Another child dead from quackery

[SidDithers]

Another child dead from quackery: The parents say they’re being persecuted in a plot to impose forced vaccination

A couple of days ago, I wrote about a story of a sort that I’ve had to write about far too many times over the last eleven years. I wrote about the death of a child—but not just any death of a child, the death of a child who could have—should have—lived. The child’s name was Ezekiel Stephan, and his parents are David and Collet Stephan. The reason that child should have lived is because he suffered from a disease that medicine can treat, meningitis. Unfortunately, his parents didn’t take him to a real doctor. They took him to a naturopath, who recommended maple syrup, juice with frozen berries and a mixture of apple cider vinegar, horse radish root, hot peppers, mashed onion, garlic and ginger root as a treatment for meningitis—all without ever having examined the patient.

Now, quite rightly, they are on trial, and, as you will see, are trying to paint themselves as persecuted by The Man, who, if you believe them, is coming down on them hard as a way to bypass Canadian law and bring about forced vaccination.

You might think that there wouldn’t be much to write now, only two days after I last wrote about this case, but you’d be wrong. First, the name of the naturopath who treated Ezekiel was revealed, Dr. Tracy Tannis. It turns out that I had narrowed down the list of suspects pretty well, to Cindy Cervanka, Clayton J. Koganow, and Tracy Pike. Tracy Pike, it turns out, is Tracy Tannis and is listed on her practice’s website as Tracy (Pike) Tannis. Or perhaps I should say was listed. The website for her practice, Lethbridge Naturopathic Medical Clinic, has been scrubbed, including Tannis’ page. Fortunately, the Internet never forgets, no matter how hard a quack tries to shove the evidence down the memory hole, and the almighty Archive.org contains a recent (January 30) http://www.lethbridgenaturopath.com/" target="_blank">snapshot of Tannis’ website. Right there on the front page I see:

Our clinic offers the following services:

chelation
IV nutrients
IV vitamin C
blood lab services
acupuncture
herbal medicine (Tinctures & Dry Herbs)
ozone therapy
hair analysis
allergy testing and more!
All these services are provided by a Naturopathic Doctor.

Dr. Tannis provides individual and family health care. The clinic commonly treats: andropause, asthma, high cholesterol, candidiasis, common colds, sinusitis, food & inhalant allergies, chronic pain, digestive issues, depression, hormonal imbalances,thyroid diseases, GERD, PMS, heart disease, fertility problems, menopause, memory loss, obesity, ovarian cysts, adrenal fatigue, cancer, rheumatoid & osteoarthritis,chronic fatigue, psoriasis, eczema & fibromyalgia.

In other words, it’s the usual naturopathic quackery. Chelation therapy, as I’ve pointed out before, is potentially deadly. IV vitamin C doesn’t treat anything, much less cancer. Acupuncture, of course, is quackery. Ozone therapy is just plain frightening, as it often involves intravenous injections of hydrogen peroxide.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/03/11/another-child-dead-from-quackery-the-parents-say-theyre-being-persecuted-in-a-plot-to-impose-forced-vaccination/


Fucking idiots. The parents and the naturopathic "doctor" belong in jail.


Sid

[mcar]

1. They do indeed

Poor child.

[Iliyah]

2. Unfortunately that's their right

In my opinion it's wrong, but in their opinion they feel they are right.


Bless the little one.

[bhikkhu]

3. Children have special legal protection

If you kill a child while practicing your own rights, whether you feel you are right or not, the thing is sorted out in court.

[21st Century Poet]

5. The parents did not kill the child.

Meningitis (a natural cause, even if a preventable one) did. I think Iliyah is right on this point.

[cleanhippie]

6. They are responsible for the child's death. Their negligence and wilfull ignorance are to blame.

[21st Century Poet]

8. Ignorance is not a crime.

And although negligence can be, the parents didn't neglect the child. They took him to a naturopath because they were concerned about the child's health.

I see a lot of stupidity in this case but I still don't see any evidence of crime.

