'm slightly suspicious that Germany of all countries is suddenly so biased in exactly one case


Which is more plausible:
The Germanic (Probably just German and Austrian) studies are uniquely biased towards the positive, or every study from any other country that has studied this is individually biased towards the negative? Bias in research is not intentional (mostly), and it can be a tricky thing to avoid even when you put a lot of effort into doing so.

As for the point of "alternative medicine" that has been shown to work, we have a name for that: Medicine.

Medicines often "start" from nature, but they rarely stop there. Why? Because we can improve the parts that work, get rid of those that don't, standardise the doses and make things more affordable. Science, it works!
 
2012-12-10 11:00:03 AM  

Neuticle: PsiChick: since I'm slightly suspicious that Germany of all countries is suddenly so biased in exactly one case

Which is more plausible:
The Germanic (Probably just German and Austrian) studies are uniquely biased towards the positive, or every study from any other country that has studied this is individually biased towards the negative? Bias in research is not intentional (mostly), and it can be a tricky thing to avoid even when you put a lot of effort into doing so.

As for the point of "alternative medicine" that has been shown to work, we have a name for that: Medicine.

Medicines often "start" from nature, but they rarely stop there. Why? Because we can improve the parts that work, get rid of those that don't, standardise the doses and make things more affordable. Science, it works!


Again: I do not have the time to research this myself, but my suspicion is that you were the biasing factor, not the countries--either you put terms in that Google only came up with a certain type of result for, or you judged studies about alternative methods 'unscientific' at a rate they weren't.

But that's ridiculous, isn't it? Why should I believe this of you? Because you subscribe to the scientific subculture. It's not a bad subculture; it's very heavy on the idea that Anything Mystic Is Bad, but it does try to be ethical.

Problem is that this subculture has decided to tell American culture in general that the only thing you can do to cure illness is take a pill. Alternative medicines may not always work, but when they do, they are still labeled alternative medicines by their supporters as a direct challenge to this idea. As a way of staring scientific subculture in the face and saying "no, you are not always right, and you need to clean your act up, because you're introducing bias into your work".

So yeah, you could draw that line between alternative medicine that does and doesn't work and say one is medicine and 'science works'. But you'd be ignoring a large and problematic aspect of American culture by doing that. Hell, why do you think I don't do it? That would be the quickest way to shut the entire argument up, and most of the time that's my endgame--shut stupid arguments up.

It's not a stupid argument, though. If I hadn't caught my Asperger's symptoms, I'd be at risk of taking a medication I didn't need every time I walked into the doctor's office. I'd be subject to every medication doctors are 'encouraged' to give their patients, every untested thing that ends up on those commercials for people who need to lawsuit up after taking a bad drug. People who are just more gullible than the rest of America are turning into guinea pigs. That's not right.

So which, in the end, is better: Calling alternative medicine 'medicine' so you can feel more like a scientist, or pointing out the flaws of America's medicinal system?

/tl;dr: Sure, you could call it that--and you'd be ignoring a huge cultural problem. Which I actually doubt you wanted to do, since you don't sound like a raving lunatic. :p
 
2012-12-10 11:22:30 AM  

PsiChick: Neuticle: PsiChick: since I'm slightly suspicious that Germany of all countries is suddenly so biased in exactly one case

Which is more plausible:
The Germanic (Probably just German and Austrian) studies are uniquely biased towards the positive, or every study from any other country that has studied this is individually biased towards the negative? Bias in research is not intentional (mostly), and it can be a tricky thing to avoid even when you put a lot of effort into doing so.

As for the point of "alternative medicine" that has been shown to work, we have a name for that: Medicine.

Medicines often "start" from nature, but they rarely stop there. Why? Because we can improve the parts that work, get rid of those that don't, standardise the doses and make things more affordable. Science, it works!

Again: I do not have the time to research this myself, but my suspicion is that you were the biasing factor, not the countries--either you put terms in that Google only came up with a certain type of result for, or you judged studies about alternative methods 'unscientific' at a rate they weren't.

