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

[cow451]

Full article:
https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/2...sica-ainscough-dies-from-rare-cancer-aged-30/

In recent weeks she has been discussed on here in threads pertaining to vaccines, immunity, and cancer.

Color me surprised.... not.

 

[Paulos23]

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.

Given the resent case of people claiming to be health guru's (the Food Babe for example) I think it is not out of the realm of posiblities for people to sue them. They are claiming to be experts. For your average blogger that is not claiming that, I don't know. I would think if they know they have a loyal following they share some of the responsiblity for passing on information they didn't double check on.

 

[abysmul]

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 the doctors said there was a vanishingly small chance they might point to a solution then one can hardly say they were preying on him.

But there was. Try this drug, it's not for this type of (incurable) cancer but maybe.... Didn't work? Try this drug, it's not for this type of cancer (nothing is actually) but maybe... Of course there are all sorts of tests to be ran constantly, while on each drug, to monitor and check the progress...

As originally predicted, and statistically spot on, nothing changed that original prediction of one year. It's a situation that's played out time and time again in cancer centers all across the country for various forms of cancers that there is no hope of stopping. There is false hope given, and real profit to be made.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

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?

There's a difference between "being okay/not okay with something", and being for or against the government regulating ideas.

If a person is selling a product that claims to cure something, then have the FDA regulate that product...however, if a person simply states on a blog "eat this and it will cure this", that's an idea, and the government shouldn't be trying to regulate a person's personal ideas.

If that were the case, then the first lady should be sued for endorsing the idea of a juice cleanse and advocating it's benefits as part of her "health/diet" campaign.

However, in reality
Keri Gans, a registered dietitian and ADA spokeswoman, is not a fan, however. "It's setting up that the only way to eat healthy is to restrict," she says. "She should be learning (and teaching others) to eat from all food groups correctly."

She also makes the following points
1. Juicing programs don't actually "detox" anything.
2. Juice cleanses don't generally support optimal function of the body's built-in "detox organs"—namely, the liver, the intestines, and the kidneys.
3. A healthy gut does not function better when it is "rested."
4. Detox regimens don't eliminate (or even reduce) exposure to dietary toxins.

Yet, the first lady was advocating the idea of a cleanse...

By the standards you guys are setting...Michelle should be liable if a person tries a cleanse and it either backfires or doesn't work, right?

The scenario fits the criteria you guys laid out right?
1. 'preying' on vulnerable people (Children, or adults that are desperate to lose weight)
2. She's in a 'position of trust'
3. She's pushing an idea that contradicts accepted dietary and medical information...

So if you guys are angry just a regular old person spouting nonsense on a blog, so much so, that you want the government to crack down on them...I can't imagine how angry you guys must be with the first lady.

 

[Nithavela]

But she was selling product. She wasn't just stating opinions on a blog page, she was selling books and whatnot.

 

[mafwons]

SMH. These proponents of healing cancer with water and veggies should all be sued.

Because this is somehow worse than poisoning yourself with the drugs that "treat" cancer. My aunt died from the effects of chemo on her liver, it literally fell apart, it gave her an extra miserable nine months. My dad has multiple myeloma and the treatment seem to be working but have put him in poor health. We have a friend who beat cancer with an all natural was clean for 10 years and relapsed and died quickly. Who can say which is better but the person being treated, certainly the natural cures are no worse than the ones the medical industrial complex has to offer.

 

[mafwons]

Given the resent case of people claiming to be health guru's (the Food Babe for example) I think it is not out of the realm of posiblities for people to sue them. They are claiming to be experts. For your average blogger that is not claiming that, I don't know. I would think if they know they have a loyal following they share some of the responsiblity for passing on information they didn't double check on.

If you just believe someone who wrote a book or who has a website, and can't bother to do some research, or consult a couple of doctors then you can't blame the charlatans, unless of course they are selling or promoting sale of products they claim will cure somthing.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

But there was. Try this drug, it's not for this type of (incurable) cancer but maybe.... Didn't work? Try this drug, it's not for this type of cancer (nothing is actually) but maybe... Of course there are all sorts of tests to be ran constantly, while on each drug, to monitor and check the progress...

