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

504 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Fri, 2014-12-12 09:15

6079_Smith_W

I've said upthread that I think it is a hard and challenging decision. I agree with Unionist in saying "I don't know". And I also have a pretty clear opinion about what I think would work medically here, and what I think is a swindle.

But if it is a question of a community being able to make decisions for their own people, and recognizing someone's control over their own body, then no, I don't think the decision-makers failed at all here. And more than anything I base that on the opinions of the people from that community posted upthread. That's why I don't say I think the judge made the wrong decision.

As it happens, my family had a small taste yesterday of how some medical professionals (like plenty of others in authority) can be reflexively and unnecessarily demeaning toward the people they are supposed to serve, and wield the control they have in a way that treats adults like irresponsible children who can't look after or make decisions for themselves.

The experience left a very strong member of my family in tears, and made my blood boil.

I can't imagine how that same experience would feel if it was the same authority that destroyed my community and murdered my family because they knew what was best for us trying to break into my community again and impose their will.

One of the biggest mistakes our people make is that just because we know some facts, we assume we have an absolute understanding (and an equally absolute self-righteous outrage) about what is the right thing and what others are doing wrong.

If we want to talk about who is uneducated and ignorant and who has failed that is what stands out most for me in this situation.

Fri, 2014-12-12 15:13

#303

Bacchus

6079_Smith_W wrote:

As it happens, my family had a small taste yesterday of how some medical professionals (like plenty of others in authority) can be reflexively and unnecessarily demeaning toward the people they are supposed to serve, and wield the control they have in a way that treats adults like irresponsible children who can't look after or make decisions for themselves.

The experience left a very strong member of my family in tears, and made my blood boil.

I can't imagine how that same experience would feel if it was the same authority that destroyed my community and murdered my family because they knew what was best for us trying to break into my community again and impose their will.

My daughter (now 5) was born 3 months early and spent those months in Sick Kids/Mount Sinai in Toronto. Afterwards we would get followups by them to see how she was doing. The last one, when she was 2 1/2, the doctor there said well shes going to be retarded and need special classes. The reason? Because she kept wanting to play with toys instead of do the work the doctor wanted her to do (pick our colours, shapes etc)

My wife was in tears over that. Just got my daughters first report card and lo and behold, the little Bacchanae is the smartest kid in the class, by far

Fucking condescending asshole

Sat, 2014-12-13 10:28

#304

6079_Smith_W

Sineed, just re-thinking what you said about splitting hairs. I know it might seem like that, but it isn't really. Governments don't have to seize children in every case to prove that they have that power. And this has more to do with an organization (or health region if you will, I mean the hospital) trying to force that government to change its decision.

And if anything it is a dispute between communities. THis is not a case of a family going libertarian. By all accounts they cooperated with CFS.

Wed, 2014-12-31 09:10

#305

Unionist

Sineed, on November 17, wrote:

unionist wrote:
Instead of picking apart each other's terminology, I wonder if someone knowledgeable (not me) could comment on what seems to me a much bigger problem than the right of parents to refuse treatment for their children: the deplorable lack of access for indigenous people to the level of health care services available to non-indigenous folks.

I agree about not picking apart terminology - that drives me nuts.

Though I take issue with your statement that FN people don't have access to the same level of health care. They have the same access as anybody else, and in fact it could be argued their access is better because the FN status card also gives them access to a generous pharmacare program.

And the two girls being discussed in this thread were both being treated at one of the top centres in the country before their parents pulled them out of treatment. As someone who has worked in healthcare x nearly 30 years, I see some FN people who are heavy users of health care services. They suffer from a high rate of type II diabetes and have no trouble receiving care for that. For instance, in the north, there are pharmacists whose job is, in part, ordering in large quantities of medications for people going out on trap lines for months.

FN people get all sorts of health care. I really don't get what you mean about a lack of access for them.

My emphasis. Here's one kind of example of how racism and colonialism manifest themselves:

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/lydia-molly-tayara-inuk-woman-say... Tayara, Inuk woman, says cancer went untreated due to discrimination - Complaint about acute stomach pain was met with questions about drinking at Nunavik clinic[/url]

Then there was Brian Sinclair.