[cleanhippie]

11. If they we're concerned with the child's help, they would have taken him to an actual Doctor.

What they did is just as negligent at using prayer to heal their child.


A child is dead due to the negligence of the parents. Not a crime? It certainly should be, don't you agree?

[21st Century Poet]

14. Don't assume that people everywhere react to situations the same way you do.

You would go to a doctor. So would I. Many others would do nothing at all because they assume that whatever it is will just go away. Others prefer to die of an illness because they have a phobia of doctors and hospitals. Others think that hospitals and doctors are a for-profit industry which doesn't really care about patients' health. Others think that alternative medicine (or prayer) can cure anything. Homeopathy and Chinese Traditional Medicine are huge industries. Even billionaire and all-round smart guy Steve Jobs was fooled.

Don't assume that everyone has the same world-view as you do, and different world-views are not crimes.

That the parents were concerned is a proven fact. If they weren't concerned, they would not have taken the boy to a naturopath but just ignored his illness instead. Therefore, one cannot say that the boy was neglected.

As for me, I would love to smack the parents' ignorance out of their heads. The things is that smacking people is a crime but ignorance is not.

[COLGATE4]

18. No. Negligence doing something that they

knew or should have known was not the right thing to do. In the 21st century I would be very very hard for them to convince a jury that they didn't know that giving a desperately ill child berry juice with onion, garlic and hot peppers was not an appropriate medical treatment for meningitis. In the Law it's known as the Person of Reasonable Prudence and the question is always this: "Would a person of reasonable prudence have acted as these parents did?" I don't think it would take a jury a whole lot of time to find that the answer to that question in this case is "No".

[21st Century Poet]

21. Quackery is everywhere.

On the contrary, quackery in the 21st century is more widespread than ever before. Traditional Chinese Medicine used to be confined to China. Now it's everywhere. Even serious colleges have courses about it. And the number of homeopathic clinics worldwide is rising. And so are patients going to them, because a homeopathic doctor talks to you for ages and makes you feel better about yourself unlike a medical doctor on a 24-hour backbreaking shift for whom you are just a number.

There are several reasons for the spread: the internet, people's concern about the medical industry, globalisation (it can spread good ideas as well as bad), 'back to nature' movements so loved by city-dwelling, well-to-do vegetarians and the like, and so on.

Assuming that a person of reasonable prudence would think just the same way you do is very self-centric. Did you know that a high percentage of Dutch women prefer to give birth at home because they think it's better than doing so in a hospital?

[COLGATE4]

24. As an experienced lawyer I'm just telling you what the law

is. The "Person of Reasonable Prudence" standard is as old as Tort Law itself in the U.S. It is the benchmark in every negligence action. The jury is instructed in its meaning and application. So, if you wind up on the wrong end of a Negligence suit your peers are going to use that standard to determine if you were in fact negligent or not. And no, they won't get to consider whether Dutch women prefer giving birth at home in your defense.

[stevenleser]

38. I will defer 100% to your knowledge of what tort law would call for here. But is that standard

translate-able to criminal law?

I think the parents should be in jail, but I don't know if the law calls for it.

[COLGATE4]

41. If they are charged with Negligent Homicide then the

standard for Negligence would also be used in determining their guilt or innocence. Otherwise, no.

[NickB79]

34. Say I leave a loaded gun on my daughter's nightstand before bed

My 5 yr old blows her head off with it.

Do we say the gun killed the child, or the parent?

I know who I'd blame.

[tabasco]

9. Nope, and it is a depraved point of view that it is anyone's "right"

to withhold necessary medical treatment for a child or adult.

[21st Century Poet]

16. What does 'withhold' mean?

For something to be withheld, it first has to be accessed or desired. Something which has never been given, is shunned, not wanted and not desired cannot be said to be being withheld. A vegetarian is not withheld from eating meat but refuses to do so, for example.

Unless the child specifically asked for medical treatment or at least one of the parents did in his name and access was denied by the other parent, or unless the naturopath prevented the parents from taking the boy to a proper hospital, I don't think one can argue that medical treatment was withheld.

