Australia Investigates 2005 Death of Penelope Dingle
June 18th, 2010
|
| Share |
A story out of Australia that is both tragic and revealing has recently been making the rounds in the media, involving the death of Penelope Dingle, a woman who died of cancer in 2005. Penelope had been married to Dr. Peter Dingle, a small time celebrity in Western Australia.
Peter Dingle is an Australian media personality and alternative medicine advocate. For those not familiar with him, his style is a little bit like that of Andrew Weil. Although Dingle does have a bonafied Ph.D., his books and lectures have been generally quite fringe and focus heavily on inflated claims of dangers from environmental toxins and modern society. Some media outlets have stated that Dr. dingle is a “Toxicologist,” but he is not one in the medical sense. His degree is in “environmental sciences,” and he describes his expertise as being “indoor air quality.”
Dingle is best known for his books, lecture tours and as a frequent guest on Australian daytime talk shows. He is a regular on the breakfast television show “Wake Up! WA.” He has also endorsed a number of health products such as nutrition supplements and various “natural” remedies.
Recently it has come to light that Penelope Dingle’s death occurred after nearly two years of treatment with homeopathic remedies for rectal cancer that was first diagnosed in 2003. When the cancer was first found it was likely that it could have been successfully treated by removing the cancerous tumor by surgery. However, by the time Dingle finally began using mainstream medicine, it was far too late.
Now the local coroner is looking at whether her death is a criminal matter.
Via The Sydney Morning Herald:
The wife of a prominent Perth author and toxicologist would have died “in excruciating pain” after refusing to have surgery for bowel cancer, a coronial inquest has been told.
“It’s one of the most painful diseases you could possibly get, particularly when it gets to the advanced stages,” colourectal surgeon Professor Cameron Platell told the inquest on Monday.
“It’s like torturing someone.”
Dr Platell was giving evidence into the death of Penelope Dingle, who died of her disease in 2005 after opting for alternative therapies over more traditional surgery and chemotherapy.
Ms Dingle, 40, was the wife of Murdoch University Professor Peter Dingle, a leading toxicologist, author, self-described media personality and guest presenter on the ABC’s Can We Help? program.
The inquest into her death is being held to determine what role her homeopath, Francine Scrayen, and husband played in her treatment, and whether greater regulation of alternative medicines is needed.
In a letter to Dr Platell, Ms Dingle said she wanted to adopt a “holistic” approach to her treatment.
Clearly, Mrs. Dingle appears to have bought the entire thing hook line and sinker, but there has been some question about whether or not her Husband Dr. Dingle may have played a role in convincing her of going with the alternative approach to cancer treatment as well as why he didn’t attempt to persuade her to seek real medical treatment.
For his part, Dr. Dingle claims he had made an attempt to convince his wife to have the surgery, although he has since indicated some regret for not confronting the homeopath treating his wife or trying to get her to get the surgery.
A PROMINENT Perth toxicologist has told the State Coroner he had several arguments with his cancer-stricken wife over having surgery that she ultimately refused.
At an inquest into Penelope Dingle’s 2005 death, Peter Dingle this afternoon told the Coroners Court that he tried to convince his wife to have surgery after she was diagnosed with colorectal cancer in February 2003.
Mrs Dingle, who attempted to treat the cancer with homeopathy and natural remedies, died in August 2005 after suffering a rectal tumour.
When questioned by State Coroner Alastair Hope why he had not booked his wife in for surgery shortly after learning she had cancer, Dr Dingle said he had been unable to convince her and said he had no control over his wife.
Yet there is another side to this story that is especially disturbing. Several media outlets have reported that Dr. Dingle’s role in the death of his wife may have been more direct. In fact, it has been reported that he had agreed to pact to have his wife’s treatment limited entirely to “alternative” medicine, with the expectation that he would write a book on how he had cured his wife’s cancer using homeopathy and alternative means.
Giving evidence at Dingle’s inquest yesterday before West Australian Coroner Alastair Hope, her sister Toni Brown said seeing Dingle in 2003 was like watching “somebody being tortured”.
She said she had been told by one of the couple’s close friends that the Dingles had a pact with the homeopath treating Dingle, Francine Scrayen.
Under the pact, they agreed that only alternative medicine would be used and Dr Dingle would then write a book about curing his wife’s cancer.
Mrs Brown said that under the agreement, Dr Dingle would look after his wife’s vitamin and antioxidant treatment and Ms Scrayen would deal with homeopathy treatments and diet.
