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)

so are we starting a thread in sitestuff or just emailing the blog support address?

Freedom of speech doesn't apply wholesale. I'm sure most people here wouldn't allow someone who rants racist, sexist and all sorts of other abuse in their house, so Mumsnet don't need to allow what they see as inappropriate on their site. And this is from someone who will fight for freedom of speech.

Mumsnet allowing this woo stuff is silently advocating it, I'm pretty sure a racist blog would be shut down due to the negative association it would make with the site.

Homeopathy is at best useless, at worst, as in this case when cutting out medicine is advocated, downright dangerous.

If Mumsnet want to be a place where people can come for advice and sharing of advice they need to be choosy about what kind of advice they allow, and advice that potentially threatens the lives of those seeking it is an obvious example.

YANBU. I find it particularly strange that MN is seen to be endorsing this blog and at the same time backing the Sense About Science campaign. (Which works towards scientific literacy amongst the general population, particularly evidence-based medicine).
I do take the point that people should be allowed to make up their own minds but that's only if they're provided with reliable information, facts and evidence upon which to base their decisions. Basing decisions on woo woo, random anecdotes and misinformation can be very dangerous for reasons already outlined by others.
And in no way does removing MN endorsement affect freedom of speech. The blog will still be there for people to read.

Hi there

I'm the editor of the bloggers network - this is an interesting thread, and I wanted to hop on to introduce myself and share a bit of insight on the network.

We spend a lot of time vetting blogger applications in several ways, which we run through here.

This blogger's a member because we think her blog's well written and might be interesting to some of our readers. We were pleased to see that she has this disclaimer on her site too:

The information and opinions provided here are believed to be accurate and sound, based on the best judgment available to the author, but readers who fail to consult appropriate health authorities assume the risk of any injuries. The publisher is not responsible for errors or omissions.

Elinor

Ooooh, not good enough. What it should read us unequivocally that woo has no sound evidence behind it and should never replace medically prescribed treatment.

"The information and opinions provided here are believed to be accurate and sound"? Really? By who? A simple check with anyone with any scientific literacy or even a very quick Google search could verify that they're not accurate or sound.
"based on the best judgment available to the author" ! Does she live in a cardboard box or the dark ages?

Elinor so disclaimer is basically an admission that the blog is not 'an appropriate health authority'

Someone call Ben Goldacre!

Elinor - people are gracegawler.com/surviveandthrive/?p=210 endangering themselves on the back of the recommendations of this blog - disclaimer or not by providing the platform I think mumsnet are at least morally complicit should anyone come to harm.

It is one-sided and badly researched - so I'm surpriseds that you call it "well written"

If people don't like the blog in question feel free not to read it.

The people who would be drawn to this blog are mostly cancer sufferers, probably frightened and desperate. Do I think mumsnet should be complicit in promoting dangerous and exploitative quackery to them as part of their remit to "make parents' lives easier"?

Hell, no.

Between this and the rapist's wife's blog I have to wonder what MNBloggerHQ is thinking.

foglike - that's an argument you could apply if it was the writing style I objected to - but not if the contents of the blog could lead people to come to harm.

The half arsed disclaimer which reaffirms that the author believes the uncritical woo she promotes to be accurate, but just washes her hands off any responsibility is not enough, I think.

I take your point WW and you do garnish some sympathy from me regarding your opinion.

But where do we stop where opinion against the mainstream comes in?

We've all read stuff that has made our jaws drop it's nothing new...I for one want ignorance out in the open where it can be challenged.

Agree, LeBoF. I would have thought that exposing anxious and perhaps desparate people to that blog would come under the "not what Mumsnet is about" banner.

And the fact someone mentioned upthread that MN is backing Sense About Science does seem to make the promotion of this blog a bit beyond the pale.

Thanks for sharing your views on this. We're taking a good look at the blog now.

This particular piece of ignorance is being challenged by some of us and all we're asking is that MN stops endorsing it.

But you're challenging the vehicle and not the driver.

foglike - scientific evidence is not a matter of opinion.

foglike - I challenge mumsnet for providing a vehicle to the blogger and enabling her to reach more readers - of course the "driver" should be challenged too, but minimising the platform she currently has is at least as important

No foglight I've challenged both of them though only one of them has replied as yet.

Questioning scientific evidence has always happened.

Whilst I don't agree with the blog and taking into consideration my medical knowledge stretches as far as a bottle of TCP and a kiss to make it better, I don't claim to be an expert.

But would like to read whatever nonsensical theories and alternatives are available.

Elinor - thanks for your explanation. I agree with the others that the website's disclaimer is not good enough, but I think you're rather missing the point. Would you approve a blog with racist or homophobic content, so long as it had a disclaimer that all the opinions in it were the author's? And was well written? Mumsnet has to look at the content of these blogs. And the content of this one is actually dangerous.

ElinorMB thanks for coming on. I am pretty sure that well written plus a disclaimer that the author thinks they are right but dont want to be held responsible isn't the only criteria?

If I were to apply with a well written but clearly racist blog stating that I believe that all non-whites have lower intelligence with a disclaimer that 'The information and opinions provided here are believed to be accurate and sound, based on the best judgment available to the author' just because I cant be bothered to look in the scientific literature to disabuse myself of the notion, will that get the MN seal of approval too?

The crazy thing is that such a blog (while utterly repulsive on all levels) wouldnt actually be putting people's lives at risk....unlike this one.

Please reconsider your position on this blog and any others that promote life threatening activities.

No-one argues that scientific theory should not be questioned. That's how science advances. But science advances when the challenging theory or explanation is a better/more accurate theory than the one it's replacing. This clearly isn't an example of that.