And the problems of endemic poverty, unemployment, untenable living conditions, which aren't conducive to good health - and I think we'll agree that prevention is a significant aspect of health care.

Wed, 2014-12-31 09:35

#306

NorthReport

Is part of the problem the untrustworthiness of the drug industry?

Or is part of the problem the untrustworthiness of the government?

Or is part of the problem the untrustworthiness of both?

Wed, 2014-12-31 21:38

#307

Sineed

unionist wrote:
And the problems of endemic poverty, unemployment, untenable living conditions, which aren't conducive to good health - and I think we'll agree that prevention is a significant aspect of health care.

I'm totally on side with you there, U. A weakness of our healthcare system is its focus on treatment rather than prevention.

Though a lack of access to healthcare for aboriginal Canadians is besides the point of this thread (and indeed deserves its own thread). The girls had access to the best healthcare in the world, and refused it.

Wed, 2014-12-31 23:41

#308

6079_Smith_W

Sineed wrote:

The girls had access to the best healthcare in the world, and refused it.

To a point.

When they decided to drag CFS into court and force their way into a decision that was not theirs to make is when they stopped being that best healthcare system.

Thu, 2015-01-01 03:33

#309

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

The problem is that if the girl was white, the court would have more than likely ruled to save her life - or CFS would have intervened. Does it bother anyone else that FN children are expendable to the vagaries of jurisdiction and politics? And yet, how is this any different from the bad old days?

Thu, 2015-01-01 10:42

#310

rhubarb

Do you really think that the parents of these children consider them expendable? Would you be willing to face them and tell them that?

What I find racist, in this situation, is the arrogance of those who are certain they know what is right. In my view, it is just another form of colonialism, just another example of "we know better than you, we have education, we have... and when it gets right down to it, given the opportunity we will take your children again". People who speak that way seem to have learned nothing from our history.

This is the aboriginal issues and culture forum, is it possible to respect that?

6079_Smith_W wrote:

.....

One of the biggest mistakes our people make is that just because we know some facts, we assume we have an absolute understanding (and an equally absolute self-righteous outrage) about what is the right thing and what others are doing wrong.

If we want to talk about who is uneducated and ignorant and who has failed that is what stands out most for me in this situation.

Thank you for that entire post.

Thu, 2015-01-01 11:06

#311

onlinediscountanvils

rhubarb wrote:

Do you really think that the parents of these children consider them expendable? Would you be willing to face them and tell them that?

What I find racist, in this situation, is the arrogance of those who are certain they know what is right. In my view, it is just another form of colonialism, just another example of "we know better than you, we have education, we have... and when it gets right down to it, given the opportunity we will take your children again". People who speak that way seem to have learned nothing from our history.

This is the aboriginal issues and culture forum, is it possible to respect that?

Well said, rhubarb.

Thu, 2015-01-01 11:12

#312

6079_Smith_W

Timebandit wrote:
The problem is that if the girl was white, the court would have more than likely ruled to save her life - or CFS would have intervened. Does it bother anyone else that FN children are expendable to the vagaries of jurisdiction and politics? And yet, how is this any different from the bad old days?

Would they have, though? Remember the point made in that Turtle Island News article, back at #293. The girl's personal decision could not be discounted simply because of her age. That had nothing to do with her FN status, and presumably that is what CFS based their decision on.

And again, I have said enough times that I do find this a challenging decision and a challenging situation, but the supposed right medical treatment is only part of the equation. The other is the ease with which we think it is our duty to force what we think is best on others (and no, we don't just do that to Native people), and the ease with which we blame them, and go as far as to cast ourselves as victims for the trouble we have to go to in saving the ignorant.

Does it bother anyone? I think the answer is a bit more complex than that loaded question. Again, what did that cancer survivor have to say about the court decision, and the family decision?

Thu, 2015-01-01 11:30

#313

rhubarb

Timebandit wrote:
The problem is that if the girl was white, the court would have more than likely ruled to save her life - or CFS would have intervened. Does it bother anyone else that FN children are expendable to the vagaries of jurisdiction and politics? And yet, how is this any different from the bad old days?

