Respectful Insolence

I know, I know, I said last time that I probably wouldn’t post on dichloroacetate and the hype some of the more credulous parts of the blogosphere are falling for over its being supposedly a “cancer cure” that big pharma is either willfully ignoring or actively suppressing. However, when DaveScot and the sycophants on Uncommon Descent join in with the “cure for cancer” hype and conspiracy-mongering (with apparently only one voice of reason trying to counter DaveScot‘s cluelessness), it’s really, really hard for me to resist the urge to introduce the mutual admiration society over at UD to a heapin’ helpin’ of Orac’s cluestick, too.

DaveScot, meet cluestick. Cluestick, meet DaveScot.

It’s truly amusing to watch DaveScot dig himself into a deeper and deeper hole in the comments. Sadly, I suspect that the lone voice of reason is about to get banned (quoth Dave: “I ban people for making me do research they should be doing for themselves. Consider yourself warned”), as is the practice at Uncommon Descent when someone provides too many facts and too much actual science for DaveScot to handle.

There, now. I feel better again, even though it’s likely that DaveScot, like Dean Esmay, will remain, as always, utterly immune to the tender ministrations of the cluestick.

It just goes to show, though: A lack of critical thinking in one area (in this case, “intelligent design” creationism) is often associated with a lack of critical thinking in other areas. The sycophants, toadies, and lackeys over at UD are Exhibit A supporting this assertion.

ADDENDUM: Walnut has posted his critique on Daily Kos as well.

All Orac posts on DCA:

  1. In which my words will be misinterpreted as “proof” that I am a “pharma shill”
  2. Will donations fund dichloroacetate (DCA) clinical trials?
  3. Too fast to label others as “conspiracy-mongers”?
  4. Dichloroacetate: One more time…
  5. Laying the cluestick on DaveScot over dichloroacetate (DCA) and cancer
  6. A couple of more cluesticks on dichloroacetate (DCA) and cancer
  7. Where to buy dichloroacetate (DCA)? Dichloroacetate suppliers, even?
  8. An uninformative “experiment” on dichloroacetate
  9. Slumming around The DCA Site (TheDCASite.com), appalled at what I’m finding
  10. Slumming around The DCA Site (TheDCASite.com), the finale (for now)
  11. It’s nice to be noticed
  12. The deadly deviousness of the cancer cell, or how dichloroacetate (DCA) might fail
  13. The dichloroacetate (DCA) self-medication phenomenon hits the mainstream media
  14. Dichloroacetate (DCA) and cancer: Magical thinking versus Tumor Biology 101
  15. Checking in with The DCA Site
  16. Dichloroacetate and The DCA Site: A low bar for “success”
  17. Dichloroacetate (DCA): A scientist’s worst nightmare?
  18. Dichloroacetate and The DCA Site: A low bar for “success” (part 2)
  19. “Clinical research” on dichloroacetate by TheDCASite.com: A travesty of science
  20. A family practitioner and epidemiologist are prescribing dichloracetate (DCA) in Canada
  21. An “arrogant medico” makes one last comment on dichloroacetate (DCA)

Posts by fellow ScienceBlogger Abel Pharmboy:

  1. The dichloroacetate (DCA) cancer kerfuffle
  2. Where to buy dichloroacetate…
  3. Local look at dichloroacetate (DCA) hysteria
  4. Edmonton pharmacist asked to stop selling dichloroacetate (DCA)
  5. Four days, four dichloroacetate (DCA) newspaper articles
  6. Perversion of good science
  7. CBC’s ‘The Current’ on dichloroacetate (DCA)

Comments

  1. #1 davescot
    February 2, 2007

    I’m humbled that someone as smart and famous as you would deign to notice me at all much less take the time to personalize a blog entry for me. Doesn’t that sort of take away from your work saving millions of lives and things of that nature?

    ROFLMAO

  2. #2 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    February 2, 2007

    If you just heard a sound, it was the whoosh of air following Davescot completely ignoring the point of this post.

  3. #3 davescot
    February 2, 2007

    I noticed you linked to Rivlin’s comment as the “voice of reason”. Did you also notice that Rivlin wasn’t even aware they’d done more than tested DCA against cancer cells in culture?

    Good voice of reason there. Remind me never to let you get a knife near anyone I know.

  4. #4 John Lynch
    February 2, 2007

    I heard another whooshing.

    Poor old Dave, it must be difficult being so gosh-darned *right* all the time and having to ban those who dont see things his way.

