"Wellness Warrior" natural healing advocate Jess Ainscough has died from cancer at 30

[Nithavela]

You should be held accountable for such actions when you start making a living out of lying to people and leading them to their death. She made a tidy profit with her 'health' propaganda, although she didn't have much time to enjoy it. Sold books, talked in front of people..

 

[TerranceL]

Just another example of the fact that Woo kills.

 

[imind]

Probably the best thing that you can do with coffee, if I'm being honest.

you had better hope that tulc's eyes do not see this post...lol

 

[USincognito]

Schadenfruede.

 

[Nithavela]

That's "Schadenfreude".

 

[iluvatar5150]

It's not just food, either. There's the whole coffee enema thing.

What's the point of that? Coffee does a pretty good job as a cleansing agent when consumed the normal way.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

She made a tidy profit with her 'health' propaganda, although she didn't have much time to enjoy it. Sold books, talked in front of people..

There have been many books throughout history that contain ideas that some would consider dangerous and many books that people have claimed made them do stupid things, should all of those authors have been sued?

 

[USincognito]

That's "Schadenfreude".

Bah! Typo. My bad.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Shouldn't people be held to the same level as a doctor?

No... If that were true, then we'd be able to write our own prescriptions...but we can't, because we as non-doctors aren't held to the same standard.

People follow this nonsense and die, because it's not shut down, "Well if the goverment hasn't shut down these groups, must be something true to it." people think this way, many see the abssence of charges and such, as achnowledging that these things are true.

So it's the government's job to shut down people's opinions that they don't think are true? That's a bit of an overreach is it not?

Not to mention, science is constantly changing and discovering that the things in medicine that were thought to be true aren't and vice versa.

Obviously in this case, the lady was wrong...but I'll provide another example.

Take a moment and google the topic of ulcers.

Up until the 1980's, the medical community was in complete agreement that stress caused ulcers, and treated them accordingly with tranquillizers & anti-depressants...when two scientists from Australia suggested that it was actually a bacteria that caused it...their theory was viewed a quackery. Except there one major difference in this case...they were right (they won a Nobel prize a couple years ago for it). Their views were shunned by the medical community and made to look looney...if the government had "shut their idea down" as you suggest (simply on the grounds that it contradicts popular medical belief), we'd still be pumping ulcer patients full of tranquilizers instead of treating it properly.


That's the issue with wanting the government to shut down counter-culture ideas...for every 9 looneys you shut down, you'll also shut down one that's actually right.

 

[loveofourlord]

No... If that were true, then we'd be able to write our own prescriptions...but we can't, because we as non-doctors aren't held to the same standard.



So it's the government's job to shut down people's opinions that they don't think are true? That's a bit of an overreach is it not?

Not to mention, science is constantly changing and discovering that the things in medicine that were thought to be true aren't and vice versa.

Obviously in this case, the lady was wrong...but I'll provide another example.

Take a moment and google the topic of ulcers.

Up until the 1980's, the medical community was in complete agreement that stress caused ulcers, and treated them accordingly with tranquillizers & anti-depressants...when two scientists from Australia suggested that it was actually a bacteria that caused it...their theory was viewed a quackery. Except there one major difference in this case...they were right (they won a Nobel prize a couple years ago for it). Their views were shunned by the medical community and made to look looney...if the government had "shut their idea down" as you suggest (simply on the grounds that it contradicts popular medical belief), we'd still be pumping ulcer patients full of tranquilizers instead of treating it properly.


That's the issue with wanting the government to shut down counter-culture ideas...for every 9 looneys you shut down, you'll also shut down one that's actually right.

Again we already do all this WITH THE DOCTORS. Are you defending people's rights to kill others with nosense and seriously saying we don't have a right to say, "No you can't kill others by spreading lies and such."???

And guess what, when something is shown through clinical trials to be effective you can use it. When something has not only not shown to work, but has been shown NOT to work your crossing a line. And you know what those two doctors did when they were called quacks, I bet they actually did trials and such to prove it. Not open a new clinic selling untested un regulated products in a back alley somewhere.

Many of the stuff these guys sell as cures, not only don't work, they can be dangerous and can kill. If someone is selling a dangerous product as a cure it SHOULD be regulated. I'm sorry, we regulate real medicine, but if someone takes that same medicine and calls it "natural" suddenly they can do what ever they want. No that nonsense has to stop NOW. Look at how terrible the herbal suppliment industry is, they arn't regualted, they arn't checked for efficacy, and are rampant with dangerous stuff sold as medicine, full of bacteria, and things that people have dangerous reactions to and can die from.

If you sell something as a cure, or claim it can cure something, you should be held to the standard of, put up or shut up.

 

[Blue Wren]

Schadenfruede.

How is this Schadenfreude?

 

[Nithavela]

There have been many books throughout history that contain ideas that some would consider dangerous and many books that people have claimed made them do stupid things, should all of those authors have been sued?

