Judge says forcing aboriginal girl to stay in chemo is to ‘impose our world view on First Nation culture’

jas wrote:

I like the link Swallow posted

unionist wrote:

Bacchus wrote:

I like Left Turn's quote by a First Nations person

Me too.

It's a good thing there's all the white people of babble around to make sure First Nations voices are culturally correct. How do we tell? It's simple: whoever triggers the most white guilt is the most valid.

I don't think Sineed meant you, U.  jas is dismissing some aboriginal voices in favour of others who are more in line with her world view.

From my perspective, I think that it's fine to pursue traditional modes of healing, but all those quoted who said that traditional First Nations medicine works are misinformed.  It doesn't work on cancer, and it's a folly to take the all or nothing approach and reject modern medicines.,

Well, you could make the case that we're all doing this to some degree - greater or lesser.

I'm still worried about both little girls, and I'm heartened to see that there are some aboriginal voices chiming in that chemo might be the best thing in this case.  I understand on an intellectual level why a First Nations person might want to reject what is seen as the white man's medicine, but on an emotional level, I have trouble with anybody's child not getting the most effective treatment and getting to live to grow up.  So there's a definite pull between wanting to be culturally sensitive to an oppressed people and wanting to tell them what the right answer is.  Guilty as charged.

But I still think I'm right on this one.  Do the smudges and herbs, but don't ditch chemo.

Timebandit wrote:

Well, you could make the case that we're all doing this to some degree - greater or lesser.

I don't. Not to say we don't all have an emotional response, but calling it guilt implies that it is not a valid position, and I think it is more complex than that.

For one thing, I think most of us here are in agreement about the chemo, and that scam artist in Florida. The question is who actually has authority here, and to what degree. And beyond that there is the whole question of a paternalistic and reactionary response, both at the structural and personal level.

One can be right on one point after all, and still be discriminatory. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Personally I am torn about whether the court made the right decision; I still object to some of the things that have been said here.

Timebandit wrote:

@jas:  The big problem here is the rub between cultural sensitivity and facts.  Facts don't change in the face of how people feel about them.  Smudges and herbs don't cure cancer, never did, never will.

Please provide your source for this "fact". The big problem here, Timebandit, is your idea of what a fact is. You and Sineed often throw "facts" around in threads then feel that you aren't required, like other people are, to legitimize your claims with credible sources.

Timebandit wrote:

Again, the blogger in question - the first link derides Kevin Annett.  Are you remotely acquainted with him?  He's defrauded and taken advantage of a number of First Nations people and his exploits include trying to commandeer and speak for First Nations groups regarding residential school investigation and settlements. 

1) Sources, please.

2) Did you see the title he chose for the blog post you are protesting? Do you think it's valid to say that where some doubt exists in one particular case, that casts doubt on every other case of evidence found?

Timebandit wrote:

His other blog posts regard things that he finds unsettling and unreasonable about actions being taken by leaders and other members of his community.  Why shouldn't he?  Don't we do that with our own here all the time?

Have you read the titles of his blog posts? I only selected a few, by the way. There's many more there.

[Edit: I'll leave out my comments about professional skepticism, amateur skepticism and pseudoskepticism for now.]

Timebandit wrote:

And none of that makes him less informed in his opinion on the rejection of chemotherapy for these two girls.  In fact, he might know more about both traditional medicine and western medicine than either you or I.

He might or might not. We have no friggin idea, since we don't know who he is or what his alleged medical specialty is. It's an anonymous blog post, ffs.

Case in point to my last comment:

Pondering wrote:

It is our sin that has led to this women lacking the education she needs to protect herself and her daughter from a western quack.

In the first place, education is no protection from bad or stupid decisions, or being taken in by a con artist, particularly when one is in dire straits.

And in the second place, it does not automatically mean that one knows better than someone else.

And it sure doesn't guarantee that one won't fall into ignorance and discrimination against others either (particularly those who we assume might have less formal booklearning).

I'm merely trying to get posters like Timebandit and Sineed to understand what they can validly claim (success rates of chemotherapy in these kinds of cancers) and what they can't validly claim ("no other therapies work"). This will help clean up our discussion immensely, and would probably lead most of us to the conclusion that we shouldn't even be posting on this topic.

jas wrote:

I'm merely trying to get posters like Timebandit and Sineed to understand what they can validly claim (success rates of chemotherapy in these kinds of cancers) and what they can't validly claim ("no other therapies work"). This will help clean up our discussion immensely, and would probably lead most of us to the conclusion that we shouldn't even be posting on this topic.