    I’ll venture that Orac’s knife has probably saved more lives that Dave’s work as a microcomputer hardware/software design engineer.

  5. #5 S. Rivlin
    February 2, 2007

    Dave,

    I am sure you were aware of the content of the link you asked me to provide, but you were too lazy to look for. Of course, I cannot warn you with a ban for not doing your research the way you have threatened me. Now, I am not ashamed to admit that cancer is not my field of expertise, energy metabolism, especially in the brain, is. Many of the links you have provided regarding lactic acidosis surely do not make you an expert on the phenomenon. Nevertheless, I hope that you have at least internalized the fact that lactic acidosis is a symptom, not a disease, and that treating the symptom does not cure the disease, as the group of investigators from Gainsville, FL, found out:
    PEDIATRICS Vol. 117 No. 5 May 2006, pp. 1519-1531
    Controlled Clinical Trial of Dichloroacetate for Treatment of Congenital Lactic Acidosis in Children
    Peter W. Stacpoole, MD, PhD, Douglas S. Kerr, MD, PhD, Carie Barnes, RN, S. Terri Bunch, MD, Paul R. Carney, MD, Eileen M. Fennell, PhD, Natalia M. Felitsyn, PhD, Robin L. Gilmore, MD, Melvin Greer, MD, George N. Henderson, PhD, Alan D. Hutson, PhD, Richard E. Neiberger, MD, PhD, Ralph G. O’Brien, PhD, Leigh Ann Perkins, RN, Ronald G. Quisling, MDi, Albert L. Shroads, MSa, Jonathan J. Shuster, PhDc,h, Janet H. Silverstein, MD, Douglas W. Theriaque, MSc and Edward Valenstein, MD.

    BTW, in your last post you asked me where did you mention that DCA was approved. You said it in your comment #28, however, when I responded on your blog to this effect, you filtered my response out.

    I wonder if the process by which you select posts as permisible to be posted on your blog are what is known as “natural selection” or is it a part of the ID phenomenon?

  6. #6 Troublesome Frog
    February 2, 2007

    I wonder if the process by which you select posts as permisible to be posted on your blog are what is known as “natural selection” or is it a part of the ID phenomenon?

    I think it’s the same algorithm they use for most talk radio: Commenters are there to make the host look good. If they don’t, they’re out.

  7. #7 Ric
    February 2, 2007

    Actually it must be pretty pleasant being DaveScot. He gets to ignore and ban anyone who can counter his arguments (as can basically anyone with half a brain, since his arguments are so weak), and he doesn’t have those pesky things called critical reasoning or rationality to prod him into seeing the world the way it is instead of the way he wants it to be. I wish I were DaveScot.

    Wait, no, no I don’t.

  8. #8 George Cauldron
    February 2, 2007

    Check this out: Dave Scot now bans people for not being able to find Italian mathematics journals:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/2013#comment-88948

    You’re right, you don’t want to be Dave Scot.

  9. #9 IAMB
    February 2, 2007

    And now Dave, smarting from the smackdown, has resorted to the pharma shill gambit back over on UD. Color me not even a little bit surprised…

  10. #10 Orac
    February 2, 2007

    You mean this pharma shill gambit?

    I only wish big pharma paid me for my little hobby. Alas, not a penny. All I get is a modest sum from ScienceBlogs, which is enough to keep me in beer and pizza for the month. Don’t get me wrong. It’s a great thing to be paid anything at all to blog, given that I used to lay down my brand of Respectful Insolence™ for free.

    Oh, by the way, a note to DaveScot (sorry, I mean Dave Springer): Think nothing of it. It took me a mere few minutes this morning before going to work to lay that cluestick on you and set it up to post this afternoon, mainly because my original article had been written over a week ago. Even so, those few minutes were probably more effort than you were worth. Thanks for the link, by the way. You’re so utterly predictable. And remember: The more traffic you send my way, the more Seed Media Group pays me (and, as far as I know, Seed has no connection to big pharma). Really. It’s true. Keep it up, and you might even cover my bill for cable and Internet access for the month.

  11. #11 tacitus
    February 2, 2007

    You guys please show DaveScot some sympathy.

    You must remember that it’s just so hard for DaveScot to think down to our level. After all he’s an autodidactic, (subscribes to Scientific American) self-made millionaire (sat on his ass at Dell during the ’90s watching his stock options soar), and self-proclaimed genius (a legend in his own lunchtime).