If their 'advice' really resulted in harm such as this, yes.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Again we already do all this WITH THE DOCTORS. Are you defending people's rights to kill others with nosense and seriously saying we don't have a right to say, "No you can't kill others by spreading lies and such."???

Yes, I know we do this with doctors...she was not a doctor. She was a social medialite with a blog...big difference.

If someone is selling a dangerous product as a cure it SHOULD be regulated. I'm sorry, we regulate real medicine, but if someone takes that same medicine and calls it "natural" suddenly they can do what ever they want. No that nonsense has to stop NOW.

Again...it was her right to have her own opinions, and it's her right to share those opinions with others...in turn, it's an individual's right to look at what she's providing, and say "Yes, I'll buy into that" or "No, it's rubbish".

It's not the job of government to try to protect free thinking adults from their own stupidity.

 

[Nithavela]

It's not stupidity. These are people diagnosed with cancer. They are afraid, desperate. Do you really think that it's okay for people to prey on other people when they are at their weakest?

 

[Paulos23]

It's not the job of government to try to protect free thinking adults from their own stupidity.

Then we can go back to the days before the FDA and other governmental agences that protect us from fraud. Given the flood of information on the internet, and how little time people have to sort through it (which is the opposite of when the FDA was formed) I think we should have people that put forth claims with no evedince for benifit that cause harm sued at the very least. Fined and put into jail would be my prefrence.

 

[abysmul]

It's not stupidity. These are people diagnosed with cancer. They are afraid, desperate. Do you really think that it's okay for people to prey on other people when they are at their weakest?

My brother was diagnosed with an incurable form of cancer. It was made 100% clear that he had a year at most to live. Not one doctor disagreed. In fact he, as predicted, died in about a year. That did not stop the doctors from ordering countless tests and procedures (some that made my brother beyond sick and miserable) at staggering cost$. Were they praying on him, any more than some holistic nut out there that would have provided the same results with their diets/programs (probably at far less cost)?

 

[Nithavela]

My brother was diagnosed with an incurable form of cancer. It was made 100% clear that he had a year at most to live. Not one doctor disagreed. In fact he, as predicted, died in about a year. That did not stop the doctors from ordering countless tests and procedures (some that made my brother beyond sick and miserable) at staggering cost$. Were they praying on him, any more than some holistic nut out there that would have provided the same results with their diets/programs (probably at far less cost)?

Yes, they were preying on your brother, and I am very sorry to hear about this. This is also a problem of the health care system, where hospitals make profit according to what they manage to talk their patients into, instead of what is needed. And please don't ask me about a better solution to that.

 

[abysmul]

Yes, they were preying on your brother, and I am very sorry to hear about this. This is also a problem of the health care system, where hospitals make profit according to what they manage to talk their patients into, instead of what is needed. And please don't ask me about a better solution to that.

You are right, and it has only gotten worse over time with government regulation and their ties with the insurance industry.

 

[keith99]

My brother was diagnosed with an incurable form of cancer. It was made 100% clear that he had a year at most to live. Not one doctor disagreed. In fact he, as predicted, died in about a year. That did not stop the doctors from ordering countless tests and procedures (some that made my brother beyond sick and miserable) at staggering cost$. Were they praying on him, any more than some holistic nut out there that would have provided the same results with their diets/programs (probably at far less cost)?

First off there is one huge difference. There was no false hope given to hook your brother.

So what were the staggering costs? Go back and read the first few posts to see the costs of some of the holistic treatments.

One has to ask the question why your brother decided to take the tests. If it was because teh doctors said there was a vanishingly small chance they might point to a solution then one can hardly say they were preying on him.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Then we can go back to the days before the FDA and other governmental agences that protect us from fraud. Given the flood of information on the internet, and how little time people have to sort through it (which is the opposite of when the FDA was formed) I think we should have people that put forth claims with no evedince for benifit that cause harm sued at the very least. Fined and put into jail would be my prefrence.

Are you talking about actual product regulation? Or regulation of ideas?

Regulation of ideas is what's being discussed in this thread. Some on here are suggesting that the government be allowed to jump in and press charges against someone for an idea (IE: thought criminal).

For example, if I start a web blog, and state on there that "Eating 4 tablespoons of basil per day will cure arthritis", and someone reads that blog and decides to try it and their arthritis gets worse because they didn't seek real treatment, the people on here are suggesting that I'm criminally liable and should have charges pressed against me.

If I were a state licensed doctor and I pushed that information, then there would be punitive actions taken under the current law. However, what the people in this thread are suggesting is the idea that a person on the internet, spouting off an idea, should be held to the same liability and standard as a licensed practitioner which is utterly false.

A person (acting in the capacity as a private citizen and not in the capacity of someone who's in a state licensed profession) has a right to share any ideas that they'd like and people have a right to choose whether or not they want to believe them.

This is just another case where people are pushing for a quasi-Nanny state.