Quack fleeces terminally ill with Vitamin C

Fundraising for leukaemia patient in the key of C

This is a terrible position to be in and I really feel for Kurt. He has terminal leukaemia and chemo has failed. You can understand the family being in a desperate place. It's abhorrent that people are willing to take advantage of someones desperation like this though.

Kurt is receiving Vitamin C intravenously.

I'm not going to rant about the treatment, the lack of evidence, the cost (that is crippling the family)... Hit the article and jump in to the comments. The more voices we have telling them that it's wasted money the more likely it'll be that they put the money towards something more worth while.

What I will comment on is the total fail of the reporter.

They start by saying that the treatment is "relatively unknown". Later in the article they say "Using high doses of vitamin C as a cancer treatment has been debated for decades" which is an odd thing for something relatively unknown.

Filiga is being treated at the Karanga Health Centre. His doctor, Tessa Jones, said many doctors were unaware of the vitamin C treatment because it was not taught at undergraduate level.

I think this is likely due to that fact that there are no studies that show that it works. Personally I'd prefer my medical professionals to be trained in evidence based medicine. Wouldn't you?

Shaun Holt is given lip service but it doesn't appear that the reporter asked the family what they thought of what he had to say on it.

Trackback URL for this post:

http://skepticsinthepub.net.nz/trackback/192

This "treatment" was

This "treatment" was administered to my father by a quack when he was in late stage prostate cancer. This caused massive kidney failure and robbed him of much of his quality of life remaining to him in his last 6 months. This "doctor" was later made to submit to a couple of years supervision after we made a complaint.

But of course he's still practicing his quackery....

I am a critical thinking

I am a critical thinking fanatic plus I happen to know that vitamin C is not toxic in any amount, so your statement above is not logical and is erroneous. What you should be saying is that his kidney failure robbed him of much of his quality of life.The fact is that his body was already packing up.

Shill for Big Orange

Regarding your claim that "vitamin C is not toxic in any amount" can you please provide citations please. If not, you won't find this group thinking much of your claim to be a "critical thinking fanatic".

As I understand it vitamin C toxicity is very rare as it's not fat soluble so the body doesn't retain it in fatty tissue and it's flushed out. Filtering it out of the system is the part of the job of the kidneys. Given the state Robs father was in the less stress on the system the better it would have been for him. So while vitamin C toxicity may have been unlikely in a healthy adult the extra strain put on his system by having to clean out all that surplus quack juice could definitely have been a factor in the kidney failure.

You may want to work on the "critical thinking" part of your initial claim before posting next time. Either that or you're a shill for Big Orange.

Also, given that you're talking about the death of a members parental unit you could show a little more respect and be less of an arse when choosing your words.

Your thinking is unscientifc as are most of the opinions on this

I was only being clinical. No offence was meant. Clinical = scientific = cold.
Cold facts.
Speaking of facts - have you got enough of them together to come to your judgement of this case?
Example: What were the variables in this case? For example,

1) Had the above patient been receiving chemio treatment?- If so, for how long?
2) What is the composition of the "chemio" substance used?
3)What are the effects on the other organs after long term and repeated sessions.

UNTIL and WHEN you can answer these questions , your opinion and judgement are INVALID and based on IGNORANCE..
(As are most of the opinions on this website)
I can beat any one of you in a real SCIENTIFIC debate which will prove YOU to be the "pseudoscientific" thinkers - That which you criticise!!!
Which makes you hypocrites.

If you were seriously being

If you were seriously being clinical about this, you'd ask the same questions of the claims about Vit C and present some evidence for that in defence instead of engaging in a bait and switch and trying to fix on medical treatment as being the problem rather than the use of an treatment of unknown effectiveness. So hop to it, if you can beat us easily, stump up with your evidence and have that debate. None of this nonsense about anyone else answering first, if you've got something there go for it instead of blustering and issuing fake challenges.

In patients with existing renal conditions Vit C may make the problem worse. You have no right to ask for a person to post their or others personal medical history on the internet and if a person can't spell chemotherapy (or even the abbreviation) correctly, it's unlikely that you would understand any explanation in any case. It's an good indication that the person doesn't understand medical terminology or the treatment of prostrate cancer (which actually involves one or more of surgery, radiotherapy and hormone treatment in most cases not chemotherapy). This is proven to be effective, with as an example one year survival rates improving from 65% (1971-75) to 93% (2004-06) in the UK. You can't say that for Vit C quackery. There is no stats for a treatment someone literally pulled out of their ass one day as the miracle cure for all that ails us.