But that's ridiculous, isn't it? Why should I believe this of you? Because you subscribe to the scientific subculture. It's not a bad subculture; it's very heavy on the idea that Anything Mystic Is Bad, but it does try to be ethical.

Problem is that this subculture has decided to tell American culture in general that the only thing you can do to cure illness is take a pill. Alternative medicines may not always work, but when they do, they are still labeled alternative medicines by their supporters as a direct challenge to this idea. As a way of staring scientific subculture in the face and saying "no, you are not always right, and you need to clean your act up, because you're introducing bias into your work".

So yeah, you could draw that line between alternative medicine that does and doesn't work and say one is medicine and 'science works'. But you'd be ignoring a large an ...


Yeah, that's entirely incorrect. The first line treatment for numerous diseases as prescribed by allopathic medical doctors is lifestyle modification, dietary changes, vitamin supplements, etc. Sometimes a pill is prescribed when appropriate, or he may recommend further testing, or something else. He gets paid the absolute same whether he gives you a prescription our not. But if you go to a chiropractor for your problem, he's going to recommend a chiropractic adjustment. If you go to an acupuncturist, he's going to recommend acupuncture. They don't get paid unless you undergo their treatment, and those treatments have been proven to be ineffective (unless you consist the placebo effect effective) and at times dangerous. Or maybe you go to an herbalist or do your own "research" on the internet. At that point, aren't you just looking for a chemical to put into your body?
 
2012-12-10 11:43:49 AM  

CreamFilling: Yeah, that's entirely incorrect. The first line treatment for numerous diseases as prescribed by allopathic medical doctors is lifestyle modification, dietary changes, vitamin supplements, etc. Sometimes a pill is prescribed when appropriate, or he may recommend further testing, or something else. He gets paid the absolute same whether he gives you a prescription our not. But if you go to a chiropractor for your problem, he's going to recommend a chiropractic adjustment. If you go to an acupuncturist, he's going to recommend acupuncture. They don't get paid unless you undergo their treatment, and those treatments have been proven to be ineffective (unless you consist the placebo effect effective) and at times dangerous. Or maybe you go to an herbalist or do your own "research" on the internet. At that point, aren't you just looking for a chemical to put into your body?


That's a key word. Most doctors are not allopathic; they're old-school pill-prescribers. As glad as I am that allopathic doctors are sprouting up, it's going to take a few generations to change to a sane stance on medication.

And yes, alternative medicine is still looking for a chemical to put in your body--but because the chemical is interacting with other chemicals, it usually has far fewer side effects. For example, to treat a cold, chicken-noodle soup with onions works pretty well. Antibiotics can create superbacteria. That's the sort of things doctors should notice, and yet my own doctor had to be told that, no, I would not like an antibiotic for a farking virus.

/Also, if you ever get an ear infection, don't take anything for it unless it lasts more than a few weeks. Apparently doctors know that they're ineffective and the infection clears up on its own; people just don't feel like they've gotten their money's worth or something unless they leave with a pill.
//Came up during the don't-treat-viruses-with-antibiotics conversation. Doctors are fairly aware of the problems in their own field.
 
2012-12-10 12:15:44 PM  

PsiChick: CreamFilling: Yeah, that's entirely incorrect. The first line treatment for numerous diseases as prescribed by allopathic medical doctors is lifestyle modification, dietary changes, vitamin supplements, etc. Sometimes a pill is prescribed when appropriate, or he may recommend further testing, or something else. He gets paid the absolute same whether he gives you a prescription our not. But if you go to a chiropractor for your problem, he's going to recommend a chiropractic adjustment. If you go to an acupuncturist, he's going to recommend acupuncture. They don't get paid unless you undergo their treatment, and those treatments have been proven to be ineffective (unless you consist the placebo effect effective) and at times dangerous. Or maybe you go to an herbalist or do your own "research" on the internet. At that point, aren't you just looking for a chemical to put into your body?