Mrs Brown said that in 2003 her sister was on a strict diet and lost a significant amount of weight but each time she expressed concern, Dingle and her husband told her the treatment was going well.
It’s certainly a dicey situation, but if Peter Dingle or Francine Scrayen in any way worked to convince Penelope Dingle that she did not need real medical treatment or pressured her not to have the surgery, then the may very well be criminally responsible for her death. A spouse can certainly have a great deal of influence, especially if they use their background or education to try to imply that they know what’s best. For a sick and dying woman, a strong-handed husband may have the power to keep her away from the help she needs.
Of course, what role Peter Dingle may have played is still unproven and he is entitled to the presumption of innocence. What is clear is the guilt of the ridiculous practice of homeopathy, which has taken many lives by denying or displacing real medical treatment.
If you have a loved one who has cancer that is treatable but will be deadly without the proper treatment, and if they choose homeopathy, recognize that unless you can talk some sense into them, they’re going to die a horrible and painful death. Argue with them, yell at them, if you have to, cry or beg if you have to, unless you’d rather be respectful and watch them die – because that is what will happen.
This entry was posted on Friday, June 18th, 2010 at 8:56 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Culture, Misc, Quackery, media. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
June 18th, 2010 at 9:41 pm
“Stupidity is the one capital crime in the universe, there is no appeal and sentence is passed immediately”
(attributed to the character Lazarus Long)
- Robert A. Heinlein
Quote Comment
June 18th, 2010 at 11:14 pm
Why has it taken five years for the coroner to get around to this???
Quote Comment
June 19th, 2010 at 3:19 am
As I recall, the sisters of the deceased started to investigate the situation themselves at first, effectively gathering evidence, and didn’t seek an inquest until 2007. It took another 18 moths for the inquest to be granted and I assume, from there, it was a matter of it waiting in line.
This ABC link gives a good background and summary of the situation so far.
Quote Comment
June 19th, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Here’s an interesting statement:
Reasonable homeopathic treatment??? Homeopathy is never reasonable because it’s always a crock.
It never kills, but if the person is gullible enough to think it actually is treatment for their disease then it will kill them by making them avoid real treatment.
What can they hope to do about this with regulation or changing homeopathic practices? It won’t because homeopathy is always a crock and anyone who uses it is, by definition, uninformed or ignorant of the facts.
The ONLY way this will stop is when people in general come to realize that, yes, homeopathy is a crock.
There is only one good side to this kind of a story, which is that it might get enough attention out there about how useless this quackery is. If this news story gets reported enough and makes people come to their senses and start using real medicine then it will have done some good.
Quote Comment
June 19th, 2010 at 9:46 pm
Another senseless death.
Quote Comment
June 20th, 2010 at 7:21 pm
Reading the latest reports (http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/homeopath-denies-asking-for-indemnity-20100618-ympj.html) the issue seems to be more about religion than homoeopathy. “Dr Dingle said his wife considered her cancer a “test of faith”, saying she was “fanatical” about it.
Drawing on a diary entry by his wife after she was first diagnosed and given a two-week window to remove the tumour without it spreading, Dr Dingle read: “I felt disappointed or let down that I didn’t have the challenge of a (cancer) spread.
“It’s a challenge of faith to be told you will die if you don’t have an operation and you know you won’t have one.
“God is not testing my determination, he is testing my faith.”"
From reading this report her priest or the spiritual leader(s) who informed her faith need as much scrutiny by the coroner as the health practitioner in question. After all there’s about as much evidence for the “memory of water” as there is for religious miracles.
Quote Comment
June 20th, 2010 at 8:22 pm
Geez… I was not aware of that.
For those wackos who feel disappointed that they do not have aggressive, multi-organ cancer to “test their faith,” don’t worry, there is a solution to that problem. There are ways of inducing cancer using drugs and chemicals which are commonly used to produce aggressive cancer in rats for research purposes.
Hell, maybe it’s about time we stop trying to convince people not to do this kind of thing and start actually considering whether it might be a good thing for others to learn from and to thin the gene pool of some of the less fit.
It’s like those snake-handling churches in the Appalachians. I’m not going to tell them to stop, instead I’ll suggest they really test their faith. Put down that little copperhead and pick up a damn black mamba!