    I weep for him, I really do.

  12. #12 Bob O'H
    February 3, 2007

    tacitus – get your facts right!

    DaveScot’s wife subscribes to Scientific American for him. He cancelled his subscription in disgust, IIRC because they were promoting evolution.

    Bob

  13. #13 HCN
    February 3, 2007

    But he is Brave Sir Robin… er, I’m sorry, DaveScot!

    Okay, all the stuff about “whooshing” on this thread… I know you all meant that ORAC’s comments were whooshing over his head — but all I could think of was the whooshing in the space between his ears.

    Well, at the least there is a great echo in there.

    I registered and left a message, but I am sure it will never show up… because he is Brave Sir Robin, er DaveScot

  14. #14 Jon
    February 3, 2007

    Orac,

    Are you actually going to respond to the science and the arguments, or just attack the guys character?

    My grandfather has stomach cancer. His brother and 2 sisters died of stomach cancer.

    I’m looking for help for him and come across this! You doctors are like children. Can you please comment on the science and the latest cancer treatments, you know, things that will help me help him?

    Thanks,

    jabz

  15. #15 Orac
    February 3, 2007

    Are you actually going to respond to the science and the arguments, or just attack the guys character?

    If you had read this, you wouldn’t have claimed that I wasn’t addressing DaveScot’s arguments. If anything, that article is too detailed in addressing the real (and probably more modest) potential of DCA. I’m sorry that cancer has entered your life like this; it’s so ubiquitous that few people avoid it horror, either personally or in their family. However, I do consider it a public service to cancer patients to do a reality check when it comes to excessively hyped new “cures.”

    The article to which I linked was the most widely read article I’ve ever written by far. If you look at my Sitemeter, you’ll see that there was a huge traffic spike midweek; that was from the article ending up at the top page of Reddit.

    As for attacking DaveScot’s character, really, he has virtually no character to attack.

  16. #16 Kristjan Wager
    February 3, 2007

    As for attacking DaveScot’s character, really, he has virtually no character to attack.

    But he certainly is an odd character.

  17. #17 Greco
    February 3, 2007

    As for attacking DaveScot’s character, really, he has virtually no character to attack.

    You need a microtruncheon to hit his microcharacter.

  18. #18 Darryl Cribbs
    February 3, 2007

    It’s funny watching DaveScot pretend to be smart. if you do a little internet searching you can find him claiming that Scientific American is a “Hard Science Journal” and that his scientific education comes from having read it ‘cover to cover’ for over 20 years. What a maroon.

  19. #19 tgibbs
    February 3, 2007

    I’m surprised to see DaveScott venture even briefly outside of his protected little pond, where he bans anybody whom he cannot rebut (which is a long, long list). I doubt if he’ll be back for any genuine debate. It’s so much more pleasant over at UD, where he can always count on getting the last word.

  20. #20 MikeG
    February 3, 2007

    Has anyone seen the “Dawkins Delusion” thing posted over at UD?
    Apparently it was posted in all sincerity.

    Hook, Line and sinker!

    MikeG

  21. #21 MikeG
    February 3, 2007

    Egad, I went a bit further back in the posts, and it looks like it was serious.

    Parody within parody within parody, but not parody of the parody?

    I need a beer.

    MikeG

  22. #22 Kenny Gee
    February 3, 2007

    Davescott is one of those Google experts who shit from clay. Creationist always end up sounding the same scientist are blocking their work and evolution is just about to collapse. We have to up this into an ID perspective though Davescott is hopeful that DCA will work. Well he should just have a chat with the head of the ID research group he’s already found a cure for cancer. Better still Davescott already seems to do allot of the activity required to collect this miracle substance.

    Ps I got band from UD for suggesting that a non-scientist (journalist) might not know as much about a scientist field as a scientist working in that field.

  23. #23 Steve Watson
    February 3, 2007

    …[DaveScot] claiming that Scientific American is a “Hard Science Journal” and that his scientific education comes from having read it ‘cover to cover’ for over 20 years.

    Big deal. I read SciAm pretty thoroughly for 20 years (until they started dumbing it down), and I learned a lot — one of which was the importance of the scientific process, ie. that it can take a lot of work to confirm a putative discovery (especially something medical), that the situation is seldom as simple as it seems to a layperson, and many a promising lead comes to naught (or at least, nothing revolutionary) in the end.

    And that was probably the single most important thing I learned from SciAm, more so than any fact about fossils, chemistry, mathematics, biology, etc, etc….

