Another case of chemotherapy refusal for pediatric cancer

At the end of the day, I do hope that his Cancer doesn’t return – I would never wish that experience on anyone, especially a child.

But, I only need to look into the faces of my own children to wonder what the hell these parents are thinking in not making sure their child has the best possible chance for survival….

As far as Mike Adams – there is a special place in hell for people like him.

I thought Obamacare was supposed to be all about death panels rationing care, and now they’re complaining that it’s really insisting on giving too much care. Do these fools ever listen to themselves?
I can’t wait to see the knots they tie themselves into if the Republicans win this fall. They plan to introduce a program called See-if-I-care.

I wish Unruh hadn’t brought up “Obamacare” in this situation. Using this story as an example of what’s wrong with universal healthcare makes conservatives appear to be grasping at straws for arguments against it. There are perfectly legitimate reasons to be opposed to the healthcare law, none of which include concern over *aggressive* treatment for disease.

This story is so sad I have a hard time not choking up. Especially since I have many Facebook “friends” who post Mike Adams, Natural News crap regularly. I try to respond logically and with a rational rebuttal, but I always get the sound of crickets in return. How frightening to think there are children out there who’s parents listen to such utter nonsense.

Although I certainly couldn’t *prove* it, I get the uncomfortable feeling that woo-meisters like those I survey influence the public in two ways:
to inspire fear and mistrust the medical establishment and
to incite belief that alternative methods work.

Obviously you can’t trace it directly but years and years of spurious articles and amped-up fear mongering take their toll:
a portion of the public doesn’t trust experts’ opinions and would rather take their lives- or their children’s- into their own hands than submit to the ministrations of professionals.

I believe a certain group is targetted by Mike et al: those who already have an axe to grind against the establishment, medical or otherwise. I think he speaks to a movement of dis-satified people who reject ‘elitism’ and corporate power: oddly though, he owns several companies despite his plain-folks, chicken-raising posturings. He and the other idiot display political ambitions as well as they forecast economic and social disasters: seems that the western world is composed of police states, rapidly on the road to ruination( in fact, the other day, radio woo featured a trendcaster who told listeners that he was invested entirely in gold and silver and they should probably do the same. This itself is frightening).

I cannot fathom how followers do not see that these tactics are merely techniques to inspire loyalty that will hopefully lead to purchasing products or services while feeding ravenous egos.

-btw- Lisa Goes @ Thinking Moms’ Revolution also pulls out the N–i card: autism is a H-l-caust.

Ken, yes, cancer can develop chemo resistance. It was discussed in the book Emperor of All Maladies.

I’m pretty sure that Bayer predates IG Farben. I was poking around in pre 1920s medical journals for a project, and I came across a load of Bayer ads, none of which mentioned IG Farben. There are other reasons to pick apart Adam’s argument, but that stands out to me.

It is interesting that the State’s role in pursuing a court decision to have Jacob complete therapy for treatment of his spinal Ewing sarcoma tumor, is supposedly due to the *evils* of “Obamacare”. I seem to recall, many cases, similar to this, where other doctors have notified Child Protective Services about instances of parental medical neglect, long before the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was enacted, that have been brought to the Court’s attention.

Here is an **article about the results, “OS” (overall survival) when treatment is completed with surgery, radiation and first line chemotherapy drugs. Overall survival is reported as “upwards of 70 %”.

http://www.hindawi.com/journals/srcm/2011/863210/

Reading the article, I see that the time of a recurrence of Ewing Sarcoma (under 10 % for early recurrence and over 25 % for recurrence after 2 years of completing initial treatment), has a profound impact on the overall survival rate, as well.

The parents here are playing a dangerous game to the detriment of their child. And, the doctors, Child Protective Services and the Courts have every right to intervene.

**Note the article was published in the “Sarcoma Medical Journal”, which edges out any self-styled cancer expert or any self-styled medicine journalist, writing for a crank right-wing media outlet.

The latest I’ve found in any of our Michigan sources is here:

http://www.uppermichiganssource.com/news/story.aspx?list=~%5Cnews%5Clists%5Crecent&id=729390#.T3DIzuxWqfE

from earlier in March. The brief article ends with the comment that scans in January still showed him cancer-free, but refer only to the parents. The comments are what I’d expect: our northern MI area is quite conservative. I have not seen any recent updates from the Grand Rapids news sources.

