Issues with discussions regarding cancer treatment

Ryan Gomez4 said:Just sharing my take with bluemason3. Honestly, there’s no point in arguing this further until we get a real legal opinion. By the way, everyone here thinks they’re a legal expert, but being a pseudo-lawyer is just as bad as being a quack.

If I actually believed in karma, I’d be terrified of recommending that seriously ill people skip conventional Western medicine—mostly out of pure self-interest, really...😢

Maybe it isn't strictly illegal, but it is certainly reckless. And frankly, I don't consider recklessness to be a virtue.

Besides, there are plenty of cases where parents have been held accountable in court for refusing standard medical care for their children.
example

steelsurfer42 said:Look, some branches of alternative medicine are straight-up lethal, and others aren't. Is it really that hard to tell them apart?
MMS, trashing actual medicine, and all that garbage has no business being here. Everything else can stay. That said, trying to silence critics? Still absolutely unacceptable.

And who exactly gets to decide which topics are allowed and which ones aren't on the alternative board? You? 😁

hollowtrucker77 said:Alright, let's please stop repeating this tired mantra about banning alternative views.
🙂
If we actually followed that logic, we'd have to ban spirituality and religion too...

As for the legal side of things, try this scenario: go see a lawyer and tell them your brother passed away from an illness because some guy talked him into drinking soap suds instead of getting actual therapy, and ask if you have grounds for a lawsuit.
Look, I'm not a lawyer, so everything I'm saying is strictly my own take, but I suspect any decent attorney would be jumping for joy at the prospect of that case, thinking about the percentage they could pull from the settlement; they'd jump at the chance to take it on.

I'm not bringing this up as some kind of tactical "lever" to win an argument; I'm presenting it as a genuine possibility that deserves actual consideration. To be clear, I’m not just talking about alternative medicine in a vacuum—the core issue clearly lies within the standard medical approach itself. If skeptics start dictating what can be said about alternatives, and doctors start policing what counts as alternative medicine, then the whole concept loses its purpose. In a debate like this, finding middle ground is tough. It feels like one side or the other is eventually going to have to lose. 🤷

If you want to talk to a lawyer, try this approach: go see one and tell them your brother passed away from some illness because some guy talked him into drinking soap suds instead of getting actual cancer treatment. Then ask if you have any grounds for a lawsuit.
Look, I’m no lawyer, so everything I say is just my two cents. But honestly? Any attorney would be jumping for joy at the thought of their contingency fee on this one. They’d jump at the chance to take this case.

We'll see. 🤔 But if that's actually the case, then there’s really no point to that PDF at all. 🤷

briskeagle39 said:If I actually believed in karma, I’d be terrified of recommending that seriously ill people skip conventional Western medicine—mostly out of pure self-interest, really...😢

Maybe it isn't strictly illegal, but it is certainly reckless. And frankly, I don't consider recklessness to be a virtue.

Besides, there are plenty of cases where parents have been held accountable in court for refusing standard medical care for their children.
example

Yeah, and what does your example have to do with people getting scammed on internet forums?

bluemason3 said:And who exactly gets to decide which topics are allowed and which ones aren't on the alternative board? You? 😁

I'm not bringing this up as some kind of tactical "lever" to win an argument; I'm presenting it as a genuine possibility that deserves actual consideration. To be clear, I’m not just talking about alternative medicine in a vacuum—the core issue clearly lies within the standard medical approach itself. If skeptics start dictating what can be said about alternatives, and doctors start policing what counts as alternative medicine, then the whole concept loses its purpose. In a debate like this, finding middle ground is tough. It feels like one side or the other is eventually going to have to lose. 🤷

If you want to talk to a lawyer, try this approach: go see one and tell them your brother passed away from some illness because some guy talked him into drinking soap suds instead of getting actual cancer treatment. Then ask if you have any grounds for a lawsuit.
Look, I’m no lawyer, so everything I say is just my two cents. But honestly? Any attorney would be jumping for joy at the thought of their contingency fee on this one. They’d jump at the chance to take this case.

We'll see. 🤔 But if that's actually the case, then there’s really no point to that PDF at all. 🤷

I agree again. There are plenty of specialized forums out there where people post whatever they want without anyone complaining, probably because the people who hate it don't even hang out there. Ultimately, it's up to the owner of the forum to decide if they actually want a "controversial" sub-forum on their site.

briskeagle39 said:If I actually believed in karma, I’d be terrified of recommending that seriously ill people skip conventional Western medicine—mostly out of pure self-interest, really...😢

Maybe it isn't strictly illegal, but it is certainly reckless. And frankly, I don't consider recklessness to be a virtue.