Quote Comment
June 21st, 2010 at 6:19 pm
AndyD said:
I found that article to be poorly written with a clear sympathy lead in for the sisters. The same questions could be asked of the sisters as are being asked of Peter Dingle, why didn’t they act collectively to make Penelope Dingle see reason, why didn;t they research the homeopathic remedies given her husband reported he was too stressed to think straight,why did Penelope not share with them her health issues until it was too late, what sort of relationship did Penelope have with them? I think homeopathy has a case to answer here, but the rest is a circus. Peter Dingle appears to have overly respected his wife’s wishes and fundamentalist type beliefs. However even if had tried to “force Penelope” to have surgery (one wonders what the trauma of that alone would have done or what rights he has to do so given no-one not even the surgeon chose to do this) via the courts. Last year the Supreme Court here found in favour of people’s right to choose their own treatment even if it is going to kill them (Tamar Stitt case- in this case a child not an adult like Penelope). Hindsight is a safe place to judge others lives from isn’t it?
Quote Comment
June 23rd, 2010 at 10:37 pm
So why all the fuss?
There are no rules of evidence in the CC. Unlike any other court, absolutely everything is accepted including 3rd party here say and opinions. So the media picked that up and I was blamed for killing my wife to become famous. I never knew anything about this but it seems I am guilty till proven innocent.
This kept being brought up by the media frenzy until the following week when a letter from Pen admitted in court clearly stated that the homeopath had told her (Pen) that she was going to write a book and become famous. Not me, Pen. She was a creative writer and she probably saw this as her opportunity to share her journey and to become famous. This was then all forgotten but not before it was front page news. How was I going to write a book on Pens homeopathic treatment when I knew nothing of homeopathy and rarely met the homeopath? There is no logic or evidence for it.
The second issue arose when I was painted as a non-caring husband who watched and ignored my wife’s suffering. This was absolutely discredited by all the independent witnesses and the best friends of Pen who spent a lot of time with Pen before, during and after the cancer. But this was not reported in the media. I loved Pen, she loved me, she only ever wrote loving things about me until her death. This also came out in the CC. Just before Pen died, 20 months after her operation to remove the cancer, we married.
It was also reported in the media that I had Pen on strict diet and exercise regime to “cure” her cancer. The media had a frenzy that I had her on all these foul potions. For the 15 years I knew Pen she was on strict diets and foul potions. This came out a few days later when questioning her best friends. Pen was a strict vegetarian since I met her in 1989. She also fasted regularly and had strange drinks and enemas to clean her out. Nothing of my doing. When Pen was diagnosed with cancer she went on an antioxidant mix to help support her wellbeing for a few months only. She then stopped it 5 months or so before her operation in October 2003. Pen did Yoga type exercises every day. This was a part of her self realization faith.
Then the media picked up that I was not a medical doctor and I had no credentials. At this stage I was being dropped like a hot potato by all the media I work with. I have never, ever professed to have ay medical qualifications, I am proud that I have a PhD and have been researching environmental toxins for 25 years, lifestyle changes for 15 years and nutrition for more than 10 years.
It was never reported in the media that I took Pen to 7 or more doctors to convince her to take another path and have an operation. The Moss report, the most definitive report on rectal cancer also said have an operation as did the information we got from the National Institute of Health in the US when the cancer was first diagnosed. Pen read these and annotated the pages. In spite of my encouragement to have the surgery, Pen could not be convinced to have an operation.
The reasons for not having an operation were that she wanted to have a baby to me, we had been already trying to conceive for the last two years. Pen feared that radiotherapy, chemo and surgery would affect her ability to have a child so she was willing to risk her life. I did not know this at the time. I found out later after the operation when Pen told me a lot of things I did not know.
The most important thing in our relationship was our trust. This was made very clear when I first met her because of the lack of trust in her early relationships and her family. Pen had had a very complicated upbringing. I only did what Pen wanted me to and not to go against her beliefs and trust.
While I cannot change the things that have happened I know that at all times I trusted and only did everything my wife wanted.
Quote Comment
June 24th, 2010 at 12:48 am
PARTNERS OF SMOKERS BEWARE!
Using the same logic the media have used in reporting the Penelope Dingle Inquest,
when your partner dies, as the partner of a smoker you can expect to be hauled up
before an inquest AND the media, pay thousands of dollars for legal representation,
have your reputation ruined, your employment taken away and all because you did
not force your partner to stop smoking as per current medical advice, even if you
did disagree with your partner’s choices and voice that corncern to them!
Quote Comment
June 24th, 2010 at 1:07 am
Dr. Dingle -
I have written what has been widely reported and if it is inaccurate then that is unfortunate.