K ruuth @ 11: He’s still alive, still pretending the chemotherapy isn’t what kept him alive, but suddenly confronted with cold hard reality:

https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2011/09/abraham_cherrix_still_battling_hodgkins.php

Good grief. Pediatric oncologist=Nazi? Seriously, the dream I had last week where I got into a screaming match with Hitler over the price of a coffee soda (it was &0.11, but then he was mad I didn’t have any deuchmarks, or something) made more sense than the vicious lies Mike Adams pushes.

Sometimes getting better hurts, ask anyone who’s done physical therapy. I wish this kid all the best, but man are his parents dangerously optimistic.

@ Matt F.: Here is an interesting article about State statutes dealing with parental medical neglect:

http://childrenshealthcare.org/?page_id=24

Most of the case law is about medical providers who have reported cases of parental medical neglect to Child Protective Service, for failure to follow-through with treatment for life-threatening diseases. Many, if not all States, require “mandatory reporters” (doctors, nurses, psychologists, teachers and other licensed professionals), to report suspect cases of medical neglect or abuse.

Preventive vaccines seem to be a “gray area”…except perhaps…if a parent refuses to complete the hepatitis B vaccine series, if the child was exposed at birth to his/her mother who is a chronic hepatitis B carrier.

Thank you lilady that sheds a little more light on it.

Doug @24 — I’m very glad to hear about your son!

Maybe it was all that radioactive Potassium-40 in the bananas that killed the last cancer cells.

(I’m kidding. But I’m not kidding about being happy your son is OK.)

Marc Stephens is insane: Thanks for the information. I knew the two were connected somehow, but I didn’t know for sure.

Matt: I read that book. It wasn’t remotely as simple as that: the parents did give their daughter medicine occasionally, but due to illiteracy and cultural differences they tended to be inconsistent and either gave her too much or too little. Out of curiousity, why didn’t you like it?
There was a case in my home state, Minnesota, where the family had a son with leukemia, and the mother fled the state with him. I believe he’s in remission now. Good god, was that family a study in awfulness. There’s no excuse for a white teenager from a stable background to be illiterate.

@ Doug: We are delighted that your son survived ALL…with the excellent care he received from his doctors. Here, at the risk of touting St. Judes Children’s Research Hospital, is an article about their care of children…no matter what their medical insurance is and, no matter what the parental financial resources are:

http://www.stjude.org/stjude/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=0d932066d5e70110VgnVCM1000001e0215acRCRD&vgnextchannel=7cd7ecf652abe210VgnVCM1000001e0215acRCRD

Orac expends too much effort on “P2P”, polemic to polemic, with Mikey here, and the dr/hospitals’ “STFU” agenda (“…Google University”), neglecting useful detail. The hospital, claimed to have a $60,000 per month conflict of interest, apparently is a driving force for interference here. The parents are in effect claiming they did their job, the kid was dosed to MTD and life threatening side effects. Side effects partly cumulative like heart failure risks even beyond adult risks with doxorubicin.

It would be more useful if Orac mentioned, or discussed, statistics of number of treatment cycles vs 5 yr PFS, OS, and perhaps complete responses. This is a non-trivial balancing of benefit and harm case for the individual as well as parental rights, where those particular drugs have seriously life threatening and life changing side effects. No telling how many conflicting medical opinions and errors the parents have already been through, too.

Applying State force to loosely derived (not even specifically FDA approved uses), shifting “standard of care” with highly toxic drugs like “red death” and mustard agents beyond their FDA registration does sound like over reaching, intrusive government in a state that should have other spending priorities.

It might be more useful to have the parents present their experts and a coherent plan of maintenance or follow up, even if experimental or unproven in nature. Katie W’s dad dug deeper for such a challenge, did his homework, and was perhaps closer to accurate predictive assessment and individual optimum than Orac, at least in the short and intermediate terms, so far. e.g. Thursday, November 03, 2005 Insolence, “Mourn for Katie Wernecke…because it looks like she’s doomed.”

Reasonable people might look for a less toxic maintenance regime, perhaps with molecular targets, less toxic substitutions, or immune therapies. It is too bad these parents have their precious time and money diverted by 3rd party legal entanglements, away from providing the best treatment options they can research and identify.