  24. #24 DaveScot
    February 4, 2007

    Hey Orac,

    In your shill article you wonder if Michelakis applied for a patent on the DCA protocol.

    Within minutes of finding out about DCA I found the patent application and posted it here:

    http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/2014#comment-88863

    Maybe you should beat yourself with that cluestick, dopey. The big bad cancer researcher doesn’t know how to use google to find something related to his own expertise that he’s curious about. You could have found that patent application in less time than it took you to write the paragraph opining about whether or not had Michelakis applied for one.

    It also blew to hell your hypothesis that having a process patent in hand would help him get funding from big pharma. Of course an hypothesis of yours getting blown to hell can’t be an unfamiliar feeling for you. ROTFLMAO

  25. #25 Orac
    February 4, 2007

    You’re a bit late, Mr. Springer. (I figure if you’re going to make such a big deal of using my name at UD, I might as well do you the same “favor.”)

    Actually, I’ve been aware of this information for over a week now, as a reader pointed me to the very same information from a different source, and another reader kindly posted the actual patent link a few days later. There was also some interesting commentary by another commenter, including relevant examples of use patents for profitable treatments. I saw no need to comment on this, given the high quality of the commentary going on.

    Really, do try to keep up and at least read the discussion over at the cluestick that was directed at you, It would have saved you further embarrassment.

    Of course, it’s amusing that it took you two days to think of posting this comment.

    As for the use patent, it’s no panacea, but if data of efficacy in humans were to result from the Phase II trial being planned, it would certainly help attract pharm funding. Use patents are weaker than a patent on the compound itself, but can still result in substantial profits for pharmaceutical companies.

  26. #26 Phil Monk
    February 4, 2007

    It is amazing what people can read into a blurb
    in the New Scientist.

    “No More Cancer”

    http://free-journal.blogspot.com/2007/02/no-more-cancer.html

    The fog of preconceived notions enslaving reality into the construct of their perceptual security blankets.

  27. #27 Big Nasty
    February 5, 2007

    The fog of preconceived notions enslaving reality into the construct of their perceptual security blankets.

    This put me in mind of creating a Postmodern Argument Generator. Being too lazy to actually do that, I did a quick google search and found http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo. It gives a complete essay each time you hit it. From that source, here is my retort:

    If one examines neocultural narrative, one is faced with a choice: either accept subcultural objectivism or conclude that the goal of the writer is social comment.

  28. #28 S. Rivlin
    February 5, 2007

    Yesterday I posted this comment http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/2014#comment-89451
    on DaveScot’s blog. He responded this morning with the post http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/2014#comment-89518. Thus, I decided to post my last comment on his unfriendly and “somewhat childish and crooked” blog as follows (he, of course, did not allow the posting of my last comment):

    This will be my last post on this blog. I was really looking forward to having an interesting and cordial discussion on this and other topics. However, the threat of banning me from such exchanges on this blog, reduce my enthusiasm to continue. I do not really understand the approach Dave has taken of threatening to ban and banning so many responders on this blog, if the idea is to exchange opinions and information. Nevertheless, this is his blog and he is free to do here whatever he chooses to do.

    My advocating caution in regard to the toxicity of DCA is based on hundreds and thousands of studies on chemicals and their toxicity. My training as a biochemical pharmacologist and a neuroscientist and my decades of experience in the research lab have taught me cautiousness, especially with halogenated compounds. I do not profess against the potential of DCA as an anti-cancer treatment. I am trying to warn against the hyped hope that the one Canadian study has generated among laypersons and cancer patients alike, which is not yet warranted. I lost my younger brother to cancer (lymphoma) last October after a short two-year battle with the disease. We all would like to wipe this awful disease out, however, it is not one single type of cancer that we are after; the variants are almost endless and there probably won’t be one treatment that would be able to wipe them all. For instant, we now have an effective vaccination against cervical cancer (viral cancer), a cancer that probably will not benefit from a treatment such as DCA.

    I wish you all a fruitful blogging and much health.

    Below is a list of just a few of the many studies that investigated the toxicity of DCA:

    Sidney Hunter E 3rd, Blanton MR, Rogers EH, Leonard Mole M, Andrews J, Chernoff N. Short-term exposures to dihaloacetic acids produce dysmorphogenesis in mouse conceptuses in vitro. Reprod Toxicol. 2006 Oct;22(3):443-8.

