It is very easy to say that people are dying of cancer because of anti-science beliefs during treatment, I do not refute the claim that the outcome would be better if this individual listening to the best medical advice available.

However, I do think the blaming the patient is a distraction. I see more anti-science from industrialists and politicians when their industries receive scientific recommendations for regulation.

There was more anti-science in the decades of poor policy decisions that lead up to a young woman getting non-Hodkings lymphoma than anti-science displayed by her in the moments when she had to choose how to respond to it.

My brother passed away from AML (acute myeloid leukemia) almost two years ago. His quality of life was dismal on treatment, he was constantly vomiting, mouth sores, unable to sleep but very tired, couldn't see his two young children and locked away in a hospital ward. His wife had to make a huge effort to see him consistently because she couldn't bring the kids and had to find babysitters. He made the decision to stop treatment because of that. His chances were low anyways and he pursued 'alternatives' because it was better than nothing. Even if the main benefit was to make him and his family feel like he wasn't completely giving up.

Steve Jobs is probably the most famous victim of his own superstitions.

He had a pancreatic cancer. It was detected early and it was one of the rare cases that had a good prognosis. He changed his mind only after it was too later and regretted his bad decision.

> The children absorbed outlandish ideas, including that the Royal Family were shape-shifting lizards, says Gabriel. "As a young child, you trust your parents. So you see that as a truth," he says.

At what point does someone step in and call this child abuse, at the very least these parents are not capable of raising their children in a safe manner.

> Kate Shemirani styles herself as "the Natural Nurse" on social media

And therein lies our main issue. People on social media who are amplified and given confirmation biases from the algorithm with basically zero moderation now.

Maybe it's callous to say but seems like Darwins law should settle these things.

I'm seeing this with my cousin currently. Her husband as well as her brother are peddling vitamin injections, physiotherapy, keto diets, for what is essentially late-stage lung cancer. She needs sugar - energy - to build up her stores so that she can walk into a chemotherapy clinic, but they're (perhaps rightfully) scared that they'd just be feeding the tumor instead of her.

Doctors orders should be questioned, of course, since they're also trying to reduce their own liability should anything go wrong. But this cynicism is being diverted into desperate alternatives, into the inklings of what is looking like outright superstition.

I understand it to some degree, of course; when a doctor recommends a treatment to slightly prolong your life, vs an expert who promises to completely heal your ailment -- you're likely to go with the so called expert.

Has anyone done an analysis of the prevalence of these "alternative medicines" in countries with free healthcare vs no free healthcare? I keep seeing this stuff coming out of America, but not from somewhere like Scandinavia (possibly because of the language barrier). I do see it a decent amount in the UK, but our healthcare isn't amazing, even if it is free

Questioning science is not automatically "anti-science," IMO it's best to remain skeptical and stay focused on the evidence. The fact of the matter is that current "best medical advice" is not the best either in terms of quality of life or prognosis. I've had a remote member of a family lose sight in an eye, develop short term memory issues, and rapidly deteriorate from cancer in spite of following the best medical advice and guided by top physicians. My family is full of physicians, and I see even them questioning traditional methods. I would caution against media's rush to blame anything going against the mainstream narrative as "anti-science" or "misinformation." Yes, there are quacks and morons, but let's not put labels on anyone questioning bad outcomes.

Someone choosing an alternative cancer treatment than their doctor's recommended treatment and dying is very common, and the most likely culprit isn't social media but someone doing their own research (i.e. google / chatGPT), and going down alternative medicine rabbit holes.

This particular nature of making quick conclusions can be found everywhere.

That article is no shocker. It exposes the same weakness in openly questioning things and using your brain.

Related: People argue like this:

- "All people who make stairs hating on wheelchair users"

- "Men who don't like other men crying or showing emotions are hating all women"

The problem isn't just conspiracy theories - it's this broader pattern of binary thinking that refuses to acknowledge nuance or complexity. When we jump to these extreme conclusions, we lose the ability to have real discussions about difficult topics.

These, or similar quick conclusions are flawed to the core and hurt those around.

My mother died because of alt health misinformation.

She had melanoma and the thing to do with that is to cut it out immediately. She delayed, considered alt health options for a month or three and by the time she got around to it the cancer had metastasized and there was nothing to be done.

Is it premature to blame RFK?

Most conspiracy theories at least could be true (ex. vaccines cause autism, wifi/5G is dangerous, 9/11 was an inside job), but how do people make the jump to "Royal Family were shape-shifting lizards"?

It is interesting we now call this stuff “conspiracy theories.” We used to talk of “snake oil” or people would make jokes about yoga and health food in the 70s. Currently it’s taken on a newspeaky sort of political flavor with the phrase “conspiracy theory.” In the 90s it was “alternative health” or “eastern medicine.” Interesting how views changed on ways of knowing/cultural relativism in such a short period of time.

“ Gabriel and Sebastian Shemirani watched with concern as their mother Kate rose to notoriety during the pandemic, eventually getting struck off as a nurse for promoting misinformation about Covid-19.”

The “c19 misinformation” trope has aged so badly.

Was the misinformation data that has proved to be correct over time?

The industry’s C19 Push and protocols have been in many ways turned out to be nonscientific hog wash, and not based in reality.

A child in my daughter’s daycare suffered febrile seizures and experienced an anoxic brain injury because the vaccine wasn’t safe.

As the husband of an accomplished dual board certified physician our decision to approach this naturally turned out to be correct.