About those N–i references:

A long time ago, I read from a symposium on conflict and aggression from a university: an important topic was de-humanisation of the enemy – doesn’t that sound familiar!
If you follow effluvia from Mssrs Adams, Null or Crosby, you might surmise that SBM physicians and supporters are an entire consortium of demons, succubi and dragons perhaps- certainly to blame for most of the woe on the planet rather than actual flesh-and-blood people many of whom work in the helping professions. So why’s this?

If you feel responsible for your own problems -or your child’s- it can be convenient to cast the blame outside yourself: you had the child vaccinated, he has autism- if you buy AJW’s story- rather than suffer guilt, it becomes the doctor’s and pharma’s fault. Similarly, if you buy into the woo-meme of cancer being caused by what you eat and you are diagnosed, it must be doctors’, the goverment’s or a corporation’s fault for lying to you about diet and selling carcinogens. These bizarre un-realistic theories lend themselves to victim blaming and finger-pointing.

If you see your opponent as something less than human and guilty of myriad crimes, it’s easy to justify your own aggression and anger-fuelled screeching. We’ve often heard commenters hurling invective at us for being partners in crime with pharma- things like this are easy to say if you believe you’re speaking to the devil. Woo-providers keep up this facade in order to keep followers from looking into their leaders’ own lack of morals or listening to our advice.

If our critics listened to us more closely, they might be surprised that we aren’t exactly as they’ve been led to believe: actually, many of us are here because we believe that pseudo-science victimises and abuses people.

@ flip: Here is the actual State of Michigan guidelines for reporting child neglect, medical neglect and abuse…with specific emphasis on “mandatory reporters”…and the penalties “mandatory reporters” might face, if they failed to report suspected cases of neglect or abuse:

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dhs/Pub-112_179456_7.pdf

You will see the issue of “medical neglect” on Page 6 of the guideline manual.

See also my posting # 23 above (last paragraph) about parental refusal to complete a post exposure hepatitis B vaccine series. Upon “reflection”, I would also opine that a parent who refuses HRIG and/or rabies vaccine for a child, who was bitten by a possibly rabid animal, constitutes “medical neglect”

Sorry it’s been a long time since I’ve read the book. Though not a straight and simple case, it a example of the state stepping in. I apologize for the errors in remembering the details of the case.

“As far as Mike Adams – there is a special place in hell for people like him.”
If Hell exists, he is almost certainly a high-ranking member of its labyrinthine bureaucracy.

In fact, some of the chemicals come from the very same sources — drug companies that were once part of IG Farben, the Nazi war crimes chemical conglomerate that was found guilty of crimes against humanity. Today’s Bayer company is an offshoot of IG Farben, in fact, and the former chairperson of Bayer, Fritz ter Meer, was found guilty of war crimes in the Nuremberg trials.

Mein gott, it’s Six Degrees of Nazis.

I didn’t click through to check, but if Mike Ad_ms didn’t bring up the fact that Heroin was a Bayer trademark he missed an opening for further well-poisoning.

Let’s not kid ourselves to what degree elements of Mike Adams’ title are true:
Medical terrorism – the most arguable point, a doctor appears to campaign, suborn judges and public officials, coercively interfere based on statistical arguments from one line of unproven (FDA?) evolving treatments
in Michigan – simple fact
Parents forced by the state – parents are under threats and great pressure from the state, check
to poison their child – simple fact
with cancer-causing chemicals. – simple fact, but other potentially lethal or permanent, life changing side effects are nearer term

While it is stipulated that the chemo is done with therapeutic intent, with the hope of net benefit, these are some pretty nasty chemicals. The point is that, hopefully, damage to the cancer cells exceeds the damage to rest of the patient.

There is a substantial amount of individual variation. Sometimes with highly adverse side effects come durable complete responses on the first treatment, rendering all additional treatments a negative utility. Sometimes patients simply die from a single treatment of chemo.

The doctor suborning judges and public officials apparently represented herself as a treating physcian without ever having seen the patient or parents. In some places, doctors have been prosecuted for this.

I detect some emotional wrestling here with the word, poison. Objective readers should be able to accept the fact with the merest caveat against unlettered prejudices.

One of the issues between “regular medicine” and CAM in the experimental, biological arena, is whether less toxic and/or more effective treatments exist and are physically available, even if less well tested or documented. Some of the differences to be examined are akin to moving from arsenicals to penecillin for earlier dread diseases.