Wow... where to begin

I was only being clinical. No offence was meant. Clinical = scientific = cold.
Cold facts.

I believe that no offense was meant. However, with respect to "Clinical = scientific = cold", this doesn't excuse the delivery of your comments.

Speaking of facts -

Yeah, speaking of facts you've yet to actually provide any. Maybe you should do this before continuing?

have you got enough of them together to come to your judgement of this case?
Example: What were the variables in this case? For example,

1) Had the above patient been receiving chemio treatment?- If so, for how long?
2) What is the composition of the "chemio" substance used?
3)What are the effects on the other organs after long term and repeated sessions.

You're right, I don't have all the facts. I was speaking generally though. You made a broad sweeping statement ("I happen to know that vitamin C is not toxic in any amount" [emphasis mine]) which is what I was addressing. Aside from the fact that this statement is demonstrably false, you fail to address the point that if you pump anything into the body it has to be cleaned up eventually. Given VitC is not stored, any of it not used (and we don't need a lot) is removed via the kidneys. Given the excessive amount involved with VitC mega dosing it's not implausible that the procedure couldn't have contributed to the Renal failure. If you choose to address this please note that you should back your position up with some studies or similar. You're the one claiming VitC mega dosing is totally harmless. I'm postulating that it could have been a contributing factor to the renal failure given the nature of the treatment and the task of the organ in question.

Do you also realise that this same claim you've made (insufficient data) applies to you and the claims you've made? Despite this you happily sit there proclaiming your position like a true believer.

UNTIL and WHEN you can answer these questions , your opinion and judgement are INVALID and based on IGNORANCE..
(As are most of the opinions on this website)

Ohh... Shouting. That's really convincing. Everyone knows the louder you are the more correct you are.

To address the subject of your mini-rant though; I'd rather be ignorant than arrogant.

Ignorance is easily fixed through exposure to, and acceptance of the facts as they are currently understood. Whether that is in the form of reading the studies yourself or relying on the opinion of others that are well respected within their fields within the scientific community who have read the literature and distilled the general consensus from it makes little difference.

Arrogance is still fixable though. Although the first thing you need to get over is that giant ego. Sometimes that's insurmountable.

I can beat any one of you in a real SCIENTIFIC debate which will prove YOU to be the "pseudoscientific" thinkers - That which you criticise!!!
Which makes you hypocrites.

And here's that insurmountable ego I was mentioning...

Okay, lets break this down;

I can beat any one of you
Argument from ignorance: You can't possibly make this claim because you have one major point against you here; You cannot know the knowledge base available to every one of us, so how can you be sure your knowledge base is more complete or, for that matter, more accurate?
I can beat any one of you in a real SCIENTIFIC debate
"a real SCIENTIFIC debate"? As opposed to what? A real pseudoscience debate maybe?

In order to be able to make this claim you would need to be omniscient. It's the only logical way that the conclusion could be reached. How else can you know the outcome of events like this that are yet to happen?

Given your posts to date I seriously doubt that this would be the case though. Your arguments are bordering on non-existent and you don't seem to have the ability to back up your claims with any studies to support your case, let alone sound, rigorous placebo controlled, randomised double-blinded studies in respected peer-reviewed journals.

a real SCIENTIFIC debate which will prove YOU to be the "pseudoscientific" thinkers
I'm interested in seeing the protocol that you must have to be able to claim this. In particular I'm interested in the metrics. Given that the format is a debate, determining measurable outcomes will be quite difficult. This is something I'm particularly interested in.
which will prove YOU to be the "pseudoscientific" thinkers
I admit concern over participating in this experiment though. I do think the protocols will need to be examined. You appear to have reached a conclusion before starting. This sort of thing may lead to cheery picking of results and bias from those recording results and extrapolating metrics.
That which you criticise!!!
Actually, we criticise their methods, cheery picking of data, dogmatic refusal to address statisics and data, dogmatic refusal to change their position in the face of evidence that goes against what they want to be right, conspiracy theories around why the data is the way it is and the suppressing of their "real" studies... The list goes on.

I think you'll be hard pressed to find regulars here that would fall into any of these categories. If you can, please cite the user and links to comments demonstrating this behaviour.

Which makes you hypocrites.
Again, a conclusion before the results are in. You really need to work on that.