First Nations people are not white nor does it seem they aspire to be white. Go figure! This is not about the "vagaries of jurisdiction and politics" this is about a separate people who have their own views and the right to make their own choices.

I am heartened by this otherness of the First Nation Peoples. I see that despite five hundred years of genocide they have not been broken, their connectedness to eachother and to the land is real. Our ancestors, having been thorougly colonized mindlessly repeat the process of colonization, and what is colonization but the commodification of everyone and everything? Did my Scottish ancestors driven from the land to work in the woolen mills grieve for their homes and land and the independence they once had? I suspect so but that history has been erased/forgotten, so thoroughly forgotten that as a society we are willing to impose that same misery on others.

Thu, 2015-01-01 11:48

#314

6079_Smith_W

rhubarb wrote:

I suspect so but that history has been erased/forgotten, so thoroughly forgotten that as a society we are willing to impose that same misery on others.

Truth be told, there are some for whom that is not the case (there was a referendum about it earlier this year), just as there are also some FN people who are willing to act against their own people.

In that at least, we aren't different at all. But that is a topic for another thread.

Thu, 2015-01-01 11:54

#315

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Not expendable to the parents, but apparently to CFS and the courts.

It's not about aspiring to be white - it's about letting the kid grow up to aspire to anything at all.

Thu, 2015-01-01 12:07

#316

rhubarb

6079_Smith_W wrote:

rhubarb wrote:

I suspect so but that history has been erased/forgotten, so thoroughly forgotten that as a society we are willing to impose that same misery on others.

Truth be told, there are some for whom that is not the case (there was a referendum about it earlier this year), just as there are also some FN people who are willing to act against their own people.

In that at least, we aren't different at all. But that is a topic for another thread.

I am not sure what referendum you are referring to? Another thread?

Edited to add:

Sorry, took me a moment, of course I didn't mean the Scottish people have forgotten, I meant that we who immigrated have largely forgotten.

Fri, 2015-01-16 23:02

#317

onlinediscountanvils

Two Row Times: [url=http://www.tworowtimes.com/news/kanienkehaka-girl-left-chemo-no-visible-... visible signs of cancer for Six Nations girl who left chemo[/url]

The 11 year old Kanienkeha’ka girl from Six Nations who was under threat to be removed from her territory and forced back into chemo has undergone testing which reveals she has no visible signs of cancer.

The child, who cannot be named due to a publication ban, went to an Ontario hospital earlier this week for a biopsy. Her family pursued the testing and received a call from doctors Thursday night giving preliminary results that showed both her bone marrow and spinal fluid to be free of cancer.

[...]

Specimens from the biopsy are being fully analyzed at another clinic in the United States for further analysis and the child will pursue the current indigenous medicine and alternative therapies protocol for another 2 years to ensure that she remains in remission.

Sat, 2015-01-17 07:19

#318

rhubarb

Thank you for sharing this news.

Sat, 2015-01-17 12:15

#319

Pondering

I will have to order multiple humble pies because one just won't do it this time.

Sat, 2015-01-17 12:25

#320

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Here's an article with more detail and balance:

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/5262681-girl-who-quit-chemotherapy-for...

Quote:

"There are case reports of people going into remission with minimal or no chemotherapy, but invariably they relapse" says Dr. Bruce Camitta, specialist in pediatric hematology and oncology at Children's Hospital of Wisconsin and the Medical College of Wisconsin.

Otherwise cancer comes back within two to three months on average.

"When you look at their blood, there is no evidence of disease, but it doesn't mean they're cured," he said.

It's possible the girl went into remission because of the limited chemotherapy she received before quitting, Camitta said. She stopped 12 days into her first 32-day cycle. In total, she was supposed to undergo two years of chemotherapy.

"In the old days before chemotherapy … patients went into remission," Camitta said. "It happened rarely … I would hope for the sake of this girl, she's one of the lucky ones."

Wait and see.