Besides, there are plenty of cases where parents have been held accountable in court for refusing standard medical care for their children.
example

I don't think those recommendations make sense either, but the real question is whether they are actually prohibited by law.

That said, I haven't noticed anyone actively pressuring others to ditch mainstream treatments. Most people just share their own opinions and experiences.

The example mentioned is just an accusation, not a verdict. To claim—based on what Begicin's lawyer said—that this is a direct cause of death, we're talking about parental responsibility or guardianship. People aren't being sued for homeopathy itself; the issue is that guardians made decisions for someone else that ultimately led to a child's death.

This reminds me of the issues we faced at the Department of Commerce regarding Forex, back before we banned covert advertising and started issuing instant bans. Now, the discussions surrounding Forex are civilized, intelligent, and free from those who prey on human stupidity.

As a medical professional, I have one piece of advice for the moderators of Alternative: never, under any circumstances, allow someone to advise others to abandon conventional medicine, lest they face legal repercussions. That choice belongs solely to the patient and their family. If they wish to supplement conventional medicine with midnight-harvested dew, so be it. However, anyone claiming that such dew can cure them—or insisting they quit conventional treatments in favor of it—should be banned immediately and their post deleted.

Ryan Gomez4 said:Yeah, and what does your example have to do with people getting scammed on internet forums?

We were discussing whether inciting someone to reject conventional cancer treatment is a prosecutable offense, weren't we? In your view, it isn't—even though you admit you aren't a lawyer, and you acknowledge that practicing medicine without a license is just as illegal as fraud. Look, I don't know if it's legally actionable or not... but I certainly think it's unethical.

Plus, if a parent decides to deny their child Western medicine simply because some user named "XY" was rambling about it on an online forum during a critical moment—and then that child suffers the health consequences—well, I truly hope both the parent and "XY" end up facing a judge...

shadowpilot8 said:This reminds me of the issues we faced at the Department of Commerce regarding Forex, back before we banned covert advertising and started issuing instant bans. Now, the discussions surrounding Forex are civilized, intelligent, and free from those who prey on human stupidity.

As a medical professional, I have one piece of advice for the moderators of Alternative: never, under any circumstances, allow someone to advise others to abandon conventional medicine, lest they face legal repercussions. That choice belongs solely to the patient and their family. If they wish to supplement conventional medicine with midnight-harvested dew, so be it. However, anyone claiming that such dew can cure them—or insisting they quit conventional treatments in favor of it—should be banned immediately and their post deleted.

Exactly. But here’s the catch—they’ll frame it as being "the patient's and family's decision." This usually happens after they've spent hours "researching" or "educating themselves" via the internet—which, of course, includes forums and similar rabbit holes.

I’ve seen this pattern on countless other message boards; that’s always the ultimate deflection. It isn't technically wrong, but it's incredibly unproven...

bluemason3, in that specific case I remember, the parents actually ended up facing legal consequences. Actually, just the father, if I recall correctly...

shadowpilot8 said:This reminds me of the issues we faced at the Department of Commerce regarding Forex, back before we banned covert advertising and started issuing instant bans. Now, the discussions surrounding Forex are civilized, intelligent, and free from those who prey on human stupidity.

As a medical professional, I have one piece of advice for the moderators of Alternative: never, under any circumstances, allow someone to advise others to abandon conventional medicine, lest they face legal repercussions. That choice belongs solely to the patient and their family. If they wish to supplement conventional medicine with midnight-harvested dew, so be it. However, anyone claiming that such dew can cure them—or insisting they quit conventional treatments in favor of it—should be banned immediately and their post deleted.

Well, I'm in construction. If a piece of scaffolding or a heavy beam falls on someone at my job site, the OSHA inspectors, safety officers, and the police are all over us instantly—even if nobody gets seriously hurt. But when a patient dies under a doctor's care? Nothing happens. The family might try a private lawsuit, but most of the time, it goes nowhere. So, before you start lecturing anyone about accountability, maybe start taking responsibility for your own actions first.

It doesn't matter what "they" have to say. Any suggestion to abandon mainstream medicine should be sanctioned immediately, so no one even considers it. The moment something proves more effective than mainstream medicine for cancer treatment, then—and only then—is it acceptable to promote it.