So, about this debate; did you have a topic in mind? I would like to suggest the format be on the forum here to start with.

start here then

Here is what I hear YOU saying :

(Reasoning:) - It's NOT IMPLAUSIBLE that the procedure COULD have CONTRIBUTED to the renal failure;
(Conclusion:) -THEREFORE the person who administered it IS a "quack" who rips off patients and we all need to get together and warn people...(etc)

Lets look at it another way. I open a newspaper and there on the front page it states:

"Quack Fleecing the Terminally Ill", followed by the story about Vit C therapy being administered to a patient..
Some people read this and tell others ..Did you hear about Vit C causing renal failure? It's true- I read it in the papers....Vit C therapy is just bullshit- I read it in the papers...etc and the word spreads. Everybody believes it but no one questions it.
Then a curious person contacts the writer of the article to ask more questions and guess what? It turns out that it's all just a maybe, because the writer admitted that he didn't know all the facts! ( Lucky he didn't mention the health professional's name otherwise he would have been sued.)

Critical thinking exercise: What was the error made in this case?
This is an open question for anyone to answer.

Congratulations Smartgirl!

Congratulations Smartgirl!

You have nearly completed transforming your pseudonym into an oxymoron.

It is possible to avoid this by watching the following helpful guide http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GP29vOogWvw prior to any further thread contributions.

Sincerely
Rob

For an excellent example of

For an excellent example of flawed critical thinking, refer to my comment "Start here then.."
It's all about what I found here, and what drew me in in the first place.
Have a go at answering the Question I left. It's really easy and demonstrates distortion of facts and how easily people can be misled by what they read when they don't think for themselves.
Thanks for leaving the you tube ref. about critical thinking -it would be helpful to some members here.

For an excellent example of

For an excellent example of flawed critical thinking, refer to my comment "Start here then.."

Finally, you're right. It is an excellent example of flawed critical thinking. The reply is poorly thought out, draws conclusions where no connection could be made, is full enough of logical fallacies that you could drive a bus through it...

...and that's just the first few lines.

(Reasoning:) - It's NOT

(Reasoning:) - It's NOT IMPLAUSIBLE that the procedure COULD have CONTRIBUTED to the renal failure;
(Conclusion:) -THEREFORE the person who administered it IS a "quack" who rips off patients and we all need to get together and warn people...(etc)

Fail.

This logical fallacy is called a Non-Sequitur.

At no point have I made this connection. If you're going to try and use our words against us you could at least copy and paste in context. Feel free to add emphasis.

Lets look at it another way. I open a newspaper and there on the front page it states:

"Quack Fleecing the Terminally Ill", followed by the story about Vit C therapy being administered to a patient..
Some people read this and tell others ..Did you hear about Vit C causing renal failure? It's true- I read it in the papers....Vit C therapy is just bullshit- I read it in the papers...etc and the word spreads. Everybody believes it but no one questions it.
Then a curious person contacts the writer of the article to ask more questions and guess what? It turns out that it's all just a maybe, because the writer admitted that he didn't know all the facts! ( Lucky he didn't mention the health professional's name otherwise he would have been sued.)

Critical thinking exercise: What was the error made in this case?
This is an open question for anyone to answer.

The error, in this case, was relying on the media headlines as the source of your information. What sort of pillock does that?

The sad thing is that a lot of alt-med rely on, and use, this form of news dissemination.

Unscientific thinking exposed

(the spelling errors above -a result of not looking at the keyboard, not a reflection of cognitive ability)

I was not asking anyone to post other's medical history on the internet - a comprehension error on your part. I was illustrating the point that the above person may be lacking all the facts, which is a valid point, isn't it.
You have obviously already made up your mind since you are calling Vit C therapy "quackery"... therefore the onus should be upon YOU to demonstrate how you arrived at your conclusion.

My position is to challenge people's thinking (refer to my comment " Skeptics: Control freaks at heart?") and you appear to be the perfect case in point.

I'll cut and paste what you

I'll cut and paste what you said:

"...Example: What were the variables in this case? For example,

1) Had the above patient been receiving chemio treatment?- If so, for how long?
2) What is the composition of the "chemio" substance used?
3)What are the effects on the other organs after long term and repeated sessions.

UNTIL and WHEN you can answer these questions..."

First point, what you said isn't able to be misconstrued as you are asking for detailed information about "the above patient" treatment and to demand that information is an invasion of privacy, whether on the internet or not. The only option was for you to look it up yourself as to what might be involved in a similar case rather than assuming that they may lack information and demanding very specific details (and allowing no option otherwise). That someone may not know something may be a valid point, but you don't get there by making demands of them but asking if they know about relevant information that you've presented (as an example). I doubt it though, if they've been in the situation, they'll be pretty up to the play with was going on. Secondly, if your spelling mistake is the result of not looking at the keyboard, why is the same mistake repeated twice on two separate lines? A typo is a typo, but if the error is repeatedly made it's meant to be written that way and it can show that it's likely managing even basic terminology is going to be a problem. Third point is that even putting that aside, you obviously assume cancer treatment=chemotherapy when it isn't the case, IIRC it's only leukaemias and perhaps lymphomas that it would be first line treatment. It's not an good form of argument to illustrate a point by demonstrating poor knowledge of what it is you are speaking about.