Sometimes patients simply die from a single treatment of chemo.

Would be interested in your source for this statement.

Flip: You’re welcome. I’m honored to be included with lilady. I don’t usually speak up very often around here; I’m not an expert on anything, just another rider on the information highway. This stuff makes me really sad. kids shouldn’t be stuck in hospital beds, but the alternative is worse.

@ flip: *Some* parents think they can *experiment* with their child’s health, by adopting alternative treatments, by feeding their infants a vegan diet and what ever *new theories* of child health that they read about on the internet.

I’d like to think that any person who is not a “mandatory reporter”, and who perceives a case of suspect neglect or abuse would pick up the phone, and call the Child Abuse and Neglect Hotline:

http://www.childhelp.org/pages/hotline-home

Unfortunately, I read of cases where family members, friends and neighbors were aware that *something* was terribly amiss…but they were reluctant to butt in, or didn’t want to *get involved*.

@ Politicalguineapig: I’m blushing now and, thank you.

Some of the problem I’m having with this storyline is its statistical, nonclinically based presumptions:
– what if the boy has had a “true” complete response, already with eradicated cells. There seems to be little effort to further evaluate the biomarker/microscopic situation with extended testing, and earlier warning.
– what if mom is more correct, boy was chemo sick closer to death, the media make her appear to as a denialist, wimpy, or a seeming hypochondriac type whiner. Media bias and incompetence can be formidable in any controversy with technical considerations.
– there appeared to be some doubt on precise diagnosis, perhaps a less virulent version that the body might control.
– although I have my own doubts, what if mom has done enough homework and fit-to-individual to have adopted a competitive protocol with less side effects.

All the while, realizing that some of the odds include that the doctors’ pessimism pans out, unlike Katie W.

chemicals used in the therapy are nasty, but they have to be in order to kill the cancer cells.
This is a central area of hot dispute with biologically based CAM that includes current generic materials and nutrients. The immuno- and natural molecular target therapies are typically not nasty, in fact often the opposite. How to test and target is probably the biggest area for future research and education.

The other problem I’ve seen is that doctors may not believe a complete response or necrosis when they see one, even up close and personal, if it doesn’t fit their expectations of cause (due to apparent lack of [neoadjuvant chemo] cause, they can just shut down).

researchers are busting their humps trying to figure out ways to kill cancer cells without such awful side effects.
paid researchers that have to pursue novel, patentable solutions, preferably not exactly duplicable by independent original means e.g. antibodies.
—-
Oncologists are still generalists, instead of hyperspecialists on a particular problem. Examined closely, the gaps left unquestioned in clinical education, are sometimes jaw droppingly big, where clear answers in favor of the patient are in the literature, and forgotten.

The oncologists I’ve seen have done quite well, including money for boats. Perhaps they are at the top of their phood chain.

prn@61:

The oncologists I’ve seen have done quite well, including money for boats.

OK, so just who are these oncologists? Since you obviously know them well enough to tell us about their lifestyles, let’s have some naming and shaming!

That’s a *boatload* of *what ifs?*…even from prn…our *resident* alternative cancer treatment expert.

The more likely scenario is that:

The parents were told from the onset, that there would be an extended course of treatment, if and when the child showed no evidence on body scans, that preliminary treatment showed no evidence of the tumor.

“Remission” was explained to them, but they didn’t understand…or chose now to deny, that “remission” means just that…and, not “cure”.

The parents have not consulted with any other pediatric oncologists about their opinions, for stopping…or continuing treatment to achieve permanent remission and cure.

The parents have no science backgrounds and do not wish to be informed, once they made the decision to end treatment abruptly.

The parents have chosen for the less painful, less inconvenient *treatment* (no treatment at all), due to their lack of a science and ignorance-of-the-facts stubborn attitudes.

The *only* certainty here, is that prn will offer up her *expertise* on every cancer treatment based on *alternative/CAM* treatments that prn has *investigated* on the internet.

BTW prn, your statement “forced by the state”, shows an even greater ignorance of the law, than your ignorance of oncology and your hatred of oncologists. Way to go, prn!

prn @33:

This is Orac’s blog. If you want a discussion of statistics on treatment cycles, do the research and write one, or hire a doctor or a statistician to do it for you.

