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 …
-
Show this thread
-
Here's an even bigger problem with this. The child is a separate entity, and subjecting a child to a completely unproven treatment ignores the rights of that child as a separate entity with his own rights. That the parents worked for the money matters not at all to me.
2 replies 2 retweets 19 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @gorskon
We let parents make kids' medical decisions unless convicted of child abuse/deemed incompetent/etc; often parents chose things we may not support. If evidence that desired intervention is harmful, we should go 2 court. But if no evidence either way....leave it to the parents IMHO
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ABatemanHouse
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/ …
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @ABatemanHouse
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @gorskon
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ABatemanHouse
When this is so obviously quackery, I am not. In fact, I'd be seriously tempted to call medical neglect here.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @gorskon
I respect your opinion! And I know we share the same burning hatred of quacks who prey on the vulnerable.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ABatemanHouse
So would you be OK with it if the parents had taken their child to Burzynski? Because, really, this situation is no different. In fact, it's arguably worse than Burzynski, as there isn't even the pretext of a clinical trial overseen by the FDA.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @ABatemanHouse
David, I'm not sure whether the right metaphor is dancing on the head of a pin or splitting hairs, but whatever it is, you're doing it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Not at all. I'm simply making the point that these quacks in Mexico are AT LEAST AS BAD as Burzynski, nothing more.
-
-
Replying to @gorskon @SteveJoffe
I don't know enough to judge. With Burzynski, we at least have years of evidence that his treatment isn't helpful. Do we have that from the Mexico clinic? (Ducks) (We may, I just was under the impression its newish.) (Ducks again)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ABatemanHouse @SteveJoffe
We have at least two years of their own crappy data that show no effect that can't be explained by selection bias.https://respectfulinsolence.com/2018/09/11/idoi-not-making-dipg-history-in-monterrey-part-4/ …
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
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.