I have a BIG problem with this—and all cancer quackery—and that's informed consent. Quacks always overpromise and underestimate the risks. Also, these parents are the victims of a con and that's how I view these cases, as examples of fraud that actively harms the child.https://twitter.com/ABatemanHouse/status/1040657617109086210 …
Wrong in this case. Read my 4-part serious to see how horrific this clinic is. That are quacks like Burzynsk, except that they don't even try to do clinical trials even as a marketing tool and their treatment us much more invasive.https://respectfulinsolence.com/2018/07/03/clinica-0-19-not-making-dipg-history-in-monterrey-part-1/ …
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That is, of course, the other problem. The reporter for this story totally missed the boat and treated this as if it were a real experimental therapy.
-
Presumably, it's not. It's not the choice I'd have made. But IF there were true informed consent (which u r correct to question), IF the family is paying (not me, not the country), and IF there is no available evidence it will cause more harm, I'm ok with the parents deciding
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