Sat, 2015-01-17 12:31

#321

Sineed

Yes, thank you for the update. Unfortunately, it is much too soon to call. According to an oncologist:

Quote:
It’s thus understandable how parents, after seeing the tumor melt away during induction chemotherapy, wonder why all this additional chemotherapy is needed. It’s quite possible that after induction chemotherapy the First Nations girl had no detectable cancer. If that’s the case, it’s the chemotherapy that she’s received thus far that almost certainly caused that result, not any quackery to which Clement has been subjecting her. If the girl is apparently tumor-free, it also means that failing to consolidation and maintenance chemotherapy greatly increases the chance that her leukemia will relapse. Worse, relapsed cancer is always harder to treat. The first shot at treating cancer is always the best shot, with the best odds of eradicating the cancer. Letting cancer relapse through incomplete treatment breeds resistant tumor cells the same way that not finishing a complete course of antibiotics contributes to the development of resistant bacteria. It’s evolution in action.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/ontario-fails-to-protect-the-life-of...

I have emailed Dr. Gorski, asking for his professional opinion. If he replies, I'll post here.

Sat, 2015-01-17 14:50

#322

rhubarb

Timebandit wrote:

....

Wait and see.

What, no happiness that she is well?

Sat, 2015-01-17 14:59

#323

rhubarb

Sineed wrote:

Yes, thank you for the update. Unfortunately, it is much too soon to call. According to an oncologist:

.....

No happiness here.

What a mean spirited, grim and narrow world to live in, a world where insisting on being right supercedes the capacity to celebrate life.

I am doing a happy dance for this girl, her family, her community.

Sat, 2015-01-17 15:12

#324

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

But we don't know that she *is* well. I'm glad she's feeling better right now, but I'm still afraid for her future.

This isn't about being right, it's about understanding that this is not the end of the story and that the reality is more complicated than the superficial statement that she is "cured".

Like the pediatric oncologist I quoted above, I do hope she is one of the lucky ones. I also know that the odds are very much against it.

Sat, 2015-01-17 15:14

#325

Sineed

rhubarb wrote:

What a mean spirited, grim and narrow world to live in, a world where insisting on being right supercedes the capacity to celebrate life.

I am doing a happy dance for this girl, her family, her community.

I am less concerned about being right than the cruelty of telling a child she is cured of cancer when she probably is not.

Sat, 2015-01-17 16:17

#326

6079_Smith_W

Timebandit wrote:

But we don't know that she *is* well. I'm glad she's feeling better right now, but I'm still afraid for her future.

Yup.

Sineed wrote:

I am less concerned about being right than the cruelty of telling a child she is cured of cancer when she probably is not.

And yup. People go years without saying the word "cured".

Sat, 2015-01-17 16:48

#327

onlinediscountanvils

Sineed wrote:

I am less concerned about being right than the cruelty of telling a child she is cured of cancer when she probably is not.

The only ones I've seen throwing around the word "cured" are you, Timebandit and Smith.

There was no mention of her being "cured" in the link I posted, which merely stated that "she has no visible signs of cancer".

I posted it because I thought it was an encouraging and happy development - not because I thought it was the end of this girl's ordeal.

Sat, 2015-01-17 17:12

#328

6079_Smith_W

Actually ODA the first hint of "gotcha" was the mention of humble pies.I think the response was simply to point out that we don't know for sure yet.

Everyone here wishes her well, but we have already had the word "healed" being used in this thread prematurely.

Sat, 2015-01-17 17:50

#329

Pondering

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Actually ODA the first hint of "gotcha" was the mention of humble pies.I think the response was simply to point out that we don't know for sure yet.

Everyone here wishes her well, but we have already had the word "healed" being used in this thread prematurely.

That was my sin. I didn't think she could get better at all without treatment and that the situation was urgent. I now understand that it could come back worse but it hasn't yet and it may not.

I'll eat humble pie just for the fact that she has recovered to this extent without 2 years of chemo. Maybe not getting any conventional treatment is bad, but maybe 2 years of it is excessive. I'm not saying that it is but it is not as clear cut as I thought when this started. I thought it was an early death sentence.

The family has kept her monitored by the conventional medicine so any recurrence or spead could have been tracked. Others in this thread mentioned that the hospital should have tried harder to negotiate the girl's treatment with her mother. I don't know that they are right but they certainly could be right.

