Steelclaws, eine britische Bloggerin, unterstützt den von der Homöopathin angegriffenen Blogger Dan.
Wir beteiligen uns selbstverständlich am Support für Dan. Und am Support für Steelclaws. Dies ist der Text, mit dem sich das Krebsforum-Lazarus.ch hinter Dan und Steelclaws stellt:
http://steelclaws.wordpress.com/2012/04/05/who-was-penelope-dingle-and-why-what-happened-to-her-matters/[*QUOTE*]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who was Penelope Dingle and why what happened to her mattersPenelope Dingle was an Australian woman. She was 45 years old when she
died of colorectal cancer on 25th August 2005. Without wishing to sound
callous, people do die of cancer. What makes her case remarkable is that
she was not given any chance to survive.
At the time of her death, Penelope Dingle was being treated by homeopath
Francine Scrayen. Scrayen forbade Penelope to take even painkillers for
her extremely painful condition and was treating her with homeopathy
alone. You can read Penelope’s own words
http://www.abc.net.au/austory/content/2011/s3260776.htmfor what she went through. Penelope at last, after all that intense
suffering sought medical help, but by then it was far too late. The
coroner’s report
http://www.safetyandquality.health.wa.gov.au/docs/mortality_review/inquest_finding/Dingle_Finding.pdfmakes this clear:
<*quote*>
-----------------------------------------
Professor Platell described the pain associated with such an obstruction
as extremely severe and arising from a combination of pain from the
tumour causing blockage of the bowel, but also the tumour invading
adjacent organs. He stated that the tumour was invading the cervix, the
uterus, the left ovary and retroperitinal structures causing severe pain
and in addition there was an “incredibly distended large bowel, almost
to the point of splitting” which would cause even more severe pain.
Professor Platell explained that during the following procedure it was
necessary for him to remove the cervix and uterus as well as the ovaries
and the bowel from the pelvis as well as the fallopian tubes. The large
intestine above the blockage was completely full with between 1½ and 2
kgs of faeces which had to be washed out prior to rejoining the large
intestine.
Professor Platell was extremely disappointed as after the initial
investigations and assessments it seemed that the deceased had a
potentially curable rectal cancer which had been contained within the
rectum and was then not invading adjacent structures. He believed that
if the deceased had followed the initial treatment course she would have
had a good chance of curing her disease.
It was not possible to remove all the cancer during the surgery and so
the procedure was essentially a palliative operation, in that there was
still residual tumour left in the pelvis.
-----------------------------------------
<*/quote*>
So it is clear that Penelope’s reliance on homeopathy is directly
responsible for her cancer to have gone from potentially curable to no
longer easily treatable. What was Francine Scrayen’s part in this? This
is what the coroner’s report has to say about her conduct:
<*quote*>
-----------------------------------------
Although Mrs Scrayen stated that she had completed a first aid course
with St John Ambulance Service, she stated that it was a “very basic”
course and that her understanding of medical issues was relatively poor.
Mrs Scrayen’s records reveal very regular contact with the deceased over
2001 and 2002 and then in 2003 extremely regular contacts. During 2003,
for example, Mrs Scrayen’s notes, which the evidence indicated were not
entirely comprehensive, reveal a total of 109 different days on which
she had contact with the deceased up until mid October. In the months of
July, August, September and October she had contact with the deceased
almost every day.
In my view the number and extent of these contacts was grossly excessive
for any legitimate professional interaction and provided evidence of an
increasing unhealthy dependence of the deceased on Mrs Scrayen and her
homeopathic remedies and treatments.
In evidence Mrs Scrayen stated that she was not purporting to treat the
cancer to the exclusion of medical treatment and that there was no
reason why medical treatment and homeopathic treatment could not be
administered at the same time, except where the medical treatment might
cause the homeopathic picture to become “blurred or antidoted”. This
claim was entirely inconsistent with the account of the deceased as
recorded extensively in her diaries and contained in her unsent letter
[the one linked to above] addressed to Mrs Scrayen dated 29 November
2004.
