Relay for life

[Knoxville]

2 hours ago, dilligaf said:

and you very ignorant. Simple as that

And you’re a utter helmet, simple as that 

[dilligaf]

18 minutes ago, Knoxville said:

And you’re a utter helmet, simple as that 

I bet you say that to all the boys

[p3t3]

7 minutes ago, dilligaf said:

I bet you say that to all the boys

Paedo chat up lines from the seventies?

[dilligaf]

1 minute ago, p3t3 said:

Paedo chat up lines from the seventies?

You would know eh ?

[manxman1980]

2 hours ago, Lxxx said:

Calm down dear. Let adults be adults.

And that about sums up your argument on the subject.  You know that you cannot make a sensible argument for your position so instead you try to deflect and avoid awkward questions.

[Lxxx]

8 hours ago, manxman1980 said:

And that about sums up your argument on the subject.  You know that you cannot make a sensible argument for your position so instead you try to deflect and avoid awkward questions.

It’s really quite simple, it doesn’t need a ‘sensible argument’. Everyone can, if they wish, do their own research and follow their own path. Your insistence that people should do as you do is a little patronising. You need to worry less about what other people do and more on yourself it seems. 

[John Wright]

1 hour ago, Lxxx said:

It’s really quite simple, it doesn’t need a ‘sensible argument’. Everyone can, if they wish, do their own research and follow their own path. Your insistence that people should do as you do is a little patronising. You need to worry less about what other people do and more on yourself it seems. 

The trouble with that is the reliability of the internet, and the extravagant, and often false, claims, or at least claims that aren’t backed up by clinical, peer review research, for the alternative, complementary, macrobiotic, cannabis therapies.

Some of the promoters of alternative therapy are definitely in the flat earth and conspiracy theory camps, others are definitely snake oil salesmen. Some are genuine. The only way we can be sure is proper research.

That being said, there are unreliable pieces of medical research, I can’t deny that.

Ive nothing against taking something that you believe in, it’s the placebo effect, after all, I’ve nothing against a person looking at conventional treatments, surgery, chemo, radio, weighing up their downsides, and taking a reasoned decision to not partake and rely on things that give a pain free, comfortable rest of your life, instead of the serious side effects of conventional treatments that can leave you with poor quality of life.

If I was diagnosed with a terminal condition I can’t say I’d try anything, at any price, to extend life, at a cost of quality of existence, over choosing the ability to live a shorter time, pain free and with comfort and dignity.

[Lxxx]

20 hours ago, John Wright said:

The trouble with that is the reliability of the internet, and the extravagant, and often false, claims, or at least claims that aren’t backed up by clinical, peer review research, for the alternative, complementary, macrobiotic, cannabis therapies.

Some of the promoters of alternative therapy are definitely in the flat earth and conspiracy theory camps, others are definitely snake oil salesmen. Some are genuine. The only way we can be sure is proper research.

That being said, there are unreliable pieces of medical research, I can’t deny that.

Ive nothing against taking something that you believe in, it’s the placebo effect, after all, I’ve nothing against a person looking at conventional treatments, surgery, chemo, radio, weighing up their downsides, and taking a reasoned decision to not partake and rely on things that give a pain free, comfortable rest of your life, instead of the serious side effects of conventional treatments that can leave you with poor quality of life.

If I was diagnosed with a terminal condition I can’t say I’d try anything, at any price, to extend life, at a cost of quality of existence, over choosing the ability to live a shorter time, pain free and with comfort and dignity.

Of course, but you can say that about any topic. We live in the age of information, it’s up to the individual to discern what is and what isn’t sensible and suitable for them.

If thalidomide for example were introduced today it would be a lot easier to find information to enable you to make a more informed judgement on it before accepting your doctors recommendation. 

It comes down to free will and we all have the option to go down any route we wish to medically.

If you were in China you may look upon western medicine as inappropriate and follow Traditional Chinese Medicine which has a long and established history. In India to may choose to go down the ancient Ayurvedic route. It’s arrogant to assume everything but the relatively new western medicine is woo woo.

So what if people die choosing to go down  a different route, no medical treatment is without risk. It’s a free world and we’ve all got to go sometime.

[Uhtred]

9 minutes ago, Lxxx said:

Of course, but you can say that about any topic. We live in the age of information, it’s up to the individual to discern what is and what isn’t sensible and suitable for them.

This is true, but the advent of the internet -  the “age of information” - has exponentially increased the opportunities available to the nutters and snake oil salesmen thatJohn refers to (just as it is a global mouthpiece for all sorts of bitter, fucked-up, agenda-driven minority views that were previously confined to gloomy corners of back rooms and pubs). Consequently, research by individuals seeking informed and reliable data becomes more hazardous and unreliable by the day. Great swathes of the Internet are, frankly, dangerous cesspits so poor old Joe (or Juan) Public is at more of a disadavantage than ever IMO.

[John Wright]

2 hours ago, Lxxx said:

Of course, but you can say that about any topic. We live in the age of information, it’s up to the individual to discern what is and what isn’t sensible and suitable for them.

If thalidomide for example were introduced today it would be a lot easier to find information to enable you to make a more informed judgement on it before accepting your doctors recommendation. 

It comes down to free will and we all have the option to go down any route we wish to medically.

If you were in China you may look upon western medicine as inappropriate and follow Traditional Chinese Medicine which has a long and established history. In India to may choose to go down the ancient Ayurvedic route. It’s arrogant to assume everything but the relatively new western medicine is woo woo.

So what if people die choosing to go down  a different route, no medical treatment is without risk. It’s a free world and we’ve all got to go sometime.