Sat, 2015-01-17 19:49

#330

rhubarb

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Sineed wrote:

I am less concerned about being right than the cruelty of telling a child she is cured of cancer when she probably is not.

The only ones I've seen throwing around the word "cured" are you, Timebandit and Smith.

There was no mention of her being "cured" in the link I posted, which merely stated that "she has no visible signs of cancer".

I posted it because I thought it was an encouraging and happy development - not because I thought it was the end of this girl's ordeal.

Precisely.

Right now she is well, I do not know what her future holds, I do not say cure, I say in this moment let us celebrate that she is cancer free, she is well. I recognize that they have sent biopsies off to the United States for further examination. I ask you, if she had been treated conventionally and the tests came back cancer free, would they have sent biopsies off for further testing? I doubt it. This is how our thinking is shaped, they cannot allow people to believe that she is cancer free and so like Fox news they throw it into doubt. Feed the fear.

There are people who recover without subjecting themselves to the toxicity of the cancer industry but those of you who are obedient to it will deny that. Alternately, is it possible that some do not have cancer at all? Perhaps some simply survive the treatment.

Sun, 2015-01-18 18:06

#331

Sineed

Dr. Gorski emailed me back to say he expected this, and noted that a pediatric oncologist consulted on this case said that her chances of recurrence are in the area of 100%. That doctor is quoted in post # 319.

Sun, 2015-01-18 18:29

#332

rhubarb

Sineed wrote:

Dr. Gorski emailed me back to say he expected this, and noted that a pediatric oncologist consulted on this case said that her chances of recurrence are in the area of 100%. That doctor is quoted in post # 319.

The omnipotent doctor. LOL

No response to my question.....

How often are biopsies that come back negative sent to the states for further testing?

Sun, 2015-01-18 19:47

#333

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

If doctors were omnipotent, no one would die of cancer.

Unfortunately, a pediatric oncologist would have a very educated opinion on recurrence because not only will he have seen hundreds of cases personally, he'll also have access to stats based on what other pediatric oncologists have seen. The reason to respect the opinion he gives is not because he has a title, but because he has so much more experience of this than you or I do.

Mon, 2015-01-19 09:52

#334

rhubarb

I will acknowledge that he is an expert, an expert in delivering the standard treatment.

The standard treatments for cancer do not address diet as a consideration, the Canadian Cancer Society says eating glucose is just fine but the PET test for cancer uses radiated glucose because when they do so the cancer cells light up. Cancer cells love glucose. Why is this connection ignored?

Oncologists, as other doctors, receive no training as to how nutrition affects us, nor do we. One only has to stay in a hospital to understand that! The standard of care is to feed people crap, encourage them to believe eating crap is just fine, and then blast people with toxic substances.

Mon, 2015-01-19 11:15

#335

Aristotleded24

rhubarb wrote:
Cancer cells love glucose.

So do non-cancer cells. What's your point?

Mon, 2015-01-19 11:35

#336

rhubarb

Aristotleded24 wrote:

rhubarb wrote:
Cancer cells love glucose.

So do non-cancer cells. What's your point?

Look up the PET test.

My point is that a diet high in glucose feeds cancer cells and that if you have cancer glucose should not be consumed. My point is that if you are sick what you consume makes a difference. My point is that our health or lack of health is profoundly affected by what we consume. My point is that doctors receive no education on the importance of nutrition because our medical system is dominated by pharmaceutical companies that thrive on our ignorance and profit by our misery.

But hey, for those who love crap food, enjoy the chemotherapy carousel. What are the stats now? Seems to me I heard something like one in three of us.

Mon, 2015-01-19 11:53

#337

rhubarb

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Two Row Times: [url=http://www.tworowtimes.com/news/kanienkehaka-girl-left-chemo-no-visible-... visible signs of cancer for Six Nations girl who left chemo[/url]

The 11 year old Kanienkeha’ka girl from Six Nations who was under threat to be removed from her territory and forced back into chemo has undergone testing which reveals she has no visible signs of cancer.