Except that isn't true. So far the only cure for cancer is treatment by western medicine.

What you are claiming makes as much sense as claiming that carrots cure cancer. They don't. Neither does herbal medicine. First Nations healers don't claim that they can cure cancer. This mother is not a native healer she is just a mother. She doesn't have any native healers claiming they can help her daughter. This has nothing to do with using native healing methods.

jas wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Jas, we can use deductive reasoning. If smudges and herbs cured cancer very few native people would die from it. I think we would find out if that happened. It would be very difficult to keep a miracle cure for cancer a secret.

No, this is invalid logic, and doesn't address the claim Timebandit has made.

I would like to see some evidence that indigenous medicine has been shown over and over that it doesn't cure or improve cancer outcomes. If you can't provide this evidence, you have no authority passing judgment on indigenous traditions of therapy. Period.

I can't prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist either. That doesn't mean he does. You can't prove a negative. It is possible there is some natural cure for cancer that has not yet been discovered. The point is that none exists at the moment. No reputable natural healers claim the ability to heal cancer.

jas wrote:

Pondering wrote:

Except that isn't true. So far the only cure for cancer is treatment by western medicine.

It should go without saying that this is a 100% unproven claim. Unless you have some studies you'd like to cite.

I'm not interested in arguing with someone who won't even recognize rules of logical argumentation.

So you're happy to sentence this girl to death because her parents want to embrase a western medicine treatment that has nothing to do with her parents' ancestry,

What I'm proposing is stupidly simple, folks: Make claims based on things you know or can prove. Leave it at that. Stop insisting you know what's best for others. Stop insisting you know about things you cannot possibly know about.

jas wrote:

Timebandit wrote:

@jas:  The big problem here is the rub between cultural sensitivity and facts.  Facts don't change in the face of how people feel about them.  Smudges and herbs don't cure cancer, never did, never will.

Please provide your source for this "fact". The big problem here, Timebandit, is your idea of what a fact is. You and Sineed often throw "facts" around in threads then feel that you aren't required, like other people are, to legitimize your claims with credible sources.

Timebandit wrote:

Again, the blogger in question - the first link derides Kevin Annett.  Are you remotely acquainted with him?  He's defrauded and taken advantage of a number of First Nations people and his exploits include trying to commandeer and speak for First Nations groups regarding residential school investigation and settlements. 

1) Sources, please.

2) Did you see the title he chose for the blog post you are protesting? Do you think it's valid to say that where some doubt exists in one particular case, that casts doubt on every other case of evidence found?

Timebandit wrote:

His other blog posts regard things that he finds unsettling and unreasonable about actions being taken by leaders and other members of his community.  Why shouldn't he?  Don't we do that with our own here all the time?

Have you read the titles of his blog posts? I only selected a few, by the way. There's many more there.

[Edit: I'll leave out my comments about professional skepticism, amateur skepticism and pseudoskepticism for now.]

Timebandit wrote:

And none of that makes him less informed in his opinion on the rejection of chemotherapy for these two girls.  In fact, he might know more about both traditional medicine and western medicine than either you or I.

He might or might not. We have no friggin idea, since we don't know who he is or what his alleged medical specialty is. It's an anonymous blog post, ffs.

jas, if herbs and smudges cured cancer, oncologists would be all over them.  Don't turn this into a hare-brained defense of alt-med thread.  We've had more than enough of those.

But from the link that Unionist re-posted above:

Quote:

 

Growing up as a First Nations person in Canada, I have had a few opportunities to experience what we usually refer to as “Indian medicine.”

I smudge, I’ve participated in sweat lodges and other traditional ceremonies, I’ve ingested the occasional traditional herbal remedy, and I know many others who have done the same and more. Throughout my life as a Native person I have turned to my culture for guidance, support and strength, and I have prayed hard for certain results.

The emotional relief I have found through my faith has often comforted me. I readily admit, though, that this is half the battle and sadly must concede that it is not the cure. I have never seen anyone cured of anything beyond the healing of their minds and hearts.