That's a key word. Most doctors are not allopathic; they're old-school pill-prescribers. As glad as I am that allopathic doctors are sprouting up, it's going to take a few generations to change to a sane stance on medication.

And yes, alternative medicine is still looking for a chemical to put in your body--but because the chemical is interacting with other chemicals, it usually has far fewer side effects. For example, to treat a cold, chicken-noodle soup with onions works pretty well. Antibiotics can create superbacteria. That's the sort of things doctors should notice, and yet my own doctor had to be told that, no, I would not like an antibiotic for a farking virus.

/Also, if you ever get an ear infection, don't take anything for it unless it lasts more than a few weeks. Apparently doctors know that they're ineffective and the infection clears up on its own; people just don't feel like they've gotten their money's worth or something unless they leave with a pill.
//Came up during the don't-treat-viruses-with-antibiotics conversation. Doctors are fairly aware of the problems in their ...


I was using "allopathic" somewhat sarcastically, hoping it might cause you to rethink your pill-pusher narrative. I see that it did not. If anything, that was the least important word in my entire post. I can tell that you're steadfast in your belief and no amount of evidence or explanation is going to change your mind, so from this point that it's precisely what I shall offer.
 
2012-12-10 12:29:28 PM  

CreamFilling: I was using "allopathic" somewhat sarcastically, hoping it might cause you to rethink your pill-pusher narrative. I see that it did not. If anything, that was the least important word in my entire post. I can tell that you're steadfast in your belief and no amount of evidence or explanation is going to change your mind, so from this point that it's precisely what I shall offer.


Erm, genius, if I've directly experienced a farking doctor citing it as common practice in the field, I fail to see why I should listen to you who never offered any evidence to begin with beyond 'no it's not no it's not no it's not'.
 
2012-12-10 12:37:10 PM  

PsiChick: CreamFilling: I was using "allopathic" somewhat sarcastically, hoping it might cause you to rethink your pill-pusher narrative. I see that it did not. If anything, that was the least important word in my entire post. I can tell that you're steadfast in your belief and no amount of evidence or explanation is going to change your mind, so from this point that it's precisely what I shall offer.

Erm, genius, if I've directly experienced a farking doctor citing it as common practice in the field, I fail to see why I should listen to you who never offered any evidence to begin with beyond 'no it's not no it's not no it's not'.


Ok, you don't know what allopathic means, do you?
 
2012-12-10 02:05:42 PM  

CreamFilling: PsiChick: CreamFilling: I was using "allopathic" somewhat sarcastically, hoping it might cause you to rethink your pill-pusher narrative. I see that it did not. If anything, that was the least important word in my entire post. I can tell that you're steadfast in your belief and no amount of evidence or explanation is going to change your mind, so from this point that it's precisely what I shall offer.

Erm, genius, if I've directly experienced a farking doctor citing it as common practice in the field, I fail to see why I should listen to you who never offered any evidence to begin with beyond 'no it's not no it's not no it's not'.

Ok, you don't know what allopathic means, do you?


...Ah. Apparently, I should have researched that word instead of assuming it was a synonym for 'holistic', which is actually a new fad among doctors. It would have been easier to realize that your statement of 'I can tell that you're steadfast in your belief and no amount of evidence or explanation is going to change your mind, so from this point that it's precisely what I shall offer' is projection.

/Yeah, really...you still offer no evidence for your claims, whereas I offer the words of someone in the field.
 
2012-12-10 02:13:55 PM  

PsiChick: CreamFilling: PsiChick: CreamFilling: I was using "allopathic" somewhat sarcastically, hoping it might cause you to rethink your pill-pusher narrative. I see that it did not. If anything, that was the least important word in my entire post. I can tell that you're steadfast in your belief and no amount of evidence or explanation is going to change your mind, so from this point that it's precisely what I shall offer.