As originally predicted, and statistically spot on, nothing changed that original prediction of one year. It's a situation that's played out time and time again in cancer centers all across the country for various forms of cancers that there is no hope of stopping. There is false hope given, and real profit to be made.

I'm very sorry for your loss, but from the way you've described his circumstances, your brother was not manipulated or mistreated. His oncologists - highly trained physicians with dedicated expertise in treating cancer - gave him a prognosis, that while devastatingly grim, was accurate and honest. It doesn't sound like he was mislead with false promises about the efficacy of the drugs (experimental treatments?) he was offered, or coerced into accepting them. It's understandable that he'd seize any potential treatment that had a glimmer of hope at prolonging his life, but he was likely made aware of the risks involved in them and the realistic chances of success. Part of agreeing to undergo the treatments would be consenting to the tests necessary to monitor him while taking them. I believe most people are given counsel about the financial costs involved before agreeing to accept the care, though I imagine it is still a staggering and difficult burden for many.

I think some people with diagnoses of incurable cancers are put into an emotional Catch-22 scenario where society relentlessly bombards them with single-minded optimism that can lead to a train wreck of false positivity as crushing as the actual prognosis. Even patients who have received multiple professional medical opinions about their diagnosis that are consistently dismal are encouraged by well-intentioned society to "keep fighting the good fight" and to "not lose hope" that makes it seem like the courageous and noble thing to do is to seize any and all possible cures rather than accepting the probable. They use psychologically powerful terms like warrior and battle. My dad is an oncologist who used to work for the military, and some of his patients were Purple Heart recipients who had already proven their bravery beyond all doubt, but were made to feel as if they were victims of their disease and giving up without the courage to fight if they made peace with their prognosis and didn't subject themselves to painful and time-consuming treatments that had little promise of meaningfully extending their life.

Your brother's situation is a radically different one than many others who have been enchanted by Pied Piper-esque promoters of alternative medicine treatments that create the illusion of efficacy and give hope without the evidence or expertise that ethically justifies them doing so. As an example is the 17-year-old Connecticut girl named Cassandra who sparked heated controversy over her fight to refuse the prescribed treatment for her diagnosis of Hodgkin's Lymphoma because she and her mother wanted to pursue alternative remedies. As I wrote in this post, HL is one of the most successfully treated types of cancer, with a soaringly high rate of survival and a favorable long-term prognosis for the majority of people diagnosed with it who undergo the conventional methods of treatment that have a proven record of effectiveness. Without the proper treatment, it is a fatal disease. Her oncologists explained to her and her mother that though the recommended course of treatment was not pleasant, the risks of serious adverse side effects from it were very minimal. Despite this, she was wishing to refuse that treatment in favor of alternative therapies. She stated, “I always tell people I do want treatment for my cancer, I just don’t believe in the chemotherapy. I want something more natural, something that’s not drugs. If the court decided to let me go, I would look into natural remedies that would stop the growth of the cancer. I would take vitamins and remedies that fight inflammation. I would eat healthy and go to the gym, and I would still monitor the cancer with regular scans.” In other words, she was wanting to pursue treatment very much like the one the young woman this OP is about was an adherent to and advocate for. Courts ruled against Cassandra, even though at 17 she's nearly an adult, and ordered her to undergo proper treatment after two court cases where they thoroughly reviewed the evidence for and against her wishes and deciding it was in her best interest.

I'm not positive about this, but I think that since the girl was a minor and her mother is an unemployed house cleaner, the state probably would have been picking up the tab for her medical care, so costs were most likely not a motivating factor in that decision. Gerson Therapy, which is one of the most popular alternative treatments, and the one Jess Ainscough was a "Gerson Person" advocate for, costs $11,000 for a two week stay at their clinics in Mexico or Hungary (not including travel there), $1200 a month in produce, hundreds more in supplements, and expensive juicing equipment entails adhering to an oppressively strict diet of juicing and coffee enemas for a minimum of two years (in comparison treatment for HL is usually completed within six months). They market themselves by asking people with charismatic appeal who seem exuberantly healthy to make YouTube videos and blogs chronicling their hope-inspiring experiences that edit out some of the more sobering aspects. They operate in a way that cleverly curves itself around laws preventing them from malpractice suits, such as having their offices in San Diego but providing all medical care outside of the jurisdiction of the US and other countries like Australia (where Jess was a citizen) with far more astringent standards.