It's highly unlikely that Indiginous healing protocols will be any more successful in curing leukemia than other varieties of alt med or faith-based healing, although both can be used complementarily in a way that is beneficial to the individual.

Quote:

Timebandit wrote:

Again, the blogger in question - the first link derides Kevin Annett.  Are you remotely acquainted with him?  He's defrauded and taken advantage of a number of First Nations people and his exploits include trying to commandeer and speak for First Nations groups regarding residential school investigation and settlements. 

1) Sources, please.

2) Did you see the title he chose for the blog post you are protesting? Do you think it's valid to say that where some doubt exists in one particular case, that casts doubt on every other case of evidence found?

Well, you aren't going to like this, but here are a few:

Quote:

You were asked to attend a meeting of The Circle of Justice on Wednesday, September 23, 1998. You said that you would attend that meeting but would be late. In fact, not only did you fail to attend that meeting, you failed to call and notify anyone waiting to see you that you would not attend and failed to contact the members for some time after that. You routinely sign your name on the internet as associated with the Circle of Justice but showed contempt and arrogance when requested to attend a meeting to discuss matters critical to the survival, effectiveness, missions and credibility of The Circle of Justice.

Had you attended that meeting on September 23, 1998, you would have been confronted with and given an opportunity to respond to the following allegations with supporting documentation:

a) That you have repeatedly in print and in word represented certain views, allegations and representations as having been voted on ratified and supported by The Ciricle of Justice that in fact had never been brought before the Circle of Justice or voted on or authorized by the Collective as positions of the Circle of Justice;

b) That you have repeatedly in print and word spread unproven gossip, conversations given in confidence for reasons of security, information, sources of information and ongoing investigations that could compromise and has compromised First Nations activists and certain struggles and activities;

c) That you have repeatedly in print and in word, slandered and libelled, without evidence, trusted and dedicated First Nations activists (who dared to disagree with you or pose some penetrating and tough questions) with summarily-declared labels like"RCMP agents" or "The Eyes and Ears of the RCMP" or "Government-paid stooges" and with no regard to the damages done to them personally or to the struggles of which they have been trusted and effective instruments;

d) That you have summarily and for purposes of self-promotion, assigned to yourself and used in print and in word non-existent titles like "Advisor", Chief Researcher" (we have not seen even one piece of your research), "Chief Expert Witness to the Vancouver Tribunal" and others that were neither authorized nor voted on and ratified by the Circle of Justice;

e) That you have summarily and without authorization or vote/ratification by the Circle of Justice, using The Circle of Justice as your authority and base, declared for yourself self-conducted and self-declared supposed missions with unstated goals and objectives to organizations like Amnesty International in London;

f) That you have in word and print designated yourself as the sole contact person for raising monies to support the work of The Circle of Justice and given no accounting or release to the Circle of Justice, certain donations known to have been specifically raised and designated for use by the Circle of Justice as a whole;

g) That you have demanded of others to release to you and not others of the Circle of Justice, tapes, personal testimonies and other materials associated with abuses of Residential School Vicitms that were not properly released for general use by those who had them in their possession and, when asked the same of you, for tapes and other materials of Residential School Abuse Victims in your possession, you have delayed and obstructed release of those materials back to those who have legitimately requested them and suffer daily wondering how they might be used by you;

h) That in print and in word you have raised monies designated to send Victims of Residential School Abuse to Geneva, given no notice that you, a non-victim of Residential School Abuse planned to use some of the monies to send yourself, and that you have conflicting accounts of the actual amounts raised and given no actual accounting of monies raised, by whom they were donated and how many Victims could be sent to give representations to UN bodies about Canadian Residential School Abuse and Genocide in Canada;

i) That in print and in word, you have released the names of Circle of Justice Members and allies, and sensitive and confidential conversations that could compromise the security and welfare of others if released, without authorization or vote by The Circle of Justice;

j) That you have sought inside and sensitive information from Residential School Victims and their allies and given no sensitive and needed information in your possession in return, in order to inflate an image and public perception of your own degree and depth of involvement in the Circle of Justice and various struggles and investigations;

k) That members of The Circle of Justice have left the Collective and given as their reason, problems with what they considered to be opportunism, self-promotion, duplicity and disruptions on your part;

It is our honest opinion, formed on the bais of evidence and without malice, that the above allegations are warranted and/or have enought merit that we have no choice but to act. We believe that you sensed what the meeting on September 23, 1998 was to be about--to present and give you an opportunity to attempt to rebut these charges--and we know that you made several calls to attempt to find out what the meeting was to be about, and sensing the possibilities, simply summarily avoided hearing and answering these charges after first promising that you would attend the meeting.

