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 54
    More: Stupid, neon, radiation  
•       •       •

24603 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Dec 2012 at 5:55 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-08 05:57:41 PM  
7 votes:

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


Hey now, that's a fine name. Noble, even.
2012-12-08 02:18:29 PM  
6 votes:
I'd settle for a diminished IQ if it meant spending more time above ground. Call me crazy...
2012-12-08 02:24:45 PM  
4 votes:
You're "not bonkers," yet you named your son "Neon?"
2012-12-08 06:04:24 PM  
3 votes:

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 02:33:26 PM  
3 votes:

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.
2012-12-09 05:29:42 AM  
2 votes:

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.
2012-12-08 06:17:12 PM  
2 votes:
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 06:13:54 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:03:30 PM  
2 votes:

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


death would increase the mother's IQ.
2012-12-08 03:48:33 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:29:51 PM  
2 votes:
Potentially, death will lower a person's IQ even more.
2012-12-08 03:29:31 PM  
2 votes:
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 02:21:28 PM  
2 votes:
Because dead kids are known for their high iqs.
2012-12-08 02:17:15 PM  
2 votes:
Yeah ok, I'll give you cute.

She's got the crazy eyes though.
2012-12-09 02:36:15 PM  
1 votes:

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 12:44:57 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:55:28 AM  
1 votes:

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 05:43:44 AM  
1 votes:

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 04:16:48 AM  
1 votes:

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 04:12:19 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:38:57 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:23:08 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:16:28 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:10:05 AM  
1 votes:

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 12:09:40 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-12-08 11:12:07 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:08:52 PM  
1 votes:

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 11:03:46 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:53:43 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:49:39 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:16:39 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:01:55 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:54:27 PM  
1 votes:
I finding it refreshing to read a "parent refuses medical treatment for their child" story that doesn't involve Jesus.
2012-12-08 09:51:49 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:27:56 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:21:45 PM  
1 votes:
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 07:56:35 PM  
1 votes:

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 07:50:24 PM  
1 votes:
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 07:02:23 PM  
1 votes:
Why does cute have a well established stupid bias?
2012-12-08 06:19:07 PM  
1 votes:
"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 06:14:13 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:13:21 PM  
1 votes:
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 06:07:27 PM  
1 votes:
I stopped reading after I saw the boy's name.

Bonkers? surely not
2012-12-08 06:01:37 PM  
1 votes:
4.bp.blogspot.com
2012-12-08 05:57:06 PM  
1 votes:

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


American.
2012-12-08 05:36:14 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:01:40 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:00:35 PM  
1 votes:
She has investigated natural remedies abroad.
Yup too stupid to live.
2012-12-08 04:57:43 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:51:48 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:51:46 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:17:03 PM  
1 votes:
Props to the doc who likened radiotherapy to "frying the brain."
2012-12-08 03:05:30 PM  
1 votes:
I guess she just doesn't care for the glow of Neon
2012-12-08 02:23:16 PM  
1 votes:
She's clearly not fit to be a parent. Take custody away from her.
 
Displayed 54 of 54 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