The truth is that this family probably lives what people like this like to call 'one with nature', in which all forms of medical procedures and synthetic and man-made products are not even considered as viable options.

[COLGATE4]

17. The parents unquestionably have the right to believe

whatever they believe and to seek whatever kind of 'medical' treatment they want to. But their right ends where the safety of a minor in their charge begins. I would argue that their right dioes not trump the child's right to have his caregivers get him effective professional care in line with his medical needs. And, when a child is dying from meningitis that professional care isn't taking berry juice mized with jalapenos and horseradish.

[Humanist_Activist]

26. Its their right to kill their child through neglect, to withhold medical care? Bullshit...

straight up, immoral bullshit. I can't believe this type of shit is posted on a so called "progressive" website. You should be ashamed of yourself. No person's right to belief trumps another's right to live.

[21st Century Poet]

4. Oh, dear, what idiotic parents.

Not going to the doctor when you are ill is not a crime. Neither is recommending specific foods and homemade cures, so unless the naturopath tried to pass himself off as a medical doctor, I don't see how any one of these people should end up in jail.

That said, my God, the idiocy.

But I still fail to see how the parents could be punished. The child died from a natural cause, after all, admittedly a preventable natural cause, but a natural cause nonetheless.

[Iliyah]

7. It's happening for frequently in present times.

Something that can be avoided should be and that child died from the illogical methods and decision made by the parents.

[21st Century Poet]

10. To put people in jail you need evidence of crime.

Stupidity and bad health-related decisions are not crimes. The way I see it, pinning the parents down is going to be pretty hard.

[hobbit709]

15. Stupid decisions that affect the parents is one thing.

Failure to see to the welfare of their child IS a crime.

If either parent had died due to the stupidity of going with quackery, that would have been their right as adults.
Killing someone else due to neglect is not the same.

[21st Century Poet]

19. The boy was not neglected.

The parents took the boy to a naturopath because they were concerned. This was not the right decision but it is a decision which proves that they did not neglect the boy. When you neglect someone, you stop caring. You let that person lie in bed when ill, don't feed him and let him sit in his own faeces. You don't take him to any form of doctor, whether a medical or a homeopathic one.

And the parents did not kill the child. Meningitis did, which is a natural cause.

I understand everyone's anger (I am angry too) but in court you cannot say "Throw them in jail because they make me angry."

[hobbit709]

20. Wrong. Failure to seek MEDICAL treatment is chargeable.

Taking him to a quack is not MEDICAL treatment.

[21st Century Poet]

22. I doubt it.

Unless there is a law which states that all ill people (or at least all children) must visit a medical doctor or be taken to one, it is not.

[Humanist_Activist]

30. Parents have been prosecuted in the United States for failing to send their kids...

to medical professionals. Most of them were Christian Scientists who avoided providing medical care and instead tried to pray away the diseases. Unfortunately, the laws vary greatly from state to state, and seems to mostly get ignored by everyone, you can, more or less, kill your children outright in quite a few states through negligence and get away with it if you claim religious exemption.

http://childrenshealthcare.org/?page_id=3119

[21st Century Poet]

32. Through negligence, yes

But it's proving that there was negligence which is the hard part. If you took your children to a homeopathic clinic and you prayed for them, you clearly took steps to try and solve the problem so it's hard to prove that you actually neglected them.

That link you provided has some interesting detail. Many states seem to prove my point.

[Humanist_Activist]

33. In this age of being able to access accurate information on all sorts of subjects...

in mere seconds, I think the idea of using ignorance as a defense isn't valid.

[21st Century Poet]

35. This is the age of ignorance.

The information age is, sadly, also the age of ignorance. The Internet spreads as much ignorance as it does accurate data, and it does so at a speed never before seen in human history.

And folks who believe in the power of prayer, alternative medicine, faith healing and so on don't take kindly to being called ignorant. That is not a tiny sector of the population but one which is bigger than you might think.

Despite some massive scandals and scant evidence of effectiveness, the vitamin, shakes, potions and supplements industry in the United States is near a 100 billion dollar a year industry and growing faster than that of 'normal' and proven medicines. People don't like being told how to look after their own well-being. They would rather have choices, even if those choices seem strange to people like you and me.