I will add that while I do not necessarily agree on issues of health or environmental science, I would not wish anyone have to see their spouse die of cancer and it would be inhuman to not sympathize with anyone who faced that kind of loss.
Furthermore, while I also believe that her actions and decisions were not the smartest things to do, that is hardly any reason to consider someone’s death to be taken lightly. Even if she bought into some unfounded claims, she still probably meant the world to friends and family. (I mean, I know people who are not totally rational and well informed but who I actually value a lot anyway…)
It’s easier to report things the media says when it is more abstract and indirect. I don’t honestly know whether or not what Dr. Dingle is saying here is accurate or whether the wider media reports are. Considering the man lost his wife, he may as well get the benefit of the doubt.
Sorry for your loss.
Quote Comment
June 25th, 2010 at 9:50 am
Peter Dingle was not his wife’s medical attendant and should not be judged as such. Irrational behaviour by cancer patients and their families is common enough that the coroner did not initially think this case worthy of an inquest. The issue is that he has stated in the coroner’s court the he is an expert on “indoor air quality” with no medical background. In contrast to this statement he has built a minor media empire based on his pronouncements on cholesterol, diabetes, cancer, diet and numerous other health issues well outside his field of expertise. He has a loyal following of sheep who will not look into the basis of his statements, but just assume that he is a “doctor” and must be an expert because media outlets pay him for his slick presentations.
Quote Comment
June 27th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Let me see if I have this right, “Dr.” Dingle:
You and your wife had this great trust, but she wouldn’t listen to you? And you couldn’t do anything, even after she was suffering incredible pain? And only the homeopath was going to write a book, even though we’ve seen you write books about various NewAge (rhymes with “sewage”) concerns?
And speaking of NewAge, what’s the name of this “self-realization faith” Penelope was into? it sounds a lot like The Secret, another branch of the NewAge canon, along with homeopathy, yoga, vegetarianism, fasting, enemas, antioxidants, and even catch phrases like “wellness” and “wellbeing”.
“Dr.” Dingle, my ex-wife got into the same mindset that you, Penelope, and that water saleswoman of yours, share. With the aid of a homeopath, my ex-wife killed her own mother – and then, after our divorce, went on to kill three other people. I’m telling you this to let you know you don’t fool me for a second. I – unlike the courts – understand your entire, cowardly, mindset, including how you’d like nothing more than to “move on” (I see you’ve remarried) and escape responsibily for every bit of misinformation you’ve ever spread or any harm you’ve caused. Like Thomas Sam, who killed his own child using homeopathy, you think – because you present a hard nut to crack – that you will get away with anything, but I, Sir, am The Crack Emcee and I’m hard enough to say, dead wife or no, you’re nuts, a liar, and a killer.
The weapon is your belief in NewAge.
http://themachoresponse.blogspot.com/2008/10/i-was-married-to-murderess.html
http://themachoresponse.blogspot.com/2010/06/why-are-we-ignoring-newage-cult.html
http://themachoresponse.blogspot.com/2010/06/welcome-to-glenn-black-program.html
Quote Comment
June 27th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
“Prominent Perth toxicologist Peter Dingle did not want his cancer- stricken wife Penelope to have chemotherapy or radiotherapy because the toxins would severely damage her body, he told a coronial inquest yesterday.
Dr Dingle told State Coroner Alastair Hope that while he was open to his wife having surgery to remove a rectal tumour, which eventually killed her in August 2005, he believed the treatments would not have benefited his wife’s ailing health.
He told the inquest that his wife agreed with his views on conventional medicine, and had enlisted the help of homeopath Francine Scrayen.”
Yet we’re supposed to accept that “Dr.” Dingle tried to talk his wife into appropriate treatment? I betcha he didn’t try too hard.
Throw both he and the water saleswoman in the pokey.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/7404663/cancer-treatments-of-no-benefit-to-my-wife/
Quote Comment
June 29th, 2010 at 2:20 am
Expert-Nutrition allows you to understand everything you need to know about nutrition, including recommended dietary intakes and what the science says about nutritional supplements. We aim to make nutrition easy to understand and will ultimately help you to make educated decisions about your diet and your health.
Quote Comment
June 29th, 2010 at 2:38 am
The Crack Emcee Says:
“Yet we’re supposed to accept that “Dr.” Dingle tried to talk his wife into appropriate treatment? I betcha he didn’t try too hard”
This is a heartless comment from a person who likes to form a judgement without the facts or any sense of humanity.
betcha you didn’t think to hard before posting that comment.
doesn’t feel nice when it is said about you does it?