 

[SwordoftheLord]

But there was. Try this drug, it's not for this type of (incurable) cancer but maybe.... Didn't work? Try this drug, it's not for this type of cancer (nothing is actually) but maybe... Of course there are all sorts of tests to be ran constantly, while on each drug, to monitor and check the progress...

As originally predicted, and statistically spot on, nothing changed that original prediction of one year. It's a situation that's played out time and time again in cancer centers all across the country for various forms of cancers that there is no hope of stopping. There is false hope given, and real profit to be made.

Yep, I experienced this with my mother when she had cancer. The Doctors kept feeding her things that they didnt know whether or not they would work. Then she moved into the "experimental" drugs because they told her there were no other options. Sure what this woman did might not have been correct nor did it help, but as you stated, the same thing happens in Cancer Centers everyday.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Yep, I experienced this with my mother when she had cancer. The Doctors kept feeding her things that they didnt know whether or not they would work. Then she moved into the "experimental" drugs because they told her there were no other options. Sure what this woman did might not have been correct nor did it help, but as you stated, the same thing happens in Cancer Centers everyday.

Many hospitals that provide cancer treatment in America are non-profit, though indisputably treatment can still be very costly. Jess Ainscough was an Australian citizen, and I think she would have been eligible for having most of her conventional treatments covered by their healthcare system. I don't think experimental or even alternative treatments are unethical if the person undergoing them has been given an honest and realistic understanding of their potential for success from reputable medical experts with specialized knowledge of their condition and the specifics of their diagnosis and their costs in term of time and money so they could give truly informed consent. Rosy claims not rooted in reality are not fair, whether they are made by bloggers or doctors.

 

[abysmul]

Yep, I experienced this with my mother when she had cancer. The Doctors kept feeding her things that they didnt know whether or not they would work. Then she moved into the "experimental" drugs because they told her there were no other options. Sure what this woman did might not have been correct nor did it help, but as you stated, the same thing happens in Cancer Centers everyday.

It does, ever single day. (In the business I work for we work closely with a local cancer center... we see it.. and I have a dear friend who works in oncology/cancer treatment in another state... she sees it... and I have other friends and family in the health care field... they see it.)

People are mislead by telemarketers, booksellers, miracle in a bottle sellers, and licensed cancer centers every day.

 

[Nithavela]

You may decry school medizin cancer treatments all you want, but many kinds of cancer, which were a death sentence decades ago, are now treatable with a high rate of success, thanks to scientists and doctors working on curing them.

Saying that this is no better then people trying to cure cancer with juices is insulting.

 

[abysmul]

Knowingly selling a cancer patient something that will not work is wrong, either from an approved cancer center or from a holistic nutter.


$$$$$$

 

[Nithavela]

Agreed.

But trial drugs are, in my opinion, a different story. After all, this stuff has to be tested, and all the stuff that DOES work underwent this phase, too.

Trial drugs shouldn't be sold for profit, though. The patient (or his insurance) should cover the production costs, no more.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

But she was selling product. She wasn't just stating opinions on a blog page, she was selling books and whatnot.

So you want the government to crack down on people writing and selling books then?

Who are any of us (or the government for that matter) to tell people what they are and aren't allowed to believe?

Saying that they should crackdown on authors and censor their material "in the interest of public safety" sets a dangerous precedent for a number of reasons.

It would essentially amount to the government telling you and I that, as adults, we're not allowed to hear a certain idea, or embrace a certain idea if we so choose.


It makes me wonder about the motives of some people.
(this next part isn't to you personally)

I wondering if this position is being taken by some in this thread just to toe the liberal line by showing support for the idea of more government regulation.

Part of me wonders, if a republican poster on these forums would've started a thread called "The government needs to shut down this hippie holistic nonsense" about this story, would the people in this thread still be taking the same the stance on the matter??? (Part of me suspects not).

(Considering that, in a previous thread a while back started by a republican suggesting that the government shut down NAMBLA and take down their website (due to the fact that the ideas presented a public danger), the left leaning folks were taking the opposing position).

