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

[Hetta]

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.

Nothing is "only tested on monkeys" and then released for human consumption. There are distinct stages in drug development and there are always human trials before the FDA approves a drug.

They learned that after thalidomide at least.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

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.

That's one of the key differences between your system of government and ours.

In the US, we put the emphasis on the freedom of the individual instead of what's known as "the tyranny of the majority"...now, I'm not calling this tyranny, that's just an expression...however, the meaning is that a person has a right to their own ideas regardless of whether or not one person or every other person disagrees with the idea.

With the 1st amendment in place, we can't have the government in the book banning business just because the majority might not like something.

I know it sounds tempting when there's a scenario where you think it can have a positive outcome...but what happens when the majority agrees on a bad idea that infringes on someone? For example, if a person wanted to write about the rights of a minority group, and the majority thought it was "dangerous" so petitioned the government to ban it...would that be a good reason to ban it and infringe on the free expression of that minority group?

In fact, we have scenarios like this going on right now with the SSM debate. There are areas in the south where the majority don't want it and feel it's dangerous, should the majority get their way and have government ban the idea?

The reason why the rights of the individual supersede the wishes of the collective goes back to that old saying about the 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what's for dinner.

 

[Nithavela]

You evidently don't know a lot about the german system of government.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You evidently don't know a lot about the german system of government.

From what it sounds like, it's different than ours if what you're saying is true about the majority being able to petition the government to squash someone else's free expression and free press based on the notion that "expressing an idea is dangerous"

 

[bill5]

It's better to try to prevent the knowingly wicked from preying on the naïve than trying to make the naïve un-naïve. There are far more of the latter than the former.

Amen

 

[Nithavela]

I did not say this. I only mentioned germanys ban on holocaust denial as an example of such a ruling.

 

[bill5]

Where does the line get drawn on who's considered to be "in a position of trust"?

Regarding medical advice, how about doctors, at the very least?

...and at what point does restricting it become a violation of freedom of speech and conscience?

Certainly not at the point where you endanger lives as these such people have done.

If a person wants to believe that veggies cure cancer, they're allowed to believe that (as silly as it may be), and they're allowed to tell others about their beliefs...what the person chooses to do with what they've been told is on them, is it not?

So "they asked for it?"

Sorry, I find that horribly callous. And no, people should be be allowed to spread lies which can endanger lives.

Being naïve is no excuse IMO.

I don't think anyone is saying that it is. But is also doesn't excuse the fools or worse the quacks who peddle such lies, whether it's to make a buck or to become famous or just because they're clueless.

 

[loveofourlord]

Nothing is "only tested on monkeys" and then released for human consumption. There are distinct stages in drug development and there are always human trials before the FDA approves a drug.

They learned that after thalidomide at least.

Sorry I meant that even BEFORE they do human testing as the response I was giving was to experimental drugs wich to me would be clinical or pre clinical trials.

 

[loveofourlord]

That's one of the key differences between your system of government and ours.

In the US, we put the emphasis on the freedom of the individual instead of what's known as "the tyranny of the majority"...now, I'm not calling this tyranny, that's just an expression...however, the meaning is that a person has a right to their own ideas regardless of whether or not one person or every other person disagrees with the idea.

With the 1st amendment in place, we can't have the government in the book banning business just because the majority might not like something.

I know it sounds tempting when there's a scenario where you think it can have a positive outcome...but what happens when the majority agrees on a bad idea that infringes on someone? For example, if a person wanted to write about the rights of a minority group, and the majority thought it was "dangerous" so petitioned the government to ban it...would that be a good reason to ban it and infringe on the free expression of that minority group?

In fact, we have scenarios like this going on right now with the SSM debate. There are areas in the south where the majority don't want it and feel it's dangerous, should the majority get their way and have government ban the idea?

The reason why the rights of the individual supersede the wishes of the collective goes back to that old saying about the 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what's for dinner.

BTW funny how the guy thats responsible for the two girls dying who were first nation has been told he can no longer practice without a license..I thought you said the US goverment doesn't do this.