We invite you at any time to answer these allegations in writing and we will acknowledge any allegations found not to be substantiated, but in as much as so much is on the line and our work and credibility and membership are suffering as a result of these allegations, we have no choice but to act based on our opinion that you have been aprised/are aware of these allegations and have chosen to repond not by attending a meeting to answer them or with counter-evidence, but rather with slander and accusations against anyone who dared raise them with you and invite responses from you.

http://sisis.nativeweb.org/resschool/sep2898coj.html

A summary of Annett's activities:  http://freethoughtblogs.com/almostdiamonds/2011/10/13/evil-enough-already/

Another article on claims that don't stand up and why this "white saviour" isn't helping: http://thetyee.ca/Views/2008/04/30/TruthAndAbuse/

There's plenty more, including other First Nations groups and individuals who have complaints about him and his escapades as a UCC minister who was fired for erratic behaviour and refusing to do his job, but I'll leave this here.

 I've read the titles of the blog posts.  So the guy's got an opinion and perspective that doesn't line up with what you think he should.  So what?  He's still a First Nations voice and you're still dismissing it. 

I marvel at how much this debate comes back to the legal judgment that was conveyed in this thread title. And how willing folks here are to completely ignore that proposition.

Speaking of which, thanks for the wall o' text, Timebandit, and for not actually answering my questions. Are there some specific points you could elaborate on with the Circle of Justice letter? What is that you want me to take away from that regarding evidence of murdered aboriginal children in residential schools?

jas wrote:

evidence of murdered aboriginal children in residential schools?

There's a difference between evidence - as in testimony collected by the Truth and Reconciliation Committee, or the Bryce Report, and psychic "evidence" claiming there was a torture chamber in the basement of a residential school, or claims that the Queen of England personally kidnapped and murdered children on a visit to Canada.

Don't we already have a Kevin Annett thread?

jas wrote:

I actually probably could prove that survivors of cancer existed prior to the dawn of western medicine. If I did the research. I think I can probably prove that many survivals of untreated or alternatively treated cancer today are also documented. Again, if I did the research. We also know that western approaches have been far from being able to provide certainty of survival.

My sister-in-law has a phD in anthropology and introduced me to a particular speciality: paleo-oncology.

Quote:

There was an ancient Scythian king whose skeleton, retrieved from a royal burial chamber, was eaten by what appears to be metastatic prostate cancer, and an Egyptian woman whose face was all but destroyed by nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Visually the most striking example may be an enormous tumor the size of a basketball growing on the femur of an early medieval Saxon man.

<snip>

In centuries past, fewer people lived long enough to get cancer — something else killed them first. They were probably less likely to be obese and they didn’t smoke cigarettes. There were no chemical factories or processed food. But when you adjust for these factors, you still are left with a baseline rate of cancer — the curse of being complex creatures in a universe awash with entropy.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/fire-in-the-mind/2013/06/23/the-hunt-f...

Not a hard science journal, but an interesting read. Anyway, granted the evidence is scanty. Most cancers occur in soft tissues that decay and disappear. But thus far there isn't a whiff of evidence that people survived cancer before modern medicine.

I don't dismiss any of the voices that have posted, and did not post my last link to make a point on one side or another of a debate, merely because I thought some might find it interesting, as I did. The thread seems to be veering from forum purpose, maybe? 

I have to say, though: if the current state of affairs is the result of "white guilt," I'd hate to see what happened if white people didn't feel guilty. 

Jas, you asked for sources where I said other First Nations people were critical of Annett and whether he was a fraud. You quoted that section of my post and demanded sources. I provided a few. So I don't know why you suggest I didn't answer your question.

As to evidence of surviving cancer pre-chemo, why don't you find the evidence for us, since you're the only one here making the claim that such evidence must exist? Because I haven't seen anything except some late 19th century accounts of (brutal and horrific) early mastectomies that resulted in an excision of breast cancers. Certainly nothing to do with herbal remedies. However, you provide some evidence, I for one am willing to look at it.