Erm, genius, if I've directly experienced a farking doctor citing it as common practice in the field, I fail to see why I should listen to you who never offered any evidence to begin with beyond 'no it's not no it's not no it's not'.

Ok, you don't know what allopathic means, do you?

...Ah. Apparently, I should have researched that word instead of assuming it was a synonym for 'holistic', which is actually a new fad among doctors. It would have been easier to realize that your statement of 'I can tell that you're steadfast in your belief and no amount of evidence or explanation is going to change your mind, so from this point that it's precisely what I shall offer' is projection.

/Yeah, really...you still offer no evidence for your claims, whereas I offer the words of someone in the field.


K, wait, that is really easy to misinterpret. (Preview buttons, kiddies--use it).

Let me be clear: You sarcastically calling a holistic doctor, who would prescribe that, 'allopathic' actually makes your point worse. Instead of saying 'okay, so X doctor does X--at the end of the day, isn't it all the same thing?', you're saying 'even holistic doctors are just Western medicine under another garb', and that is not true, because Western medicines have side effects that things like lifestyle changes\herbals\eating different or specific foods don't have. There's a reason holistic medicine is becoming a new trend for doctors. It farking works.

In the end, you have still offered nothing but an unsupported opinion. My opinion is supported by a) an analysis of a culture war that as someone with mirror-neuron synthesia (i.e. a psychic) I am planted smack-dab in the middle of whether or not I want to be, and b) actual expert opinions. You basically said 'nuh-unh no it's not!' without giving a reason. Obviously it was my mistake to assume 'allopathic' was another word for 'holistic', but pointing that out? Helped your argument not at farking all.

/It's slightly ironic that the one who came into the thread advocating natural remedies is the one with evidence throughout most of it.
 
2012-12-10 02:19:53 PM  

PsiChick: CreamFilling: PsiChick: CreamFilling: I was using "allopathic" somewhat sarcastically, hoping it might cause you to rethink your pill-pusher narrative. I see that it did not. If anything, that was the least important word in my entire post. I can tell that you're steadfast in your belief and no amount of evidence or explanation is going to change your mind, so from this point that it's precisely what I shall offer.

Erm, genius, if I've directly experienced a farking doctor citing it as common practice in the field, I fail to see why I should listen to you who never offered any evidence to begin with beyond 'no it's not no it's not no it's not'.

Ok, you don't know what allopathic means, do you?

...Ah. Apparently, I should have researched that word instead of assuming it was a synonym for 'holistic', which is actually a new fad among doctors. It would have been easier to realize that your statement of 'I can tell that you're steadfast in your belief and no amount of evidence or explanation is going to change your mind, so from this point that it's precisely what I shall offer' is projection.

/Yeah, really...you still offer no evidence for your claims, whereas I offer the words of someone in the field.


You haven't posted any evidence, at least not any that supports your position. What sort of evidence do you want me to share? Something that shows that western medicine works? Go find any medical journal, and read the table of contents.
 
2012-12-10 02:47:29 PM  

CreamFilling: You haven't posted any evidence, at least not any that supports your position. What sort of evidence do you want me to share? Something that shows that western medicine works? Go find any medical journal, and read the table of contents.


A) Scroll up

B) Lifetime of experience, firsthand, of just how biatchy and catty science can be, plus the word of someone actually in the field. We're on Fark. It's a damn good starting point. And yes, I am well aware of how Western medicine works--for example, the reason there are so many 'bad drug' ads is because the testing process for new drugs began as a testing process for pre-screened, already-on-the-market drugs, and thus has a flaw: It only tests for a few years, and the testing process is self-screened by the testers, which introduces serious bias problems in favor of drugs that work well quickly with unreported side effects or even don't work to begin with.

Western medicine is good, but it's not a magic bullet. Natural remedies are good, but they aren't magic bullets. Magic-bullet, black-and-white thinking is a serious flaw in American scientific culture, and needs to be addressed.
 