I have in fact emailed him recently suggesting that he might be interested in an article I’d seen. But the key points here are “emailed” and “suggested”: I didn’t come over here and tell the whole world that I thought his time would be better spent writing about that than about the topic he’d selected.

Examined closely, the gaps left unquestioned in clinical education, are sometimes jaw droppingly big, where clear answers in favor of the patient are in the literature, and forgotten.

{Citations required}

Justatech@70
Immune modulation for cancer treatment comes in many flavors. CAM doesn’t have a great generally agreed definition, some CAM branches’ materials and methods derive from forgotten, controversial, early, and competitively deprecated science.

Three immune modulating treatment areas outside regular medicine (“CAM”) that I often refer to are: biomarker targeted cimetidine for GI cancers, especially colorectal cancer; beta glucans; and supraRDA amounts of vitamin D3 (vit D3 is definitely a nutrient).

As a person who works on cancer immunotherapy, I respectfully ask that you never again… Thanks for clarifying your conflict of interests. I’m a little wary of the commercial and adversarial denunciations here.

Composer99
I am not here to post 95 theses (too lengthy). Basically, I disagree with doctors who blythely repeat their treatment failures under “standard of care” without addressing these failures in a timely, analytical manner. Where I have results by scrutinizing the literature, and they don’t. Some other doctors even ask me how I achieve some results. Some of these technologies I’ve referred to and referenced previously, others not.

LW@68
Re: “The doctor suborning judges and public officials apparently represented herself as a treating physcian without ever having seen the patient or parents.”
The mother pretty emphatically describes all this. No “degree” needed.

Ah, so prn has no degree, but nevertheless feels free to pronounce on the proper treatment of a patient that prn has never seen, and also feels free to libel a physician by claiming that the physician “suborned judges and public officials”. Fortunately — for prn — prn comments anonymously. Accusing someone of suborning judges and public officials, with no evidence for that statement, is very likely actionable.

By way of analogy:

( True and not a client): a guy has problems with depression-dysthymia, minor anxiety, since he was 16 or so. Despite his condition, he managed getting a
first-rate education and has been successful in business: he’s very intelligent and works hard. However, he believes he knows better than doctors and psychologists *therefore* he hasn’t followed advice ( to take meds) unless if he *likes* them ( anti-anxiotics) and only intermittently takes SSRIs ( in the past, tricyclics) *rather* than taking them regularly ( they need time to ‘build up’). He also likes expensive whiskey. He thus self-medicates and doctor shops. He’s been doing this since getting his degree in the late 1970s. Never been in any trouble or low on cash. He’s otherwise healthy. And looks fabulous.

So what’s the harm? Well, he’s never been really well: he doesn’t give the meds a chance- he tosses them- due to “side effects”. He does what feels good at the time and makes up the rest with alcohol ( only on weekends). He relies upon his career to get him going- he makes great effort to continue. He doesn’t really enjoy himself. I believe that with the correct meds- which would take time, effort, co-operation with a physician, he would most likely, find an anti-depressant that would work better than his current regime.
But it’s not for him. I think *needing* something works against his self-esteem and makes him feel dependent- altho’ he uses the other meds and alcohol. Perhaps the anti-depressants put him in a category he doesn’t accept- that’s the real side effect.

You can’t be an expert on everything: you may need to trust others’ expertise. Sometimes people resist help because it makes them feel weak when they are already down, they don’t want to surrender even more power.

Where I have results by scrutinizing the literature, and they don’t.

And if you’re not sharing that literature, then you’re spouting BS.

You don’t have to go making a case in the comments on Respectful Insolence. Publish a few articles in the medical literature and then share them here (on a topical thread).

Go ahead. I can’t speak for others but I won’t be holding my breath.

@ prn:

Are you familiar with Paul Stamets and Fungi.com?
Source of medicinal mushrooms and lit.

prn claims to be a cancer survivor, who has tried to convince us that her alternative treatments are responsible for her continued survival.

prn also thinks she is an *expert* about all types of cancer and all types of treatment for said cancers. Meanwhile, prn has no medical degree, wants us to believe that her *research* on the internet that locates single ages-old studies, trumps Orac’s Medical Degree and PH.D, his directorship of a major breast cancer research laboratory, his years of post doctoral training in surgery and oncology and his years of experience as an oncology surgeon.

prn can chose whatever treatment for herself, that she desires. Should prn ever have legal guardianship of a minor child who has cancer, prn’s deviation from the standard of care, would be the subject of a Child Protective Services Complaint of medical neglect and would find herself in a courtroom.