    Hassoun E, Kariya C, Williams FE. Dichloroacetate-induced developmental toxicity and production of reactive oxygen species in zebrafish embryos. J Biochem Mol Toxicol. 2005;19(1):52-8

    Andrews JE, Nichols HP, Schmid JE, Mole LM, Hunter ES 3rd, Klinefelter GR. Developmental toxicity of mixtures: the water disinfection by-products dichloro-, dibromo- and bromochloro acetic acid in rat embryo culture. Reprod Toxicol. 2004 Nov;19(1):111-6.

    Pereira MA, Wang W, Kramer PM, Tao L. Prevention by methionine of dichloroacetic acid-induced liver cancer and DNA hypomethylation in mice. Toxicol Sci. 2004 Feb;77(2):243-8.

    Fisher JW, Channel SR, Eggers JS, Johnson PD, MacMahon KL, Goodyear CD, Sudberry GL, Warren DA, Latendresse JR, Graeter LJ. Trichloroethylene, trichloroacetic acid, and dichloroacetic acid: do they affect fetal rat heart development? Int J Toxicol. 2001 Sep-Oct;20(5):257-67.

    Barbee RW, Kline JA, Watts JA. Depletion of lactate by dichloroacetate reduces cardiac efficiency after hemorrhagic shock. Shock. 2000 Aug;14(2):208-14.

    Miller JH, Minard K, Wind RA, Orner GA, Sasser LB, Bull RJ. In vivo MRI measurements of tumor growth induced by dichloroacetate: implications for mode of action. Toxicology. 2000 Apr 14;145(2-3):115-25.

    Barton HA, Bull R, Schultz I, Andersen ME. Dichloroacetate (DCA) dosimetry: interpreting DCA-induced liver cancer dose response and the potential for DCA to contribute to trichloroethylene-induced liver cancer. Toxicol Lett. 1999 May 20;106(1):9-21

  29. #29 S. Rivlin
    February 5, 2007

    I am not sure why it is that the basic scientist has to communicate to the public why he/she is doing what he/she does, while the engineer, the rocket scientist, or the clinician does not. All these professionals, including the basic scientist, invest much toward their education and then, even more toward being awarded the competitive job they are intersted in. Children, starting in kindergarten and all the way to highschool, are being taught the value of knowledge for the sake of knowledge. We all are aware and proud of the top scientists among us who receive the highest honors, and we celebrate these honors even if we do not understand what and how they do what they do.

    I believe the blame for the problem resides more with the people who oversee the administration of higher education institutions than with the scientists employed by them. The bottom line is nowaday the requirement of the university administration, a group of people that find it easier to apply the balanced budget measuring stick, than to understand the scientist’s science and promote the new knowledge this science will create, without predicting its benefits, benefits that will emerge in due time (as the history of science has proved over and over again). The problem is exacerbated by the loss of power that faculty members of academic institutions have suffered over the past 25 years. Academic freedom (in terms of choosing one’s scientific interests) is now limited to those “interests” that can satisfy the demand for a quick and useful, and preferrably profitable, application. The tenure system is under attack and in danger of being eliminated. The most successful scientist today is the richest one (grant dollars), not the most intelligent or the smartest and with the best chance of expanding our knowledge. Materialism, I think, is the downfall of science.

  30. #30 S. Rivlin
    February 5, 2007

    Sorry about misplacing my latest post here. It was supposed to be posted here http://scienceblogs.com/ethicsandscience/2007/01/a_few_words_on_faculty_searche.php

  31. #31 Christian
    February 5, 2007

    Orac,

    On behalf of the more intelligent side of the human race, one can only apologize for David Springers childish antics. His lack of basic grounding in science has been overcome by his need to inflate his ego by pretending to understand enough to actually comment on serious research in established journals.

  32. #32 Invisible Death
    February 6, 2007

    To all of you,

    Folks outside looking in, don’t care about all this political in-fighting, name-calling, and boasting. Most folks simply want to buy some (DCH) dichloroacetate, and get proper instruction on how to administer it, to their loved ones or themselves.

    I know several people with lung cancer.

    Tod got it from an Hazardous waste/acid spill.
    Walt from smoking. (He’s in chemo now, looks like crap)

    Then there’s other folks I know that are already dead.

    Maybe you should all need wacking with an “EF-ing cluestick”, and get your ass’s moving and setup a damn CLICK HERE TO BUY SOME DAMN dichloroacetate BUTTON

    They say it’s cheap. But where can one get it? How do you make it? Does it occure in any natural sources?