It could definitely be connected—especially if "they" happen to be the moderators. 😁

Ryan Gomez4 said:Well, I'm in construction. If a piece of scaffolding or a heavy beam falls on someone at my job site, the OSHA inspectors, safety officers, and the police are all over us instantly—even if nobody gets seriously hurt. But when a patient dies under a doctor's care? Nothing happens. The family might try a private lawsuit, but most of the time, it goes nowhere. So, before you start lecturing anyone about accountability, maybe start taking responsibility for your own actions first.

Ryan Gomez4, I hope you're joking. 😁

What are the odds that life doesn't end in death? Zero. Doctors don't go around killing people; they simply use the tools they have to provide the best care possible. When it comes to cancer treatment, those tools eventually run out. It’s perfectly reasonable for people to look into alternative medicine because hope is a powerful thing. But believe me, I've seen it happen: once a patient abandons standard care for an alternative method and the family disagrees, that same family will sue everyone in sight once the patient passes—regardless of how terminal the illness was. People accept death under a doctor, but they won't accept it under an alternative practitioner. That's the reality.

shadowpilot8 said:Ryan Gomez4, I hope you're joking. 😁

What are the odds that life doesn't end in death? Zero. Doctors don't go around killing people; they simply use the tools they have to provide the best care possible. When it comes to cancer treatment, those tools eventually run out. It’s perfectly reasonable for people to look into alternative medicine because hope is a powerful thing. But believe me, I've seen it happen: once a patient abandons standard care for an alternative method and the family disagrees, that same family will sue everyone in sight once the patient passes—regardless of how terminal the illness was. People accept death under a doctor, but they won't accept it under an alternative practitioner. That's the reality.

First off, regarding the bolded part, the second half is dead wrong. In my experience, most doctors will try to do as little as possible—or better yet, nothing at all. Unless, of course, you're hitting up a private specialist who's getting paid a fortune; then they'll treat you for things you don't even have.

shadowpilot8 said:It doesn't matter what "they" have to say. Any suggestion to abandon mainstream medicine should be sanctioned immediately, so no one even considers it. The moment something proves more effective than mainstream medicine for cancer treatment, then—and only then—is it acceptable to promote it.

That shouldn't depend on what you personally feel is right; it would only matter if the law actually required it to be that way.

First, we need to define what "accountability" actually looks like. Do you really think casual conversation over coffee counts? Like when a friend tells another friend they think doctors are crooks, but she’d never actually take them to court?

The second we start penalizing individual opinions and viewpoints like that, we aren't living in a democratic society anymore.

I'm not convinced there aren't cases where something outperforms mainstream medicine. It isn't infallible, just like alternative medicine isn't (though I don't doubt for a second that the alternative field is far more prone to charlatans). But without open debate, you can't "dissect" the truth, and you can't have an open debate if there are bans in place.

Look, obviously there are all kinds of doctors out there, but that’s beside the point. My argument is that you need to protect yourselves as moderators and shield innocent patients from charlatans. Personally, I have nothing against alternative medicine and I even allow my patients to pursue it; I don't believe it causes harm—provided they actually listen to me. 😁

bluemason3, just chatting over coffee doesn't count as proof
writing something down on a forum provides a perfectly solid and lasting record

for instance, on the legal subforum, you aren't allowed to advise anyone to commit illegal acts
in my view, within the alternative medicine section, there really shouldn't be any permission granted to encourage people to abandon official medicine

bluemason3, just chatting over coffee doesn't count as proof
whatever gets written down on a forum stands as solid, lasting evidence

take the legal subforum, for instance, where you aren't allowed to advise anyone on how to commit illegal acts
personally, I feel like in the alternative medicine section, we shouldn't be allowing anyone to push people away from official medical advice

shadowpilot8 said:Ryan Gomez4, I hope you're joking. 😁

What are the odds that life doesn't end in death? Zero. Doctors don't go around killing people; they simply use the tools they have to provide the best care possible. When it comes to cancer treatment, those tools eventually run out. It’s perfectly reasonable for people to look into alternative medicine because hope is a powerful thing. But believe me, I've seen it happen: once a patient abandons standard care for an alternative method and the family disagrees, that same family will sue everyone in sight once the patient passes—regardless of how terminal the illness was. People accept death under a doctor, but they won't accept it under an alternative practitioner. That's the reality.

Then that applies to alternative medicine too.😁

I’d say zero. Most doctors aren't out to kill people; they just try to treat them the best way they know how, provided they have the right tools.