In any case, the onus is on you. I've given evidence that for that form of cancer, medical treatment has provided a large benefit in one year survival rates and stated that there is no evidence for Vit C curing any cancer (let alone the common cold - in fact the only thing it is known to cure is Scurvy to this day). In return, you are claiming, without stating exactly why, that other peoples comments are illogical and invalid and come from a state of ignorance and you ignore that statistics were given to support my statement. It is up to you to demonstrate that is the case if you believe it to be so and it's not up to anyone else to do any work for you. Just going "I can beat you in an argument" isn't enough, you have to present an argument first, preferably that killer scientific one. None of this is so far challenging at all, what would be a challenge is a persuasive argument based in facts.

Hello again smartgirl, I'm a

Hello again smartgirl,
I'm a little upset. Perhaps you did not read my comment on the the other thread that you started where you expressed concern about the validity of evidence and problem with freedom of choice. Now i'm not saying I disagree with you but you are being incredibly rude. The people here (some I know in real life) a more than happy to address criticisms and concerns but you are framing them in such a way that automatically is going to put someone on the defensive. Not a fantastic way to win a debate. When people resort to personal attack, everybody loses. It's the first rule in debating. You are not coming across as someone that wants to bring critical thinking to the group (in fact you actually seem to be exhibiting some of the classic signs of dogmatism which just so happens to be one of my areas of interest) and if your purpose on this board is to embellish your own superiority then you can disappear. People have better things to do.

You're underlying argument seems to have a valid point. Don't lose it by treating people like they're idiots and being impolite.

To anonymous smartgirl

I find your continuous claims of dialectic superiority to be boorish and lacking in substance. Could you please turn down the rhetorical volume a little so that we may converse in a manner more civil.

I am more than happy to discuss facts regarding my fathers illness as I do not see the point in obscurantism when talking of serious matters of health. I have nothing to hide, neither do the dead..

My father was a lecturer at Canterbury University and was normally as skeptical a scientist as is possible to be. But when confronted with a diagnosis of cancer and a prognosis dismally short, he regrettably clutched at a straw offered by someone trusted, his GP. (This is one of the reasons why I personally feel that there needs to be vigilance of "alternative medicine" claims, all too often the patient is too vulnerable to be able to objectively decide on the veracity of claims).

This straw was the Gerson diet and massive doses of Vitamin C are a part of the regimen.

He never underwent any Science based medicine therapies.

He presented to this GP with obvious signs of the beginnings of kidney failure. The GP then gave him a massive dose (many thousands of mg) of Vitamin C. This precipitated complete failure and resulted in his hospitalization for a long period.

This was the subject of a complaint from our family which was upheld by a medical board and the GP was censured and had to submit to supervision.

Smartgirl can you please tell me how it is that you have a better understanding of the situation than the Medical board that reviewed the case?

Sincerely
Rob

(Ok so I was originally

(Ok so I was originally correct in suggesting that his body was already giving up.)
The problem was that he was terminal already, with kidney failure imminent. The quality of life affected was due to the hospital keeping him going when it would have been kinder to let nature take it's course.

The problem was it was too late already. That Dr. shouldn't have even tried but if it had been you, wouldn't you want to give it a go if it was a last minute hope? Vit.C has been known to shrink tumours. But obviously if it's too late it's too late.

The Medical board would have had the GP struck off if they had deemed him guilty of malpractice. Then you could have called him a Quack and blamed the Vit.C.
Sorry about your father, by the way. I lost someone vey close to me to cancer last year..once the kidneys go, thats it.

Firstly, no you were not

Firstly, no you were not correct in suggesting any sort of diagnosis as you are plainly not qualified to. You exhibit the sort of overconfidence not found in those with a proper understanding of such things.

You anonymously post repetitive statements of breathtaking stupidity, claiming to know things that are obviously impossible for you to know.

You boldly assert, as fact, things that have no evidence to support them.

You then claim I am a liar regarding the medical review. Once again how would you know this? And do you really think malpractice is the only charge that can be brought upon a medical practitioner and that being struck off is the only punishment?

Once again your naivete betrays your ignorance.

Don't pretend to sympathize with me after that, it makes you look like a psychopath.

Sincerely
Rob