 

[Nithavela]

Some ideas should not be embraced. If a society as a whole agrees that an idea should not be embraced, it is in its full right to disallow having that idea published in books. For example, here in Germany, it is a crime to deny the holocaust.

Now, we may disagree on which things should be disallowed. That is alright. Society as a whole has to find a consensus or a majority in this issues, it shouldn't just be imposed from a totalitarian government. And such a thing HAS to be used very carefully, because bad things happen when it is abused.

But it is already used by governments, for better or worse.

 

[loveofourlord]

Yep, I experienced this with my mother when she had cancer. The Doctors kept feeding her things that they didnt know whether or not they would work. Then she moved into the "experimental" drugs because they told her there were no other options. Sure what this woman did might not have been correct nor did it help, but as you stated, the same thing happens in Cancer Centers everyday.

There are experimental and such, but there is a difference between, "In monkey trials this is shown to some times help." wich is generally what accredited centers are doing, and the, "Raw food diet will cure your cancer." or worse, "This natural herb will cure your cancer." when all studies show it actually reduces your chances of surviving if your taking Chemotherapy and isn't helping.

You have people on this website advocating that taking VItamin C will keep you from getting Ebola. Now someone on a site like this is one thing, but there are people selling books, vitamin C with huge followings that will make the same claims. You have people claiming that HIV can be cured with vitamin C or other quack cure. Then it becomes a public health risk when you have dangerously contatgious people thinking they can't get six or transmit a disease.

Now Ebola has pretty much 0 chance of getting a foothold in the US, but if it ever does, I bet it will be like measels has, you get people with wacky ideas on disease catch it, and delay treatment long enough for the disease to spread rather then shutdown right away.

 

[loveofourlord]

Some ideas should not be embraced. If a society as a whole agrees that an idea should not be embraced, it is in its full right to disallow having that idea published in books. For example, here in Germany, it is a crime to deny the holocaust.

Now, we may disagree on which things should be disallowed. That is alright. Society as a whole has to find a consensus or a majority in this issues, it shouldn't just be imposed from a totalitarian government. And such a thing HAS to be used very carefully, because bad things happen when it is abused.

But it is already used by governments, for better or worse.

It's as I said earlier.

I think you have a right to take heroine.

You have a right to suggest others take heroine.

But you don't have the right to tell people that heroine will cure their HIV or other diseases without some evidence to back it up.

ACTUAL drugs take years to be tested before they are sold, and even then they often mess up.

The herbal remedy groups have 0 regulations, 0 testing on dosages 0 quality assurance to even make sure if there is anything they are claiming in the pills. Many of the herbal pills have fillers that people are alergic too.

 

[Hetta]

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)?

That is very bad and your brother should have said NO and refused any further interventions. Of course, they may have been using his terminal status to experiment with some procedures - and your brother must have given them permission to do this, or I believe that they have to accept your no and leave you alone.

When my mom was given the terminal cancer diagnosis she said no to anything further, but only to be left in peace to live out what was left of her life. And they did leave her alone, so I know that you can emphatically deny further treatment of any kind.

My mom's situation makes me especially angry when I hear fools talk about how drinking water and eating veggies can cure cancer. She was the healthiest person I knew, and yet it had no bearing on the cancer, or the fact that she died relatively young, at 73, when so many others I know who do not take that kind of care are still alive now (she died 8 years ago) and are healthy.

 

[Hetta]

It's as I said earlier.

I think you have a right to take heroine.

You have a right to suggest others take heroine.

But you don't have the right to tell people that heroine will cure their HIV or other diseases without some evidence to back it up.

ACTUAL drugs take years to be tested before they are sold, and even then they often mess up.

The herbal remedy groups have 0 regulations, 0 testing on dosages 0 quality assurance to even make sure if there is anything they are claiming in the pills. Many of the herbal pills have fillers that people are alergic too.

HEROIN!!!

Come on now. A heroine is a female hero.

I agree that herbal is rubbish mainly, and dangerous rubbish. Black cohosh for instance has had a very bad effect on many post-menopausal women who take it thinking that "because it is herbal" it is safe. Uh, no. Better to go and see the doctor and get the drug that at least is tested and you know the side effects, and there are always side effects.

Better an informed decision every time.