That everyone isn't cured by chemo doesn't mean it isn't a cure in many cases and for this particular type of cancer they have a 90% success rate.

In my view the rights of the child supercede all other rights and this child is entitled to life-saving medical treatment. Her indigeneous rights will be meaningless when she is dead and her mother will be devastated.

bagkitty wrote:

jas wrote:

I'm merely trying to get posters like Timebandit and Sineed to understand what they can validly claim (success rates of chemotherapy in these kinds of cancers) and what they can't validly claim ("no other therapies work"). This will help clean up our discussion immensely, and would probably lead most of us to the conclusion that we shouldn't even be posting on this topic.

What you are suggesting is the creation of a control group who are to be deprived of access to a demonstrably effective treatment (chemotherapy) in order to prove that the other therapies they would turn to are less effective (or entirely ineffective). That should clear up the argment immensely, of course, given the preponderance of existing evidence, this is likely to prove detrimental to those individuals who are part of the control group. How do you suggest they are selected... should we ask for volunteers, or select them on the basis of certain observable characteristics?

How should we set up the control groups unless you're suggesting we accept Western based coloonialim above all?

Timebandit wrote:

Jas, you asked for sources where I said other First Nations people were critical of Annett and whether he was a fraud. You quoted that section of my post and demanded sources. I provided a few. So I don't know why you suggest I didn't answer your question. As to evidence of surviving cancer pre-chemo, why don't you find the evidence for us, since you're the only one here making the claim that such evidence must exist? Because I haven't seen anything except some late 19th century accounts of (brutal and horrific) early mastectomies that resulted in an excision of breast cancers. Certainly nothing to do with herbal remedies. However, you provide some evidence, I for one am willing to look at it.

No, you're not willing to look at it. BULLSHIT. full stop. It doesn't matter if I told you Martians found a cure. You wouldn't give a fuck if it didn't match your Western dogma. Go fucking ahead with your COLONIALISM. You don't care to recognize something different. You have your mind made up.

There's been ways where the WEST has beeen WRONG. Ways it has been right. The truth is not known much as you like to make your profession money.

There's a reason youre so vehement in these non-active threads, an interest.

Why dost thou protest so much? Perhaps, something will come to bear? Call me a crank, a heretic, call me whatever u want. Why are u so scared?

Reallly, one child? I don't see you on homelessness threads or child poverty? Why is that?

Are you Jesus, or playing God? You want to decry this shit? Decry Harper withholding funds for 100's of children worldwide, decry all of us doing nothing, don't act sanctimonious over 1 child you have no facts over, just some hocus pocus, hypotheticals over chemo.

For fucks sake,

I don't give a fuck if this is a mistake. Y'all don't care about First Nation wellbeing. You're just beating on a cowbell about it.

Wake me up when u do something about it elsewhere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jGBNn6kQBE

Pardon the posts, dunno why this site gives me a hard time???

Tinfoil hat, lol

Should I take a pill Dr White dude?

Western or not, Sineed, my reading of your posts is an uncritical defence of the Enlightenment project. Scientists know there is still more to discover, surely. You may well not mean that and my reading of your posts may be unfair, but that's how they read to me. 

I hope you do open a thread on "white guilt." I don't think it's operating here, and I'm inclined to think it may be a myth that never operates. But totally worth a thread -- though please, not in this forum, since it will inevitably include numerous defences of colonialsit projects. 

This issue is about "how history and politics (and yes, white guilt) came together to trump the rights of two children to receive health care" for you, and indeed for many others. For some, however, the issue is about sovereignty. Some of those people would agree with you on treatment (link to ricochet) but still disagree on a colonialist imposition of Canadian state decisions, without consent, on any First Nation. There is a long history of colonialism that affects this community in particular -- and the blogger you linked is very much part of the "loyalist" (to Canada) element in Six Nations thought. The elected council, irocically since it was imposed by force of arms by Canada, seems to be siding now with the sovereignist side. There's over a century of these arguments informing this particular case though, and for many people in the community, that's the crux of it all. 

The effect of medical treatment is not cultural bound. For example, the medication I am currently taking will have the same effect on my body regardless of my beliefs.