AIBU to think mumsnet should do at least some vetting of the blogs before endorsing?

[WidowWadman]

On another site I came across the link to www.mumsnothavingchemo.com/ which proudly sports the "Mumsnet Bloggers Network" button.

The blog is about foregoing medical treatment of cancer in favour of all kinds of woo from homeopathy to Burzynski's neoplastons.

Now, I think everyone should be free to blog about what they like, and I'm more angry with snake oil salesmen selling false hope than with the desperate ones who buy it, but I think it reflects badly on the blogging network to endorse a blog which - disclaimer or not - propagates foregoing medical treatment for cancer.

The blogging network is just another vehicle to raise advertising revenue, but do contents like that not ring any alarm bells at all?

The blog reads like one big advertorial for alt med cancer treatments - doesn't it actually sail quite close to what is prohibited in the Cancer Act 1939, and therefore go against the editorial guidelines?

(I guess I better put my hard hat on now)

I'd say YANBU but am anti-woo of any kind and that includes homeopathy and any rejection of conventional science... I may BU on this myself

Why, OP? Do you think that MNHQ should vet all of the posts too? Are we really now incapable of filtering out what we do and don't want to read? There's nonsense written everywhere.... caveat emptor.

I'm anti woo when it comes to these things

But I believe in free speech and people being allowed to make their own minds up.

I dont agree with the blog, but free country and all that

I'm not saying that "woo" has any value, I'm not saying it doesn't. However if you've come to the (what must be incredibly difficult) decision to not accept chemo (which many people do for various reasons) then surely you're entitled to post on your experiences.

The title of the blog is so self-explanatory that if anyone likely to be bothered by the content clicks on it then it's their own lookout.

The blog is not about opinion, but about promoting unproven expensive "treatments" as viable (and at least implied to be better) alternative to evidence-based treatments - that's actively harmful, so I think the freedom of speech thing doesn't quite count in this context.

I agree with you widow this was featured in the Daily Mail the other day as it it would be as it fits their editorial line.

But they had the sense to include a separate box with the views of an oncologist.

He wasn't unkind about the woman but he made it clear that the treatments she was using and promoting were unproven (useless) and could cost a lot of money and that he would advise people to use tested methods. He made no comment on her decision to refuse chemotherapy because of course, that's her right.

People have the right to free speech but when their views seem to be endorsed by a respected brand such as Mumsnet, or the Daily Mail for that matter, it gives their views much more credence.

Oh haven't seen Mail article, but there was a link to a Times article written by the blogger and only juxtapposed by the tiniest of boxes called "the conventional view".

It's not just about people being scammed out of money, but being subjected unneccessary pain, and possibly unneccessary death.

Horrendous, awful blog. It's up to individuals how they treat their own illnesses but I also think that this kind of blog is potentially really damaging.

"The blog is not about opinion, but about promoting unproven expensive "treatments" as viable (and at least implied to be better) alternative to evidence-based treatments - that's actively harmful, so I think the freedom of speech thing doesn't quite count in this context." Yes, yes, totally agree. It shouldn't be endorsed by mumsnet.

It's just advertising dressed up as "alternatives to conventional treatments" isn't it ?

I don't think we should have blogs that promote that on MN

The story appears to stem from this article by an Australian journalist in Oct 2010

www.adelaidenow.com.au/ipad/why-a-brave-mum-said-no-to-chemotherapy/story-fn6bqpju-1226180025592

It's free speech but it's claptrap that shouldn't be reported without a health warning.

I think MN should respect us adults that can make up our own mind about these things

We should have everything on MN and the assumption that some readers are too stupid/ignorant that they need moralists to choose for them is acrid and disingenuously patronising.

Get it all up there so we can decide to laugh cry or ignore.

free speech does not mean giving everyone a platform from which to spout crapola

these woo peddlers will still have their entitlement to shill for ancient twig remedies or whatever if the mn blogging seal of approval is lifted, it in no way compromises their ability to deliver their message

it merely removes an automatic audience. which is not the same thing at all.

Free speech is free speech, no limits, no caveats.

That being said, asking MNHQ to stop endorsing it does not impinge on free speech, it just removes a source of hits for the blog.

Claiming that black salve cures cancer has nothing to do with free speech or opinion. It is at best uninformed or at worst a lie.

I probably wouldn't even be that bothered if it was just some 'homeopathy helped my baby's teething' BS, but that's a completely different level.

YADNBU and MNHQ def has responsibility for not promoting this kind of dangerous crap. No reflection on free speech, just removal of free advertising.

'free speech does not mean giving everyone a platform from which to spout crapola'

well yes it does, it means exactly that!

Some people will only support free speech if the crapola that's written is something they believe in.

That's not free speech it's totally the opposite.

I dont think there is any need to get distracted with the free speech issue. Free speech does not require an MN endorsement.

The OP does not ask for the website to be removed only for the MN endorsement to be removed.

MNHQ should be aware that they are endorsing a blog that promotes dangerous misinformation about both alternative and mainstream treatment of cancer and which could lead to death.

MNHQ should care about this both from a moral and ethical point of view but perhaps most compellingly because one day someone might come and sue their collective ass because a loved one found this blog through mumsnet and hence died of an entirely curable cancer.

MNHQ are you listening????

I agree, I don't think Mumsnet should be endorsing this blog. Presumably there is some sort of criteria for whether a blog is allowed to be part of the Mumsnet Bloggers Netwok? Having the badge means 'Mumsnet endorses this blog' which is awfully close to saying 'Mumsnet endorses the content of this blog'. I think the badge should be withdrawn. It doesn't impinge on their free speech, or choices, but it does prevent more people from reading it and being influenced by it, and thinking that Mumsnet approves of it.

OP - so nice to hear other people talking about Burzynski (in a negative way). I've recently started reading the Quackometer and similar blogs and following the author on Twitter, and I've learnt so much about all sorts of woo which I otherwise wouldn't have realised is so bad! If anyone sets up a Mumsnet Skeptics group I will join!

Exactly, entropygirl - very good points