See prn, not only are you a pretend practitioner, you know absolutely nothing about the legal system in this country that protects children, from people like you.

I did not intend to convey the thought that prn is making a false claim about her cancer…I further went on to state, “…who has tried to convince us that her alternative treatments are responsible for her continued survival.”

She has not convinced me that “her alternative treatments are responsible for her continued survival.”

(revision)

prn states she is a cancer survivor. She has tried to convince us that her alternative treatments are responsible for her continued survival.

The rest of my comment is not revised.

LL/FTFY Troll@85

Your rants have so many cumulative errors and presumptions about me, you’re a laugh and a half except that it spreads to others. I told you a year ago that you have a seriously unbalanced or stalker like personality that I seriously regard your provocative-assertions-awaiting-correction as a form of fishing, and would not correct any mistakes about myself. I still mean that, “no” means no, again.

I try to share my view, literally from my eyes and my ears. You spray unto me many assumptions as you like, worse than a skunk. *You* make provocative statements I won’t acknowledge or correct, and it snowballs.

The last three oncology surgeons I’ve dealt with are extremely interested in what I have to say. I have real answers to some of their questions, unusual results and interesting questions. In fact when my spouse has accompanied me, there is mirth over their reactions to some of my answers, sometimes like a kid snatching a candy.

Should prn ever have legal guardianship of a minor child who has cancer, prn’s deviation from the standard of care, would be the subject of a Child Protective Services Complaint of medical neglect and would find herself in a courtroom.
This statement is wrong and ill informed on several points, that again involve LL’s ubiquitous, mistaken presumptions. In fact, if LL showed up on my doorstep in such a situation, they would definitely look at her like an alien, probably laugh at her, and then either give her a visit to the local sanatorium or a fast ride out of town. Literally.

I do try to correct factual misstatements about biologically based CAM, because they run so amok here. That doesn’t make me an expert or claimant. It just means I’ve got information and references that you don’t, again.

As for LL’s appeal to authority on an MD-PhD, my favorite cimetidine reference for colorectal cancer has five MD-PhDs attached. So there 🙂

As for Orac, facts are facts. At times Orac doesn’t have a full set, and hasn’t deigned to further fact check his views when I’ve mentioned this. In fact I get the impression he might be politely avoiding this.

…not only are you a pretend practitioner
Your projections unto me again. I consider myself either a civilian, or at most, an unwilling draftee in the War on Cancer.

LL, you know little about me, and it should stay that way. You froth at the mouth like a rabid dog and you like to bite people.

Careful Lawrence, don’t bring Big Media into it! They’re the one’s holding most of these revolutionary new treatments back in order to use cancer as a plot device in soap operas.

prn – perhaps the reason it took you so long to find the mortality and injury statistics from F5U isn’t because the mainstream medical community (sounds like the dreaded mainstream media) isnt’ being coy about reporting them but rather because there aren’t as many as your carefully-worded post suggested.

You doubt the sub-1% mortality numbers? I was only surprised to find the 2% mortality example. Some injury stats were not so hard to find, just mortality.

Not quite Russian Roulette, the DPD-5FU mortalities are pretty traumatic for the families involved. I was dissatisfied because I couldn’t get any stats from the oncologists.

I am not just being antichemo adversarial. Almost two years later, I’m still buying oral type 5FU-LV preparations monthly. I really wanted to know beforehand.

@ prn:

“Your rants have so many cumulative errors and presumptions about me, you’re a laugh and a half except that it spreads to others. I told you a year ago that you have a seriously unbalanced or stalker like personality that I seriously regard your provocative-assertions-awaiting-correction as a form of fishing, and would not correct any mistakes about myself. I still mean that, “no” means no, again.”

“prn” You have stated repeatedly here your alternative/CAM therapies for cancer treatment…for yourself…and for other patients. I haven’t made presumptions about you…I’ve mainly left that task to others who comment here.