Sure, you could say the same about an alternative practitioner.😁 Of course, that assumes they aren't intentionally conning people, which happens more than you'd think. But whether what they believe actually works—or if it's just a side hustle—is another story.😁

But it isn't all black and white. I dealt with a serious illness once, and it was a mixed bag. There were doctors who truly gave it their all, and then there were those whose negligence made things worse. They wouldn't bother looking at the medical history, leading to wrong or contraindicated treatments that nearly killed the patient. It would have been obvious from a two-second glance at the chart, but naturally, no one was held accountable. The person almost died, and even after several months of recovery, nobody faced any consequences. The reality is that doctors are rarely sued for negligence, even when they deserve it. It's also true that unless they're in private practice, they're under immense pressure, which often shifts the responsibility away from the individual doctor.

It’s also a fact that certain things have been researched and proven—we've discussed this in the alternative medicine threads before, so I won't drag it out here—like the influence of suggestion, including during total anesthesia. Medical studies show it has a significant impact on later recovery, yet it gets ignored in practice. Truth is, things are often dismissed for very personal reasons or due to lobbying. Again, using my own experience as an example: hypnosis is a medically proven, safer, and healthier procedure compared to some "chemical" options, yet it isn't used. And there are plenty of other examples, like certain rehab procedures for stroke victims where traditional methods actually see more success. Recently, even "mainstream" medicine integrated a drug developed from traditional Chinese medicine... so what? A few months ago, it was considered quackery; now, suddenly, it’s perfectly fine? This ties back to the pharmaceutical industry and the fact that it takes massive capital to get a drug approved—at least by the FDA—which almost no one outside the major players can afford. Basically, I don't think putting anything on a pedestal of untouchability is a good idea; that sets a dangerous precedent.

But those are topics for a long document, not a quick chat here.

Anyway, personally, I'm not in favor of censoring any opinion anywhere unless it's blatant trolling or off-topic, regardless of the negative side effects such policies always seem to have.

hollowtrucker77 said:bluemason3, just chatting over coffee doesn't count as proof
writing something down on a forum provides a perfectly solid and lasting record

for instance, on the legal subforum, you aren't allowed to advise anyone to commit illegal acts
in my view, within the alternative medicine section, there really shouldn't be any permission granted to encourage people to abandon official medicine

But let's say someone recorded that coffee chat on a dictaphone. You think that would be grounds for a lawsuit? Seems a bit extreme to me.

I'm not sure if anything posted there even qualifies as "advice." If someone publicly states they think mainstream medicine is useless... I doubt you could sue them. You can't penalize an opinion. It’s a different story if someone is actually coercing someone else (like in that link about parents who are legally responsible for their kids—they're essentially making the decisions for them)—or if they hold a sensitive position like a doctor.

Choosing to stop a medical treatment (for a sane adult) isn't an illegal act.🤷

Look, let's be clear: I hate the idea of someone following advice here and hurting themselves. But I hate the idea of me deciding what others should think, say, or believe even more.

bluemason3 said:I didn't mean to imply that this was a personal attack. The idea that information is just being copied from a PDF over to some other platform doesn't really hold water. Even if that PDF didn't exist, the people interested in alternative medicine would still be saying exactly what they're saying. Those two things aren't connected.

Everyone’s got an opinion on something. How Beg handles the alternative medicine section is his business, and honestly, maybe I’m overstepping by talking so much about a corner of the forum I don't actually moderate. But I'll say it again—unless there's some actual legal justification for this "witch hunt," it's nothing more than a personal vendetta and a smear campaign.

I think you’re just playing games here. You can't equate a healthy debate or an exchange of ideas with exploitation. Besides, blatant advertising has always been against the rules on this forum. This really comes down to free speech; you have to defend the right to be wrong. Once we start penalizing "nonsense," we enter some pretty slippery territory. If you start defining what counts as nonsense, it becomes a very easy slide toward a dictatorship. It’s honestly ridiculous—as already mentioned, there are no consequences for actual harmful actions (like the stuff the alternative medicine crowd does in Orasi), yet people are trying to run this self-righteous crusade on the forum. In practice, it should be the exact opposite: we should be sanctioning dangerous behavior, not opinions. At least, that's how it works in a democracy.

What a beautiful way to twist the truth. It’s pretty obvious that people peddling alternative medicine have a massive amount of experience at this game.

What exactly are you trying to imply here? That I'm some kind of peddler of alternative medicine? We aren't even debating the people using that PDF right now. I hope you actually have something to back up those claims. 😁

Besides, if you’ve actually bothered to read my posts on this forum before, you’d know I’m not some blind follower of alternative medicine. But that’s beside the point. As the moderator of this specific sub-forum, I believe everyone here has every right to express views that fall under the umbrella of this topic.