If you try to practice woowoo you should be held to the same standards as medicine. Being ignorant of the law is not a defense against the law. YOu talk about responsability, funny it's never the responsability of those selling snake oil. If you make medical claims then you should be held acountable just as much as any medical doctor or what the heck is the point of requring medical doctors to have licenses. It's a double standard, if you base your medicine on reality were going to regulate you, but if not, you can kill people and it's not your fault. But if a doctor accidently kills someone they can go to jail why this double standard? What planet are we living on where you can kill people as long as you do it with BS.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

If you make medical claims then you should be held acountable just as much as any medical doctor or what the heck is the point of requring medical doctors to have licenses. It's a double standard, if you base your medicine on reality were going to regulate you, but if not, you can kill people and it's not your fault. But if a doctor accidently kills someone they can go to jail why this double standard? What planet are we living on where you can kill people as long as you do it with BS.

So if I start a blog where I try to give medical advice, you're honestly suggesting that I should be held to the same standard as a doctor in terms of liability? I'm glad you don't make the laws. I'll pass on the nanny state.

I also noticed that everyone seemed to overlook my post about the first lady giving out false nutritional advice...gee, I wonder why that is.

 

[loveofourlord]

So if I start a blog where I try to give medical advice, you're honestly suggesting that I should be held to the same standard as a doctor in terms of liability? I'm glad you don't make the laws. I'll pass on the nanny state.

Yes you should be, if your not a doctor you have NO buisness giving out medical advice, already too many idiots, quacks, and worse giving medical advice about what is the best new cure. People die because there is no acountability for people's actions. There is too much of this mentality of, "I got good old fashion know how and can cure everything." look at the food babe, look at doctor oz and all these other quacks that kill people every year with their nonsense, and people trust them because well if they were lying they be shut down.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Yes you should be, if your not a doctor you have NO buisness giving out medical advice, already too many idiots, quacks, and worse giving medical advice about what is the best new cure. People die because there is no acountability for people's actions. There is too much of this mentality of, "I got good old fashion know how and can cure everything." look at the food babe, look at doctor oz and all these other quacks that kill people every year with their nonsense, and people trust them because well if they were lying they be shut down.

So you think that Michelle Obama is criminally liable then?
(since I provided a clear example before of how she's peddling false nutritional info)

 

[loveofourlord]

Were not talking about some new miracle drug that might help people. Were talking about stuff that is provenly false and impossible to work, stuff like black salve, homeopathy, acupuncture, vitamin C/d and so on where people say, "Take this or do this and it will cure your cancer." if you have NOTHING to back up your claim it can cure cancer, then if people die you should be held responsible for being a fraud, scaming and criminal negliegence and a number of things that are already ilegal that for some reason don't get applied to quack cures any more.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Were talking about stuff that is provenly false and impossible to work, stuff like black salve, homeopathy, acupuncture,

You forgot to add Chiropractic to your list...but wait...that can't be quackery can it??? That's a government regulated "medical" practice. Gee, I guess government regulation doesn't stop quackery as well as people think it does.

I'll pose my question again for the 3rd time now:
Do you think that Michelle Obama is criminally liable? She's tossing out flawed inaccurate nutritional information when he's not a licensed nutritionist, and giving false info could impact the health of the children she's targeting with this nutritional campaign.

Should she be sued?

 

[bill5]

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.

Despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

This is alt-med BS. Chemo/etc are hardly perfect, but they do have KNOWN and PROVEN degrees of effectiveness. For some cancers, true, it's not very effective. But for some, it is, in fact with some, very good (eg breast cancer). So to answer your question of who can say which is better, I can, as can anyone who does a little research.

Just because something is "natural" doesn't make it effective, or even useful or helpful in the tiniest. in fact can be downright deadly. Sadly, many people plug their fingers in their ears and go NANANANA I CAN'T HEAR YOU and buy into it anyway because they WANT it to be true. But wanting something to be true doesn't make it so.

As a fav author once said: never be so afraid of the truth that you refuse to face it. And I would add, don't buy into unproven claims because they sound all warm and fuzzy.

 

[bill5]

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.

And I"m betting they said so right front. That's a bit different than someone going "try this, it cures cancer!"

Don't ya think?