There’s a significant difference between properly conducted, peer reviewed research and anecdotal opinion based, at best and exploitative at worst, articles.

Im all in favour of freedom of choice, but I’m not in favour of the choice being ill informed. 

Im not against alternative, indeed Chinese , or folk, medicine and remedies. As long as it has been rigorously tested.

The main drug I was given was developed  in China. But it’s been tested all over the world. And it works.

[Lxxx]

8 hours ago, John Wright said:

There’s a significant difference between properly conducted, peer reviewed research and anecdotal opinion based, at best and exploitative at worst, articles.

Im all in favour of freedom of choice, but I’m not in favour of the choice being ill informed. 

Im not against alternative, indeed Chinese , or folk, medicine and remedies. As long as it has been rigorously tested.

The main drug I was given was developed  in China. But it’s been tested all over the world. And it works.

But my point is still the same. Let adults be adults. If someone wants to treat their cancer with boiled dock leaves and horse shit because they have read it on the internet, for example, then let them. 

You’re supposedly in favour of freedom of choice but it doesn’t sound like it. If a certain herb has been used successfully for centuries in China for a certain ailment but no company has either the funds nor the inclination to spend large sums of money on a large double blind, placebo controlled study because it’s natural and therefore cannot be patented then it should be dismissed? Come on. That’s arrogance of the highest order. We have plenty of Chinese on the island, some of whom I know, and they follow the same medicine they and their relatives have used for generations. I wouldn’t dream of telling them they’re bonkers and to toddle off to Nobles instead. 

Let people decide whatever they want to do. 

[John Wright]

29 minutes ago, Lxxx said:

But my point is still the same. Let adults be adults. If someone wants to treat their cancer with boiled dock leaves and horse shit because they have read it on the internet, for example, then let them. 

You’re supposedly in favour of freedom of choice but it doesn’t sound like it. If a certain herb has been used successfully for centuries in China for a certain ailment but no company has either the funds nor the inclination to spend large sums of money on a large double blind, placebo controlled study because it’s natural and therefore cannot be patented then it should be dismissed? Come on. That’s arrogance of the highest order. We have plenty of Chinese on the island, some of whom I know, and they follow the same medicine they and their relatives have used for generations. I wouldn’t dream of telling them they’re bonkers and to toddle off to Nobles instead. 

Let people decide whatever they want to do. 

Many of the articles promoting alternative cancer treatments would be illegal if uploaded from IoM or UK, for very good reason.

https://legislation.gov.im/cms/images/LEGISLATION/PRINCIPAL/1942/1942-0001/CancerAct1942_2.pdf

I’m not saying don’t try alternatives, but in life or death situations I am saying that there are good reasons for stopping sharks and charlatans exploiting the weak and vulnerable.

Thats not arrogance, it’s how a liberal democracy works. 

 

[Lxxx]

2 hours ago, John Wright said:

Many of the articles promoting alternative cancer treatments would be illegal if uploaded from IoM or UK, for very good reason.

https://legislation.gov.im/cms/images/LEGISLATION/PRINCIPAL/1942/1942-0001/CancerAct1942_2.pdf

I’m not saying don’t try alternatives, but in life or death situations I am saying that there are good reasons for stopping sharks and charlatans exploiting the weak and vulnerable.

Thats not arrogance, it’s how a liberal democracy works. 

 

So you’ve said, numerous times. We get it. Not everyone agrees with you though, which is how a liberal democracy works. 

[manxman1980]

I am not an advocate of state control but I do think there are areas where we need to be careful when promoting freedom of choice.  I have no problem with people choosing to try different treatments for cancer or alternative methods of pain relief,  however, I believe where you and I fundamentally disagree is on what constitutes an informed choice.

An informed choice can only be made if the person is fully aware of the possible consequences of their choices and as John has pointed out there are plenty of people willing to exploit desperate people to make a quick profit. 

If someone wants to try something else then I would encourage them  to speak to their specialist about it and say, "I am thinking about trying X,Y and/or Z.  Will that have any impact upon the treatments you are proposing?  Is it safe to combine both?" etc etc.  You know, actually getting a medical opinion from someone who knows what they are talking about rather than just a blog or article on the internet. 

I would never advocate forcing someone to have a specific treatment if they did not want it, unless in doing so they put others at risk (vaccinations for instance).  

[John Wright]

16 hours ago, Lxxx said:

So you’ve said, numerous times. We get it. Not everyone agrees with you though, which is how a liberal democracy works. 

I think you are missing the point. Liberal democracies protect the weak and vulnerable. 

Anyone should be free to choose medical treatments, whether Chinese, herbal, traditional, homeopathic or conventional. However there does need to be a restriction on promoting and selling harmful products and for the very vulnerable there needs to be extra protection.

Thats why there needs to be protection, to allow any internet searching to provide balanced articles, results, academically conducted peer reviewed results rather than hocus pocus.

Your point about no one wanting to test alternative medicines because there isn’t money in it for big pharma is just an excuse. It’s not valid. If the remedies are efficacious then there’s every reason for medical research, and rewards and dividends. Many medicines have been developed from plants, from Collis Browns mixture ( a morphine based baby pacifier - stopped them crying, made them sleep)  to aspirin to all sorts. There’s lots of research going on now, especially into South American traditional remedies.

Thing is for maximum efficacy, an safety, the drug neeeds to be standard strength and measured dose. I wouldn’t suggest chewing a few poppy seeds, or some birch bark for reliable results, but might be amenable to taking tramsdol or aspirin in appropriate circumstances.

Its true that the plants aren’t patentable, but the process of extracting and purifying is.

So why don’t these things get tested? Well, there is one  very obvious conclusion, they aren’t really as effective as claimed