Quote Comment
June 30th, 2010 at 4:51 pm
bonafied? ITYM bonafide
Quote Comment
July 4th, 2011 at 9:49 am
This sad tale has been revisited in tonight’s Australian Story. Ms Dingle’s letters to her homeopath are a difficult read for anyone who cares about people, honesty, health or…, well, anyone who just cares about anyone other than themselves.
Mr Dingle appears to think, in hindsight, that he should have acted differently, that he was stupid, but does he now recommend chemotherapy to cancer sufferers and as he got around, yet, to investigating the religion that is homeopathy? I find myself at a loss to understand his position.
Quote Comment
July 4th, 2011 at 11:08 am
Did you know that chemotherapy increases your chances of survival from 1% to 2%. Not good odds really. I think Dr Dingle was caught between a rock and a hard place, he had ultimate respect and love for his wife, and he only ever respected her wishes. How can that lead to this mans reputation being smeared, I think its so totally cruel. Dont you think this man has been through enough pain and suffering losing his loved one. Its so very very cruel what has happened to Peter Dingle. Penny was obviously a very strong minded individual who chose a path for herself, that in itself needs to be respected. We all chose our destiny. May she Rest in Peace.
Quote Comment
July 4th, 2011 at 12:28 pm
kymz said:
The success of chemotherapy depends on the type of cancer, the stage it is in and what other types of therapies are used.
Chemotherapy is one of the three major branches of cancer treatment, the other two being surgery and radiation. Like I said, the rates depend on the nature of the cancer. Surgery has a nearly 100% success rate for early detected skin cancer. Chemotherapy can be extremely effective when used on certain cancers, sometimes responsible for greater than 50% survival rates.
Of course it works best in combination with other therapies. In this case we’re talking about bowel cancer.
I don’t know the details, but the mainstream treatment would have relied on surgery to remove any tumors and chemotherapy which would be used to reduce the probability that any lingering cancer cells remained in her system. I don’t know if radiation would have been called for.
This tends to be a very effective approach.
James Randi had a similar cancer. I don’t know if it had grown to the extent, but he went with surgery and chemotherapy. This was about two years ago. They removed a part of his intestine and treated him with chemo for several months. It caused him problems, and there’s no denying that: he was very very tired. Each time he got a treatment he was sick for a few days. His beard got very thin as hair fell out. His immune system was weak so he was told not to travel.
However, that was a couple of years ago and after the chemo was over, he recovered. Today he is healthy and cancer free.
kymz said:
Had it been my loved one, I would not have respected their wishes to make an ill informed and ignorant choice that would kill them. Sure, I guess I would have to let them do it in the end, but I’d do everything I could to convince them otherwise.
I’d get them reports and scientific information, nag, argue, offer to do extreme favors for them in exchange for them getting science-based treatment.
In the end, they might be a bit angry at me over not respecting their wishes. They might feel I didn’t allow them to make their own choices without interfering. However, I’d rather have them next to me complaining then not bothering me because they’re in the ground decomposing.
So yeah, I’d be disrespectful of a loved one’s bad choices to save their life.
kymz said:
I’m not interested in hurting Dr. Dingle. His loss happened. There’s no going back in time to change it. I don’t want more unnecessary deaths.
kymz said:
She made a bad decision and is dead because of it. Sad and tragic, but ultimately she is primarily at fault. She could be the last one for this to happen to, but she won’t be. That’s the biggest tragedy.
Quote Comment
July 5th, 2011 at 12:27 am
“Did you know that chemotherapy increases your chances of survival from 1% to 2%. “
This conclusion is probably based on a report of survival rates written by radiotherapists (search for something like “cytotoxic chemotherapy adult survival rates”. That report has been widely condemned for specifically ignoring cancers for which chemo offers spectacular results (leukaemia anyone?) whilst including cancers for which chemo isn’t even recommended. It’s belief in this sort of apparent misinformation that leads people to believe homeopathy offers a realistic alternative – despite the likelihood that he authors of the report wouldn’t recommend homeopathy in a fit. If survival rates were really this low, almost none of us would know any chemo survivors, let alone cancer survivors, and yet I know at least five recent sufferers, all of whom were treated with chemo. I only know two people who’ve died from cancer – both were more than 20 years ago and both had advanced cancer upon diagnosis. Only one had chemo as the other’s condition was terminal when diagnosed.
Of course my 5/7 anecdote isn’t evidence, just my experience.