You seem to think that I lead the charge of naysayers here and a review of this particular thread disproves that. A review of other threads where you have posted also disproves that. Are you blaming me, because we all are not overly impressed with your “credentials”, your “opinions”, your personal attacks on Orac, your extreme hatred of other oncologists and your fixations on alternative/CAM therapies?

Who seems to be “unbalanced” and who seems to have a “stalking personality” on this thread, prn?

I made my first comment at #15…more a “political” comment about blaming our President for the court intervening in a case of suspect parental medical neglect. I then commented at #23 about the legalities of the CPS and the courts representing a child’s interest.

prn at # 33, you launched into an attack on Orac…suggesting that Orac should blog about another facet of cancer treatment You also fired an opening volley at me because I commented that doctors, CPS and the State have the right (indeed, the duty) to represent the child’s interests.

Throughout this thread, you have be told by other posters, that your alternative medicine/CAM, your constant personal attacks or Orac and libelous statements about oncologists, are inappropriate and unwarranted…by other posters, not me.

prn…the rest of your rant at #89 speaks for itself. You are clueless about the law as concerning minors, you persist in personal attacks on me and, you again slam Orac on a professional and personal level.

About your allegation that I am stalking you, prn. Are you pissed-off that last year, when you were spouted your nonsense and had flooded a thread with cherry-picked and uncited *studies*, I located an old (1938) paper from Japan about one of your favorite non-traditional drugs or magavitamins? I cannot locate that thread prn…perhaps you have it in a folder and can provide it for us.

Antaeus Feldspar @98

That’s a crucial part of your argument, BTW, prn; UNLESS you posit that there is some unpatentable avenue of research which shows strong, definite evidence of providing a MORE effective treatment than anything we have currently, your argument that it must be the insistence on patentability that keeps the really important research from being done falls off a cliff.

For example Peace River and another small town in Alberta got behind DCA research at the University of Alberta. In Peace River people were donating such items as an entire bison* (cut and wrapped) and a load of gravel for auctions.

*Once you’ve had bison, you’ll never go back to beef.

…your constant personal attacks or Orac
You apparently mean any time I civilly voice the slightest correction or disagreement with some part of his blog

prn at # 33, you launched into an attack on Orac
I’ve made no attacks on Orac. #33 Has two parts with respect to Orac:

First I criticized the quality of this specific blog about Jacob and family in that it was focused on polemicizing Mike Adams’ polemic and neglected useful, close detail about Jacob and his disease. I felt Orac should have presented more papers and data relative to the risks that Jacob’s parents were taking with fewer cycles despite early, high response and possible cumulative dose side efects, given Orac’s heavy criticism of them. That is not an attack on Orac.

Second, since this blog concerned a child with early treatment cessation where the parent has some claim to doing their homework, I was reminded about Katie Wernecke where Orac seemed even more pessimistic. This is not an attack on Orac, although I can see where a jihadist might think so because the point might be construed to “desecrate” His infallability.

…not overly impressed with your “credentials”
I try to avoid appeals to authority

… libelous statements about oncologists,
“libelous”, ha ha. Apparently you just parrot LW@68. I had taken the pains to find (not linked though) Jacob’s parents’ emphatic complaint about a nonexamining, nointerviewing, nontreating oncologist for the State representing herself as the treating physician and suborning judges, to the point two judges in series recused themselves!

Yes, the R-I comments section can be a very hostile place with ad hominem “skeptic” attack packs for people with real scientific backgrounds trying to have a sober discussion.

…About your allegation that I am stalking you, prn
You repeatedly demanded personal information, even after I emphatically said “no” and then switched to the heckle and provoke mode on fabricated personal details.

your…#89 speaks for itself…. you again slam Orac on a professional and personal level.
What? I wrote, “As for Orac, facts are facts. At times Orac doesn’t have a full set [of facts],….” That’s a personal/professional slam?? OMG! You really think he’s omniscient. I’ve read Orac’s stuff on certain subjects, and I will tell you point blank, he missed critical facts in his reading, caveats or acknowledgements, because he can’t honestly say what he does without qualification *with* the missing pieces.
It’s a part of being human that it takes time to find, accumulate and process new facts. This is an ongoing problem with you, LL – hyperreactivity to anything you don’t know or that doesn’t fit with your preconceived notions in your once trained universe. A lot of hyper reactivity.