2012-12-10 03:16:07 PM  

PsiChick: CreamFilling: You haven't posted any evidence, at least not any that supports your position. What sort of evidence do you want me to share? Something that shows that western medicine works? Go find any medical journal, and read the table of contents.

A) Scroll up

B) Lifetime of experience, firsthand, of just how biatchy and catty science can be, plus the word of someone actually in the field. We're on Fark. It's a damn good starting point. And yes, I am well aware of how Western medicine works--for example, the reason there are so many 'bad drug' ads is because the testing process for new drugs began as a testing process for pre-screened, already-on-the-market drugs, and thus has a flaw: It only tests for a few years, and the testing process is self-screened by the testers, which introduces serious bias problems in favor of drugs that work well quickly with unreported side effects or even don't work to begin with.

Western medicine is good, but it's not a magic bullet. Natural remedies are good, but they aren't magic bullets. Magic-bullet, black-and-white thinking is a serious flaw in American scientific culture, and needs to be addressed.


You win. Or rather, you've completely lost me. I feel like I'm chasing the kid in the Family Circus, and eventually I just say fark it. I'm thoroughly impressed with your persistence. If I ever create an alt I want it to be just like you.
 
2012-12-10 03:33:04 PM  

CreamFilling: You win. Or rather, you've completely lost me. I feel like I'm chasing the kid in the Family Circus, and eventually I just say fark it. I'm thoroughly impressed with your persistence. If I ever create an alt I want it to be just like you.


I'm persistent because it's one thing to be raised with the idea that if you get sick you go to the doctor and get a pill, that's just culture. It's another thing altogether to try and say it's the best possible solution in any culture because science, and that annoys the fark out of me, because I've personally been burned by that. It's something that really should be talked about, even if it's just #65454325 on an infinite list.
 
2012-12-10 07:18:47 PM  

PsiChick: Again: I do not have the time to research this myself, but my suspicion is that you were the biasing factor, not the countries--either you put terms in that Google only came up with a certain type of result for, or you judged studies about alternative methods 'unscientific' at a rate they weren't.


I didn't do the review, it was done by a very well respected organization that specializes in that sort of thing, and the review does not consist of Googling. They carefully read and evaluate every study, then analyse the data in multiple ways. They are independently funded and have no motivation to promote or discredit herbals unless doing so improves medical care.

But that's ridiculous, isn't it?

Yes. This thread is degenerating into WHARRGARBL. I'm out.
 
2012-12-10 07:58:11 PM  

Neuticle: PsiChick: Again: I do not have the time to research this myself, but my suspicion is that you were the biasing factor, not the countries--either you put terms in that Google only came up with a certain type of result for, or you judged studies about alternative methods 'unscientific' at a rate they weren't.

I didn't do the review, it was done by a very well respected organization that specializes in that sort of thing, and the review does not consist of Googling. They carefully read and evaluate every study, then analyse the data in multiple ways. They are independently funded and have no motivation to promote or discredit herbals unless doing so improves medical care.

But that's ridiculous, isn't it?

Yes. This thread is degenerating into WHARRGARBL. I'm out.


Again: That organization could have been composed of five American scientists who, although well-educated, firmly believe that alternative medicines are a hippy, ridiculous idea. Because that is not unusual for science. I'm behind science 100% most of the time, but it needs enough self-awareness to recognize bias, or it is no longer science. And the scientific community, when it comes to anything that might possibly in another life be relegated as spiritual or mystical, is VERY biased.

It's not wharrgarbl to point out a phenomenon that impacts a lot of people. It is very foolish to ignore it because you have never personally experienced it.
 
2012-12-10 11:25:02 PM  

Neuticle: PsiChick:

Yes. This thread is degenerating into WHARRGARBL. I'm out.


I think it got there early this morning, never mind the present tense. Yeesh...
 
Displayed 308 of 308 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report