Quote Comment
July 5th, 2011 at 2:00 am
Hi, I am not saying chemotherapy doesnt help, but I dont think it hurts to embrace more than just mainstream treatments. Unfortunately Cancer has a memory and in a lot of cases it comes back a second time, its generally not the primary that kills but the secondary or metastasis (or spread from original site). My best friend died 5years ago from breast cancer, however she survived the first bout where she had her breast removed and had raidiation, however it came back less than two years later and despite endless rounds of chemo to her death, she still past away. Unfortuantely we do not have a cure for cancer, it takes a lot more than the chemo to cure someone. Nutrition is the major key. Nutrition ~!!!! And unfortunately a lot of people starve themselves of nutrition daily (can be a part of the cause of cancer in the first place). Old traditions such as cod liver oil, and animal fats such as lard and butter seem to have gone out the window to name a few, (how many people got cancer 50years ago, not many, and I realise environment plays a big part) I will not be writing anymore as it was not my intention to get into anything, I just felt extremely sad watching last nights Aust Story, and my heart aches for Penny and Peter.
Quote Comment
July 5th, 2011 at 3:22 am
kymz said:
Oh yeah?
Looks like going outside proven medicine is a bad idea.
kymz said:
Of course that would require that surgery, radiation and chemotherapy work the first time for most people.
kymz said:
Yeah, but quackery isn’t the place to look for the cure.
kymz said:
Not any where near as many people lived long enough to get cancer 50 years ago (Cancer I should note has been known about for a very long time, thousands of years in fact).
Quote Comment
July 5th, 2011 at 9:08 pm
I’m interested that while cancer researchers the world over are banging their collective heads against the wall trying to find the ultimate “cure” for cancers, some random person on the internet apparently holds the key – but no one’s listening.
By all accounts, Penelope Dingle was a “nutrition nut” and Peter Dingle is a “pretty big” advocate for diet and nutrition too (that’s understatement by the way). But I guess they were doing it wrong kymz? Perhaps you should be the one writing books, not Dingle.
And I love random statistical correlations, they can teach us so much we couldn’t otherwise know. 200 years ago people didn’t die in car accidents. Must have been the cod liver oil.
Quote Comment
July 5th, 2011 at 10:57 pm
Andy said:
That’s not what they are doing. Serious cancer researchers realize that cancer is not a single condition but a complex and diverse family of conditions. They know better than to look for one magic bullet cure that will magically make cancer suddenly go away. That’s not how it is treated and never will be.
They are conducting research to develop better treatments: More precisely targeted radiation, better surgical techniques, new chemotherapy drugs as well as better detection and new techniques based on gene therapy, immune system retraining and so on.
They have been successful. They continue to be successful. This is why the survival rate for a number of cancers has improved dramatically over the past few decades. This is why they will continue to improve.
Quote Comment
July 5th, 2011 at 11:01 pm
kymz said:
My great grandfather died of lung cancer in the 1930’s.
I am sure many other relatives died of cancer but I’ll probably never know. In those days, people didn’t always get much in the way of organized diagnostic tests, death certificates were filled out by morticians based on vague testimony from the family.
How many people in the 1800’s had cancerous growths that were never identified as cancerous and never recorded as a death due to cancer? I have no idea, but certainly we do know that some were documented, so the existence is undeniable.
Quote Comment
July 5th, 2011 at 11:10 pm
drbuzz0 said:
Since many death certificates from that era had “dropped dead” or “the rot” listed as cause of death, we will never know.
Quote Comment
July 6th, 2011 at 10:13 am
“That’s not what they are doing. Serious cancer researchers realize that cancer is not a single condition but a complex and diverse family of conditions.”
Loose language, sorry. I did double-quote “cure” but perhaps should have pluralised it as well, as I did with cancers. But I can also see how it is probably better if we don’t talk about cures as it just offers free kicks to the deniers as they continue to point out we don’t have any. Personally, I’m pretty damned impressed at the hope offered to many cancer sufferers these days (assuming they actually seek out sensible treatment).
Quote Comment
July 6th, 2011 at 11:35 am
DV82XL said:
Very true! I have geneology papers for my great grandparents and great great grandparents. One of them says “Became ill then died” and another one says “died in his sleep” I don’t think most of my family before 1900 saw a doctor in their later years and surely nobody ever did a laboratory test to uncover what the real cause of the illness was for sure. So maybe they died of cancer or maybe not. Maybe stroke, heart attack, the flu? I don’t know.
Quote Comment