The child, who cannot be named due to a publication ban, went to an Ontario hospital earlier this week for a biopsy. Her family pursued the testing and received a call from doctors Thursday night giving preliminary results that showed both her bone marrow and spinal fluid to be free of cancer.

[...]

Specimens from the biopsy are being fully analyzed at another clinic in the United States for further analysis and the child will pursue the current indigenous medicine and alternative therapies protocol for another 2 years to ensure that she remains in remission.

Read the article, the mother says she was told by doctors that without chemotherapy that her daughter would be dead now, January 2015. Read the article and find that diet is a very important part of the treament protocols they are following.

Mon, 2015-01-19 13:41

#338

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

rhubarb wrote:

Aristotleded24 wrote:

rhubarb wrote:
Cancer cells love glucose.

So do non-cancer cells. What's your point?

Look up the PET test.

My point is that a diet high in glucose feeds cancer cells and that if you have cancer glucose should not be consumed. My point is that if you are sick what you consume makes a difference. My point is that our health or lack of health is profoundly affected by what we consume. My point is that doctors receive no education on the importance of nutrition because our medical system is dominated by pharmaceutical companies that thrive on our ignorance and profit by our misery.

But hey, for those who love crap food, enjoy the chemotherapy carousel. What are the stats now? Seems to me I heard something like one in three of us.

Sorry, that's patently false.

Quote:
Even if one believed sugar feeds cancer, although it might sound logical that eliminating sugar from one’s diet could then stop cancer cells from growing, that’s biologically not how our bodies use food. All food energy — regardless of its source — is converted into identical simple sugars that our bodies use for energy to function. Similarly, our bodies use the same chemical nutrients from foods - regardless of their source. Just like healthy cells, cancer cells don’t care where the sugar comes from. And if you stopped eating completely, your body would then start tearing down fat and muscle stores for energy, but it wouldn’t stop the cancer until you died of starvation. Please don't try this. Following this faulty logic would seriously endanger the life and chances of a cancer patient who needs greater nutritional intakes, not more restrictive diets.

http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.co.uk/2008/03/do-you-fear-sugar-might-ca...

Quote:

All our cells, cancerous or not, use glucose for energy. Because cancer cells are usually growing very fast compared with healthy cells, they have a particularly high demand for this fuel. There’s also evidence that they use glucose and produce energy in a different way from healthy cells.

Researchers are working to understand the differences in energy usage in cancers compared with healthy cells, and trying to exploit them to develop better treatments (including the interesting but far from proven drug DCA).

But all this doesn’t mean that sugar from cakes, sweets and other sugary foods specifically feeds cancer cells, as opposed to any other type of carbohydrate. Our body doesn’t pick and choose which cells get what fuel. It converts pretty much all the carbs we eat to glucose, fructose and other simple sugars, and they get taken up by tissues when they need energy.

While it’s very sensible to limit sugary foods as part of an overall healthy diet and to avoid putting on weight, that’s a far cry from saying that sugary foods specifically feed cancer cells.

http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2014/03/24/dont-believe-the-hype...

Quote:

Sugar doesn't make cancer grow faster. All cells, including cancer cells, depend on blood sugar (glucose) for energy. But giving more sugar to cancer cells doesn't speed their growth. Likewise, depriving cancer cells of sugar doesn't slow their growth.

This misconception may be based in part on a misunderstanding of positron emission tomography (PET) scans, which use a small amount of radioactive tracer — typically a form of glucose. All tissues in your body absorb some of this tracer, but tissues that are using more energy — including cancer cells — absorb greater amounts. For this reason, some people have concluded that cancer cells grow faster on sugar. But this isn't true.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/cancer/in-depth/cancer-cau...

Mon, 2015-01-19 14:13

#339

rhubarb

The mother states she was told by the doctors, the same doctors you rely on for your quotes and expertise, that her daughter would be dead right now if she halted chemotherapy, she halted chemotherapy, employed diet and other modalities, and not only is her daughter alive but apparently cancer free. Are you paying attention to that? What do you think that does for you and your doctors credibility? So blah, blah, blah all you want.