You are clueless about the law as concerning minors,
You are so egocentric in your little Frank Sinatra world (New York…) trying to apply your local laws, malpractices and their interpretations universally. I asked my currently practicing registered nurse yesterday just to be sure. Thankfully we don’t have some of the particular kidnapping and decline problems your area does.

….when you were spouted your nonsense …, I located an old (1938) paper from Japan about one of your favorite non-traditional drugs or magavitamins? I cannot locate that thread prn…
Google and I don’t recall such a notably unusual reference either, perhaps you’ve confused intent to write or with someone else. Or perhaps an interesting combination of ad hominem and confabulation.

I simple don’t know why prn keeps posting here.

She continually criticizes Orac on his posts about cancer care…superimposing her *unique speshul* knowledge about every type of cancer and every type of cancer treatment…just begging for an acknowledgment that she is correct.

“About your allegation that I am stalking you, prn

You repeatedly demanded personal information, even after I emphatically said “no” and then switched to the heckle and provoke mode on fabricated personal details.”

Bullshit prn, here are the questions and the comments about your “monitoring you *immune parameters* at home. I asked you which lab was monitoring which “immune parameters” and you replied that you had a blood draw in the AM and “mailed” the blood to a lab…with the results available to you in afternoon. You provided what you stated were your own personal CBC/differential…then got pissy-eyed, paranoid and accused me of stalking you:

https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2011/02/naturopathy_versus_science.php

“Second, since this blog concerned a child with early treatment cessation where the parent has some claim to doing their homework, I was reminded about Katie Wernecke where Orac seemed even more pessimistic. This is not an attack on Orac, although I can see where a jihadist might think so because the point might be construed to “desecrate” His infallability.”

I cannot follow you about your “jihadist” label…Orac or me…or both of us? Did anyone ever instruct you about the basics of posting on a blog…or libel. You throw around accusations of terrorist! or jihadist! like school girl taunts, but they are libelous.

“You are so egocentric in your little Frank Sinatra world (New York…) trying to apply your local laws, malpractices and their interpretations universally. I asked my currently practicing registered nurse yesterday just to be sure. Thankfully we don’t have some of the particular kidnapping and decline problems your area does.”

Excuse me prn…what does Frank Sinatra have to do with this blog? And, prn, the only State law regarding parental medical neglect was the link I provided, to the Michigan State Law, where the child resides.

I really doubt that you spoke with your “currently practicing registered nurse yesterday” about any of this.

OTOH, prn…you might want to talk to your “currently practicing attorney” about your behavior here, you libelous words, and show your attorney the post that I linked to. Try also speaking to a psychiatrist to get some help for your paranoia and your delusions.

LL@103
My posts, Jan-May, 2011 are fine, far more polite than received, and quite defensible.

Your aggressiveness compounds your ignorance and presumptions. I walked by the nurse while she was fiddling with a heplock, mentioned your doubts to the nurse, and she just laughed.

I might also add that the #1 reason vexatious, domineering tyrants get pissed off around me is that I see facts and complex systems more readily than most, including stupidity complexed with bluster and bs, a very dangerous, highly explosive mixture.

Clearly I was not suggesting Orac as a jihadist, but rather as the recipient of such adulation.

…Frank Sinatra New York, proximate to someone’s center of the universe

only State law regarding parental medical neglect…to the Michigan State Law, where the child resides.
and the Michigan DHS lost its little power play.

Persons casually throwing around legal threats are probably the ones who could profitably invest in a little stop and chat with the psychologist or psychiatrist.

The interactions with LW, Lawrence and Lilady have turned discussion into a circus diversion of personalities, ad hominem and petty word games.

Suborn comes in many sizes, flavors and degrees with various social conventions, and even the occasional criminal charge. I attempted to succinctly condense the situation the first time in #47. I’m done on that subject, for me further discussion is trolling and naked attack.
—-
The real medical issues if people are going to cluck their tongues legitimately or kibbitz productively are:
– The odds and circumstances that Jacob might have an early durable complete response at various treatment levels with conventional tx.
– A real time means of better measuring and estimating the achievement of a likely durable response to foreshorten unnecessary treatment toxicity.
– The type of alternative treatments that might function alone as maintenance, or in a complementary fashion to reduce toxic load of conventional tx.

Has anyone heard what alternative clinic or treatment that Jacob’s parents found since the court case? Thank you in advance for good faith discussions.