A couple of more thoughts on why this is important. 1/https://twitter.com/gorskon/status/1068536459416588288 …
When I finally found the "evidence" published by Drs. Siller and García, I was underwhelmed, to say the least. They've published nothing suggesting their hazardous "everything but the kitchen sink" proprietary method is any better than standard of care. 6/ https://respectfulinsolence.com/2018/09/11/idoi-not-making-dipg-history-in-monterrey-part-4/ …
-
-
I frequently find the same thing about German alternative cancer clinics. News stories frequently neglect to mention their name, only reporting that the patient is going to a "clinic in Germany." 7/
Show this thread -
Frequently, as in the report by
@CTVNews, the clinic is portrayed as offering something "not available" in the patient's home country. The Monterrey clinic was portrayed as offering a "ground-breaking experimental treatment." 8/Show this thread -
German alternative clinics are often similarly portrayed because they offer a mix of unproven conventional therapies plus alternative medicine. Such descriptions are deceptive. 9/
Show this thread -
In reality, what these clinics are doing is highly unethical. They are either charging huge sums of money for unproven therapy or, sometimes, charging patients huge sums of money to be on dubious clinical trials of unproven therapy. 10/
Show this thread -
So, listen up, reporters and editors: Whenever you do a story about a patient seeking unconventional or alternative cancer treatment at one of these clinics, it is your DUTY to name the clinic and the doctors. Anything less is just advertising for quacks. 11/11
Show this thread -
I should clarify. I meant advertising for cancer quackery, not necessarily any individual quack, given that the quack isn't named. 11a/11
Show this thread
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.