You and I think ours is the reasonable choice but others are sure that it's theirs. When trying to figure these things out, always try to get into other people's shoes and think how they think.

[mountain grammy]

12. This is hard... I am disgusted with the parents

but see them as victims too. They are victims of religion, quackery and fear of the medical establishment. Many of us are wary of the medical establishment and for good reason, but would never risk our children's lives like this.
The quacks are in it for the $$. They are a danger to society and should be removed from it. The parents, wow, I feel like I could never know enough to judge.

[Nevernose]

37. These parents ARE quacks in it for the money

Quack medicine is literally their family business. I feel bad for anyone who's lost a child -- I can't imagine a worse pain -- but they were directly responsible. They might be sad, but that little boy is DEAD.

[Omaha Steve]

13. The entire clinic staff should be in jail!

K&R!

OS

[21st Century Poet]

23. Hard to see how that would happen

Unless the homeopathic clinic itself is illegal or the naturopath specifically told the parents not to take the boy to a hospital or the naturopath tried to pass himself off as a medical doctor, I don't see how the clinic staff will end up in jail. Recommending eating berries and nuts (or whatever it was) is not illegal. In fact, it's quite healthy to eat those foodstuffs.

[Humanist_Activist]

25. Uhm, it says, on their archived webpage that they provide "health care"...

that alone should be enough to prosecute them for fraud, at the very least.

Things like this wouldn't be an issue if conscience protection laws and failing to ban quackery weren't so widespread.

[21st Century Poet]

28. 'Health care' can mean different things to different people.

For example, an app providing tips on losing weight is providing a sort of health care so unless there is a law which bans the use of the term 'health care' (homeopathic clinics are usually experts at skirting the laws about what can be said and done), I don't see how that can be held against the clinic.

Banning quackery is hard because it effectively means banning the freedom to choose how to care for your wellbeing, and of course, practitioners of and believers in quackery (which strangely enough are growing in the 21st century) do not call it quackery at all but, well, health care.

[Humanist_Activist]

29. Perhaps the term "health care" should be protected, similar to how some job titles...

and certifications are protected. I can't go around calling myself a doctor unless I at least have a PHD, and I cannot claim to be an MD unless I'm licensed to be one.

I would say that they should start by banning people from profiting or charging for specific services, such as acupuncture, homeopathy, Reiki and other energy healing bullshit, psychic readings, faith healing, etc. This should include donations to practitioners and businesses that operate these types of quackery.

[21st Century Poet]

31. You CAN protect the term 'health care'

But the quacks will start using 'health well-being' instead.

And banning things means taking on huge lobbies and interested parties. Want to ban profiting from acupuncture? You have to take on China which uses Traditional Chinese Medicine as soft-power which spreads its culture. Want to ban the use of the word doctor? The growing marijuana industry is not going to be too happy about that. Want to ban faith healing? You have to take on the religious establishment.

Once you get into the nitty-gritty, you realise how complicated banning words and activities in a democratic and free society actually is.

[Omaha Steve]

36. Do they have a medical license and certification to use maple syrup for medicine?

Hard to image they do.

[21st Century Poet]

39. Licences are only needed for medicinal prescriptions.

I don't need a medical licence to tell you to eat more carrots to improve your eyesight. Neither does one need a licence to recommend taking maple syrup for meningitis (even though I'm sure it doesn't work).

Licences are only needed for prescribing real medicines because they can have unwanted and sometimes lethal side effects when taken erroneously.

To pin them down, you have to catch them doing something illegal like impersonating a medical doctor, using fraudulent licences or certificates, preventing the boy from seeking professional medical care or something of the like.

[Humanist_Activist]

27. Thankfully, the parents are being prosecuted, hopefully they will spend a long time in jail...

they definitely shouldn't have an opportunity to reproduce again, that's for sure.

Ignorance nor ideology are no excuse.

[Rex]

40. Ozone therapy? Seriously how is that not illegal?