I will say it again because I think it is so important to understand, THE DOCTORS TOLD THE MOTHER, STOP CHEMOTHERAPY AND YOUR DAUGHTER WILL BE DEAD BY JANUARY OF 2015. This is what they do, they use fear to control us, they use misinformation to confuse us and when that doesn't work they use the courts to try to break us.

There are endless studies you can quote that support the status quo, quote them all, they all support our ignorance as apparently you do. I don't give a flying fig, with my own eyes I see that those who swallow crap, look like crap, feel like crap, get sick and die early.

Please note I am not suggesting that anyone diagnosed with cancer will heal themselves by simply avoiding sugar.

Mon, 2015-01-19 14:35

#340

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Do you have that from the doctors, the mother, or both?

They may have said any number of things, they may have been absolute, or the mother may have heard an absolute where there was none. That can happen to the best of us in a conflict or crisis situation. I wouldn't take it as a statement that should be carved in stone, and in my experience most oncologists are very careful about absolutes.

Perhaps we can revolutionise medicine by relying on your anecdotes. Wouldn't that work better than relying on those bad old doctors with their knowledge and studies and things that have been proven to work.

ETA: removed sarcastic, over the top comment.

Look, the pediatric oncologist I quoted upthread has a clear and definite explanation about induction chemotherapy has bought the kid some time. I'm glad that's worked, but she's not out of the woods yet, and pretending that she is and that it's because she went vegan is just irresponsible. Her life is still hanging in the balance - that much hasn't changed.

Mon, 2015-01-19 14:41

#341

rhubarb

Timebandit wrote:

Do you have that from the doctors, the mother, or both?

They may have said any number of things, they may have been absolute, or the mother may have heard an absolute where there was none. That can happen to the best of us in a conflict or crisis situation. I wouldn't take it as a statement that should be carved in stone, and in my experience most oncologists are very careful about absolutes.

Perhaps we can revolutionise medicine by relying on your anecdotes. Wouldn't that work better than relying on those bad old doctors with their knowledge and studies and things that have been proven to work.

Have you got any anecdotes about ponies that fart rainbows? Oh, wait, I know a guy down to block who was abducted by aliens - let's send him to NASA, I'm sure he could teach them a thing or two, relying on those damn physics and such...

Read the article in which the mother says she ws told this by her doctors.

Insulting me by suggesting my comments are on par with ponies farting rainbows only reveals the paucity of your point of view. By the way, ominpotent only means "all knowing" and infers nothing about them having the power to cure cancer, only that they think they know everything which they don't because in this case they were WRONG. And if they were wrong about this what else are they wrong about?

Mon, 2015-01-19 14:43

#342

rhubarb

Timebandit wrote:

Do you have that from the doctors, the mother, or both?

They may have said any number of things, they may have been absolute, or the mother may have heard an absolute where there was none. That can happen to the best of us in a conflict or crisis situation. I wouldn't take it as a statement that should be carved in stone, and in my experience most oncologists are very careful about absolutes.

Perhaps we can revolutionise medicine by relying on your anecdotes. Wouldn't that work better than relying on those bad old doctors with their knowledge and studies and things that have been proven to work.

ETA: removed sarcastic, over the top comment.

Look, the pediatric oncologist I quoted upthread has a clear and definite explanation about induction chemotherapy has bought the kid some time. I'm glad that's worked, but she's not out of the woods yet, and pretending that she is and that it's because she went vegan is just irresponsible. Her life is still hanging in the balance - that much hasn't changed.

That's offensive, you insult me but very quickly remove the insult, is that a strategy you employ regularly?

Mon, 2015-01-19 14:52

#343

rhubarb

I am not pretending anything, read my comments.

You seem quite at ease misinterpreting what I say to dismiss me, I never suggested that going vegan resulted in her being cancer free, please find a quote to back that up or remove the above statement in which I am referred to as irresponsible for doing so.

Thank you for the entertainment value of your frustration with me, the fact that you lie about what I say says to me you are not a person whose arguments are credible.

Mon, 2015-01-19 15:13

#344

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

rhubarb wrote:

I am not pretending anything, read my comments.