Mrs Scrayen claimed that she did not purport to treat the deceased’s
cancer and said that she had no knowledge that the deceased had a belief
that she was advising that homeopathy could provide a cure for cancer.
I do not accept this claim by Mrs Scrayen, whom I did not generally
regard to be a witness of truth.
It is clear from the evidence of many witnesses at the inquest some of
which is detailed in these reasons that the deceased did believe that
she was being treated by homeopathy for her cancer and repeatedly said
so. In my view Mrs Scrayen could not have been in any doubt as to that
issue, particularly in the context of their multiple interactions in
relation to her treatment. In addition the fact that the deceased was
telling people at the time that Inquest into the death of Penelope
DINGLE page 47.
she was relying on homeopathy to cure her was recorded in notes written
at the time such as the Silver Chain Nurse entries referred to earlier.
-----------------------------------------
<*/quote*>
So there you have it. Scrayen was doing her level best to deny that she
had been treating Penelope’s cancer, but her denial is not believable.
And what was the verdict?
<*quote*>
-----------------------------------------
Apart from receiving limited and inadequate pain relief the deceased did
not receive any medical treatment from a mainstream medical practitioner
over the latter part of this period and relied on the treatments
provided by Mrs Scrayen. Mrs Scrayen’s influence on the deceased played
a major part in her decision making which contributed to the loss. Dr
Dingle, her partner, insofar as he supported and assisted with Mrs
Scrayen’s treatments and kept the deceased away from outside influences,
contributed to that loss of a chance of survival. Ultimately, however,
the decisions were those of the deceased, sadly those decisions were to
a large extent based on misinformation.
During the period in 2003 while the deceased was relying on the
treatment provided by Mrs Scrayen, not only did she lose whatever
chances of life she had, she suffered extreme and unnecessary pain.
Evidence at the inquest was to the effect that had surgery been
performed earlier much of that gross pain would have been avoided.
This situation was made even worse by the fact that Mrs Scrayen’s advice
to the deceased was that she should avoid or take a minimum of pain
reducing medications. The deceased accepted this advice and only
reluctantly used minimal analgesia.
I find that the death arose by way of natural causes but in the
circumstances described above.
-----------------------------------------
<*/quote*>
This is why what happened to Penelope Dingle matters: she relied on
people who had either no or very limited medical training, no diagnostic
ability or training and an unfounded belief in the treatments they used
on her. As the coroner said, she was misinformed by the very people she
trusted and on whose advice she relied on.
There are lots of people like these around: they write books, they have
slick websites where they sell their treatments, they appear on podcasts
and DVDs or YouTube clips. Don’t rely on their advice alone, ever. If
someone claims they can cure cancer, AIDS or any other life-threatening
condition with a secret or “alternative” treatment, don’t believe their
claims. Always ask for a qualified medical opinion. There is no
conspiracy out there to suppress cancer cures, that is just marketing
hype by the snake oil salesmen. And every life lost to their worthless
treatments is a life too many.
Aftermath
Penelope’s sister is now suing Francine Scrayen.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/13310801/woman-sues-homeopath-over-sisters-cancer-death/Scrayen, on her part, is also involved with law, though in her case
she’s using lawyers to silence a blogger.
http://www.danbuzzard.net/journal/francine-scrayen-sends-me-a-cease-and-desist.htmlThe sheer gall of that woman is unbelievable! Her part in the death of
Penelope Dingle is undeniable – though she certainly tries to deny it –
and now she’s concerned about her reputation. What reputation can she
have left after the coroner’s report is beyond me.
Here’s my personal challenge to you, Ms Scrayen. Please show where
anything I’ve written in my blogpost about the case of Penelope Dingle
is in any way incorrect and does not reflect the real events. Please
have your lawyer to check it over to see if you have a case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]
Weitere Blogger haben sich bereits angeschlossen. Bei Steelclaws und Dan sind die entsprechenden Links und Kommentare.