 

[bill5]

Some of the plants people take to cure cancer, actually counter the effects that chemo has destroying the bodies ability to fight cancer, in some cases more then if the person had taken nothing.

So can antioxidants, while I'm thinking of it.

Again...it was her right to have her own opinions, and it's her right to share those opinions with others...

Again...not when it endangers lives, no, it's not.

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

Yes, it is. That practically defines govt in a nutshell. (Although you could add stuff like "corruption," "greed" etc to "stupidity.")

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?

Sure, yknow, freedom of speech, blah blah etc

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)?

Extremely unlikely, no. As Keith said, they were up front about his odds. I repeat odds...stating "you have a year to live" is a probability, not a certainty. Maybe they were hoping against hope to try and save or at least extend his life. That's kind of what their business is, after all. I doubt they get paid extra for every test they order, etc.

I'm very sorry for your loss, but that's not a valid analogy.

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.

"No hope" is blatantly inaccurate. Small odds in some cases, yes. But there are always people who beat the odds, even with the most deadly forms of cancer. There is no cancer which has a zero percent chance of being beaten.

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

Regulation of ideas is what's being discussed in this thread.

No, it's not. Sorry to disappoint, but this is not some dramatic Orwellian thing that you seem fired up about painting it as. Being held accountable for pushing medical quackery and fraud is what's being discussed.

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.

Few (at most) here are suggesting that. It's not that simple. I would say that if you stated that as fact and not opinion or anecdotal, and it can be proven that someone followed that advice based on your blog and had a cancer with a high cure rate through evil ol chemo or some other known threatment who subsequently died in short order, yes, you could/should be up on criminal charges. God forbid we hold people accountable.

 

[bill5]

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

Yes.

(again: ask a stupid question.......)

Frankly this whole grossly exaggerated "slippery slope" bit isn't doing wonders for your credibility.

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

I know I'm probably spitting into the wind again, but one more time: it isn't about a belief or an idea. It's about promoting it as being able to save someone's life when there is zero evidence to back it up.

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).

A political digression tactic. At this point I'm not surprised.

 

[loveofourlord]

So can antioxidants, while I'm thinking of it.


Again...not when it endangers lives, no, it's not.

Yes, it is. That practically defines govt in a nutshell. (Although you could add stuff like "corruption," "greed" etc to "stupidity.")



Sure, yknow, freedom of speech, blah blah etc





Extremely unlikely, no. As Keith said, they were up front about his odds. I repeat odds...stating "you have a year to live" is a probability, not a certainty. Maybe they were hoping against hope to try and save or at least extend his life. That's kind of what their business is, after all. I doubt they get paid extra for every test they order, etc.

I'm very sorry for your loss, but that's not a valid analogy.


"No hope" is blatantly inaccurate. Small odds in some cases, yes. But there are always people who beat the odds, even with the most deadly forms of cancer. There is no cancer which has a zero percent chance of being beaten.


No, it's not. Sorry to disappoint, but this is not some dramatic Orwellian thing that you seem fired up about painting it as. Being held accountable for pushing medical quackery and fraud is what's being discussed.

Few (at most) here are suggesting that. It's not that simple. I would say that if you stated that as fact and not opinion or anecdotal, and it can be proven that someone followed that advice based on your blog and had a cancer with a high cure rate through evil ol chemo or some other known threatment who subsequently died in short order, yes, you could/should be up on criminal charges. God forbid we hold people accountable.

I was going to bring up anti oxidents but I've only heard a few things about them being bad for Chemo so didn't feeel I could bring it up more.

 

[Nithavela]

I also noticed that everyone seemed to overlook my post about the first lady giving out false nutritional advice...gee, I wonder why that is.

If Michelle Obama were to release statements meant to confuse cancer patients and to lead them from viable treatments, of course she should be held responsible, too. Did she do that?

I don't think giving doubtfull dietary advice alone warrants intervention. Only when this advice is claimed to be a viable treatment for a serious disease, which dissuades people from getting real treatment for it, does it entail enough harm.

That said, would you mind not making this thread into another OBAMA!!! (or his wife) thread? It would weaken your point by making it seem like you were throwing red herrings.