    While you “educated folk” argue, We all just die.
    I’m not sorry, it pisses me off.

  33. #33 HCN
    February 6, 2007

    Invisible Death said “Folks outside looking in, don’t care about all this political in-fighting, name-calling, and boasting. Most folks simply want to buy some (DCH) dichloroacetate, and get proper instruction on how to administer it, to their loved ones or themselves.”

    What political infighting? Try reading for comprehension the cluestick:
    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2007/01/in_which_my_words_will_be_misinterpreted.php … and further posts.

    DCA is not approved by the FDA by anything. It was tested on rats… from the cluestick:
    “1. This drug has only been tested in cell culture and rats. Yes, the results were promising there, but that does not–I repeat, does not– mean the results will translate to humans. In fact, most likely, they will not.”
    and…
    “2. Cancer is not a single disease. It is many diseases, and requires many different approaches. This drug showed activity against several cancers in vitro, but there are conventional chemotherapeutic drugs that also show activity against lots of cancers. ”

    Don’t go oh “poor poor us, suffering while you guys fight… Give us the drugs” on us until you actually read the blog entries.

    Also, to give you one other place you can do research, try http://www.pubmed.gov. Plug in the name of the “miracle cancer drug” of the week and see what pops up.

  34. #34 DaveScot
    February 9, 2007

    Invisible Death

    “Maybe you should all need wacking with an “EF-ing cluestick”, and get your ass’s moving and setup a damn CLICK HERE TO BUY SOME DAMN dichloroacetate BUTTON”

    Good point.

    Try here:

    http://www.thedcasite.com

  35. #35 debnova
    February 10, 2007

    OOOPS.I was looking up DCA and the new claims (with a skeptical, but hopefull mind) and found this site. I am not a scientist,egg head,brainiac, or very knowledgable in science, but if this is the way grown people discuss such an important subject, I fear greatly they won’t work together very well to actually Cure cancer.This blog seems more interested in one up man ship than the cure for cancer.Now, before I get too satisfied with myself like some of the posts I’ve read, I’d like to admit I only have browsed some of the posts about this new “cancer cure” claim about DCA. But I can’t help but feel some of these posts are about ego, not fact finding or seeking of knowledge. lighten up and respect a difference of opinion. I’m a little sensitive cause I am going thru treatment for a very virulent, aggressive cancer (and winning I am happy to say) and hoping that people who are doing research that benefit finding a cure don’t sit around and blog like some of the posts here. It’s your blog, so please forgive if the snarking is necessary and this is just venting, but guess I am just tired of how people now a days don’t seem to want to work together (govt non-partsanship for example) or respect anothers opinion. Disagree, but how about with some civility. Ok, I got to sound off. THANKS.

  36. #36 HCN
    February 11, 2007

    debnova said ” But I can’t help but feel some of these posts are about ego, not fact finding or seeking of knowledge. lighten up and respect a difference of opinion. I’m a little sensitive cause I am going thru treatment for a very virulent, aggressive cancer (and winning I am happy to say) and hoping that people who are doing research that benefit finding a cure don’t sit around and blog like some of the posts here.”

    I sincerely hope that whatever treatment you are going through does some good. Really.

    But you have to understand that DCA is not totally without problems, plus it does not work for everything… especially since not everything that works on rats works on humans!

    You must forgive some of us… we’ve heard of “magic cures” that have turned to dust.

    I am one of those parents with a disabled kid that must fight against those who want to on one hand put him into an institution and on the other hand push unverified chemical treatments on him. This is what makes me question EVERYTHING!

    (and since his seizures started before any vaccines… I’m not blaming them!).

  37. #37 debnova
    February 11, 2007

    HCN: I totally agree with your skepticism, as I said in my post, I’m just hopefull, and I also hate “miracle” cures that never pan out.And the media loves to hype them for ratings..My particular treatment was standard procedure, with up to date cancer treatments and older chemotherapy drugs. We all know that wonderfull, proven cancer treatment has vastly improved just in the last five years or so. I also want to say that it’s everyone’s right to post any way they want, but just felt like some of the posts got bogged down in put downs and personal stuff. But, if people need to vent, I guess blogs are a great place. I hope all goes well with your loved one, thats the point in finding a cure for cancer and other diseases. Take care. Debnova

The site is undergoing maintenance presently. Commenting has been disabled. Please check back later!