So, nice try at playing games, but it’s clearly coming from your side. 😉

It’s not just about her. This affects everyone else involved here, and honestly, it goes straight to the top—it's on the forum owner too!
Moderators shouldn't be people who walk in with a fixed mindset, ready to defend their own views at the expense of everyone else's freedom of speech. Seriously, what is that even about?

Look, if you ask me, you’re just playing games here. You can't honestly try to equate a healthy debate or an exchange of ideas with someone taking advantage of others. And let's be real—advertising was already banned all over this forum anyway, so what's the big deal? This is exactly where the whole free speech issue comes in. You have to defend even the absolute nonsense, because once you start policing "stupidity," you're stepping onto some seriously shady ground. Who gets to decide what counts as nonsense? That's how you slide right into a dictatorship. It's ridiculous! Like I said before, there are zero consequences for actual harmful actions—you know, those people pushing their "alternative treatments" in Orasi—yet everyone here is trying to run this self-righteous crusade. In a real democracy, it should be the exact opposite: you penalize dangerous behavior, not someone's opinion. Period.

🤷 I am so sick of repeating myself! Seriously, why do I even bother? I’m done going over the same ground again and again. Is anyone even listening?

There’s a massive difference between harmless nonsense and dangerous stupidity. And personally? I am dead set against the first kind.
Look, let’s put it this way: personal freedom ends exactly where someone else's freedom begins. It's that simple. And honestly? The freedom to actually think for yourself is being suffocated. People fall for it so easily—they just swallow any random mantra they hear. If you repeat a lie enough times, people start treating it like gospel. That should be reason enough to strictly shut down dangerous ideas before they spread. But hey, other people here have already said it better than I ever could.

What exactly are you trying to imply here? That I'm some kind of peddler of alternative medicine? Look, we aren't even debating the people from that PDF right now! Do you actually have anything to back up those claims, or are you just talking out of your neck? 😁

Look, if you’ve actually bothered to read my posts around here on the forum, you’d know I’m not some blind fanatic for alternative medicine. I'm not like that. But honestly, does that even matter? As a moderator for this sub-forum, I firmly believe that anyone posting in the alternative section has every right to voice their opinions—because by definition, that's exactly what this space is for!

So, here we go again. Another pathetic attempt at playing games, only this time, you're the one pulling the strings. Seriously? 😉

I don't make it a habit to keep tabs on everything everyone else is posting around here. But like you so sharply pointed out, I wasn't aiming this at any one specific person. I'm talking about the massive, sweeping shift we're seeing where skeptics are suddenly pivoting to this idea that nobody should ever be allowed to stop someone from voicing an opinion—no matter how absolutely disastrous or brain-dead that opinion might be. And they’re all doing it under the convenient little guise of "protecting freedom." Give me a break!
That’s a bit of a stretch compared to what I actually started with, isn't it? Maybe I'm just whining too much. Honestly, am I even making sense right now? Maybe I am. 😁

As for what you actually do? All I know is what you claim to do—assuming you're even telling the truth here. And look, you don't have to stick strictly to mainstream medicine, nor do you need to dive headfirst into it. At the end of the day, you can do whatever the hell you want; all I care about is what you post on this forum. That's what we're dealing with here.

bluemason3 said:And who exactly gets to decide which topics are allowed and which ones aren't on the alternative board? You? 😁

I'm not bringing this up as some kind of tactical "lever" to win an argument; I'm presenting it as a genuine possibility that deserves actual consideration. To be clear, I’m not just talking about alternative medicine in a vacuum—the core issue clearly lies within the standard medical approach itself. If skeptics start dictating what can be said about alternatives, and doctors start policing what counts as alternative medicine, then the whole concept loses its purpose. In a debate like this, finding middle ground is tough. It feels like one side or the other is eventually going to have to lose. 🤷

If you want to talk to a lawyer, try this approach: go see one and tell them your brother passed away from some illness because some guy talked him into drinking soap suds instead of getting actual cancer treatment. Then ask if you have any grounds for a lawsuit.
Look, I’m no lawyer, so everything I say is just my two cents. But honestly? Any attorney would be jumping for joy at the thought of their contingency fee on this one. They’d jump at the chance to take this case.

We'll see. 🤔 But if that's actually the case, then there’s really no point to that PDF at all. 🤷

Go ahead, ask everyone else the same question. Honestly, I’d go so far as to say there’s a pretty damn obvious consensus on what qualifies as dangerous and deserves to be deleted.