You seem quite at ease misinterpreting what I say to dismiss me, I never suggested that going vegan resulted in her being cancer free, please find a quote to back that up or remove the above statement in which I am referred to as irresponsible for doing so.

Thank you for the entertainment value of your frustration with me, the fact that you lie about what I say says to me you are not a person whose arguments are credible.

Look, you're making some implications without making direct statements. I posted a link and quote specifically about the PET/glucose/cancer cells issue, since you brought it up. Most people who point in that direction take the view that you can "starve" a cancer by cutting out sugar, a conclusion directly derived from the idea that "cancer loves sugar". If that's not what you were implying, then I'm not sure what your point is.

I don't think any of what I said in response to your posts constitutes "lying" about you.

Nobody is denying that eating a healthy diet is beneficial - but the sugar and cancer link is something that doesn't have a lot of evidence behind it.

Mon, 2015-01-19 15:14

#345

rhubarb

I did contact a moderator regarding your comments.

I finding it extremely offensive that you tell me I am irresponsible for saying something I did not say, once again back it up or take it back. You attack me and plead "only human" which offers no acknowledgement that you were WRONG to do so. If you were a person of integrity, in my view, you would apologize for the slander.

Mon, 2015-01-19 15:14

#346

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Quote:
That's offensive, you insult me but very quickly remove the insult, is that a strategy you employ regularly?

Sometimes my mouth gets ahead of my judgment. I'm only human. I hit post and in under a minute regretted the content and changed it. I could have simply not noted the deletion, but on the off chance someone did click in and see it, I thought I should be honest about it. If you'd like to consult a moderator for the appropriateness of the action, please do and I will abide by their judgment on how I should post in future.

Re: "They were wrong." You don't know exactly what they said, nor do I. However, I've never heard an oncologist say something like that in such an absolute manner, so I have some doubts about the context and what exactly was said.

Even if they were wrong that she wouldn't go into remission, that has no bearing on the frequency with which such remissions lapse or the odds of survival without the full round of treatment. There's no black and white here, just probabilities. The facts aren't going to change because you feel they *could* - what is possible is often less important than what is probable.

Mon, 2015-01-19 15:19

#347

rhubarb

Timebandit wrote:

..... I'm glad that's worked, but she's not out of the woods yet, and pretending that she is and that it's because she went vegan is just irresponsible. ......

Read what you wrote, you said I said...going vegan and you said it was irresponsible...I never said that and I am not irresponsible.

Mon, 2015-01-19 15:19

#348

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

If you didn't see it, how do you know it constitutes slander?

It didn't, btw. It was just sarcasm. On thinking about it, I realized it wouldn't add anything to the discussion and removed it. Would you have preferred me to leave it stand?

Mon, 2015-01-19 15:25

#349

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

In post #338, you make the implication here (italics mine):

Quote:
The mother states she was told by the doctors, the same doctors you rely on for your quotes and expertise, that her daughter would be dead right now if she halted chemotherapy, she halted chemotherapy, employed diet and other modalities, and not only is her daughter alive but apparently cancer free.

I'm not sure how else I'm supposed to understand the above other than a promotion of the vegan diet and a denial of the value of chemotherapy.

I stand by my opinion that such implications are not only ill-considered but irresponsible.

Mon, 2015-01-19 15:29

#350

rhubarb

I am not referring to your sarcasm, the sarcasm you removed is posted upthread as I quoted you when I saw it.

Please read what I am saying, we are posting at nearly the same time and I think you have missed my point. Once again, you accused me of pretending she was fine and being irresponsible for saying a vegan diet was the reason. I challenge you to back that statement up and if you can't back it up, TAKE IT BACK.

Mon, 2015-01-19 15:35

#351

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Ah, so you did see it. Fast on the trigger, aren't you? I had it down within 30 seconds. It still isn't a slander, and technically, I didn't think it actually contravenes policy (I'll take a correction if the mods think it does), but it was unnecessarily mean and I removed it.

My apologies.

I have read what you've been saying, and you're incorrect about some things. I've provided links to show you that it's not just my opinion but accepted medical fact.

Pages

Topic locked