14 on trial for the murder of a child in Austrailia

Type 1 and LADA
1

This is sad. Elizabeth Struhs was denied insulin because her family and faith community put their trust in God, that she was healed.

I am a lifelong Catholic Christian, who has faith in God, but I also believe that God gave us brains that should be put to good use.

I was taught by the Basilian fathers whose motto and that of our school is Bonitatem et disciplinam et scientiam doce me - Teach me goodness and discipline and knowledge. These people miss out on all three.

The denial of science (Latin for knowledge) is a growing problem and when it comes to medicine it can be fatal.

This terrible incident taking the life of an innocent 8 year old makes me angry and sad at the same time.

3 Likes
2

God helps those who help themselves. If god was going to do everything for us, it would make our lives meaningless. We have free will and minds to think things through. Miracles happen through the good works of people.
This girls immune system failed her body, her parents failed their daughters body, and her community failed her family. They got lost in the machinations, instead of realizing that gods’ miracle her was the medicine that they kept from her.

5 Likes
3

Amen! Brother.

4

To the problem of not trusting science or denying of science. Science changes and there is a problem with trusting the people that are telling people what they should do. I’m not sure I would say it’s a lack of trust in science so much as a lack in trust of what the scientists themselves are saying. (mostly government scientists, but others too) When you lie to people, how can you expect to be trusted the next time? And then all the scientists get grouped together and people have a hard time distinguishing what is being told to them. Science evolves and it needs to be addressed as the latest research or we think this is the best route to follow with what we know etc… not outright lies just because they think it’s better, because you have to expect you won’t be trusted again.

But given that, people have different beliefs but I think this is probably a cult type situation, where control is the main issue.

1 Like
5

The problem is not with researching scientist, but generally with scientifically ignorant journalists jumping to conclusions in print and A/V (now on the internet). So we get things like, coffee is bad, no coffee is good, no it’s bad, no it’s good except for French Press, no, bladebladebla. This kind of shabby reporting has led to many people distrusting science.

For this reason, I am always looking for the actual paper on a study. I can get things like the sample size and other factors that could skew the results. It really irritates me when they are only available on expensive pay sites.

The only cure for this kind of distrust of science is a proper education in the scientific method. Teaching critical thinking and logic need to be on the syllabus.

5 Likes
6

Agreed!

“Science” isn’t magic. So often we live in a world of magical thinking and in magic there can be good and bad magic.

The teaching of science is so sadly lacking; it should start with an experimental exposure to natural phenomena rather than “theories first” and then we can appreciate that science is a systematic way of gaining understanding about our world.

Otherwise you end up with so much of the junk science that was so evident in the past couple years where politically driven narratives took over, including for example the screwy idea that an anti-parasitic drug would cure Covid (it doesn’t) or that an inflammation modifying drug that is good for rheumatoid arthritis is being “hidden” in a grand conspiracy of replacement theory ■■■■■■■■ while everyone “does their own research”.

Facebook isn’t research and science is hard. We’re lazy naturally. We want an easy black-or-white answer that doesn’t change. But that’s not science. That’s superstition. Blind adherence to received dogma, whether religious or political, turns off our capacity for critical thought. It can, in dramatic cases like this unfortunate girl, result in tragedy.

Science and religion are also not mutually exclusive. They can be reinforcing, consider how much of historical science was done by those who through the rigorous study of religion were able to bring that intelligence to the sphere of natural phenomena. I’m not religious personally but realize that it’s important for many people to have that connection and meaning.

2 Likes
7

These stories make me so sad and so angry. I just don’t understand how people can just watch a child starve to death. And every time I hear about someone going DKA, I have PTSD due to my diagnosis many, many years ago. I don’t ever want to feel like that again. Never! And to hear of someone going through that is horrifying to me.

God gave us all brains. We have the brains to think these things through. We can read, we can talk, we can think and process things. And this poor child was denied all of that because some people couldn’t do those things.

Glad to see these people are being held accountable but that will not change the outcome here.

1 Like
8

@MBW Just so you know, there is reasons the anti parasitic drug(s) were considered and used. It might help block the entry of the virus. But they still don’t quite know enough about it. At the time they were frantically looking for anything already existing that might help since there was a lack of treatment options. There are however possible side effects. At the time of “it doesn’t work at all” it was after a study was released saying it didn’t work. But that study was funded by the now defunct Cryto coin FTX who also had a vested interest in vaccines. That research was later condemned for being mishandled and biased. Very little research is actually out there about it, but there is a possible mechanism of action that seemed to cut down on viral count.

But this is a good government article about why they think it might work or have worked and also the problems. It is quite a way down in the article. I am not promoting the use of the drugs at all. I just want to help clear up the misunderstandings regarding why it was being used.

1 Like
9

Thanks for the link! I appreciate your sharing this; there’s always something further to consider with an open mind.

I’ve reviewed the paper: it isn’t original research but rather a meta analysis which is published in “Future Virology” by a group of Iranian scholars. They ask a good question but clearly don’t answer it.

The research they cite is all over the map. No good RCT supports these experimental drugs. There were numerous trials ongoing of higher quality and the results were not promising. I agree that it’s important to consider any potential treatment for a pandemic as lethal as Covid.

This article and similar ones are unfortunately used by some to support a narrative idea that “Big Industry” is conspiring with “Big Government” and is part of the same mindset as exhibited by people who think that Insulin is poison: I don’t doubt at all that they were genuine in their belief that prayer will cure diabetes, with about as good quality evidence as ivermectin will cure Covid.

Ivermectin worked in vitro. Human trials did not demonstrate real world better outcomes.

So back to the topic:

How did this group of people arrive at the conclusion that undulierst poison, or wouldn’t work for this girl? Was it self-reinforcing group-think? Did they believe that the “Authorities” are out to control their bodies, or turn them into zombies?!?

I’m fascinated by group delusions and of course am induced to wonder what delusions do I have? Self reflection and examination of my biases is a lifelong process.

I think!

4 Likes
10

@MBW The articles were not to show it worked, the article itself states there is not enough information on that and any research is lacking. It was to show there is a mechanism of action as to why it might work and hence why it was decided to try to use it. Anything that had a chance at working and was already available in the supply chain at the time was grabbed at because doctors were desperate to save lives. I’m not saying it was right or wrong, just the why.

2 Likes
11

Thanks for clarifying and I respect the need to find what works! I angree that we all can benefit from keeping an open mind. And I’m not suggesting that you were advocating the use of anti parasitic medications on viruses. I really brought it up as an example of how we can let wishes get in the way of reality.

But I’ve encountered many who did do, including, incredibly, some health care professionals.

As you are probably aware, there were many people who desperately wanted to believe that these alternate treatments did work, or would work. Some who refused a vaccine that offered significant protection, or eschewed masks during a time when there were actually no effective treatments, on the totally baseless idea that they were useless or harmful.
Just like some ideologues who, contrary to science or common sense, thought that prayer would cure diabetes.

Now it would be unfair at the current state of knowledge to prosecute people who advocated alternate treatments rather than vaccinations or masking but I believe at some point that changes. At some point the evidence becomes so overwhelming that to recommend anything else is malpractice.

The truth of science is, it changes.

For example.

I remember when every post menopausal woman was recommended to take hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Not to recommend that would have been irresponsible, increasing the risk of hip fracture (and early death for a proportion of those who fractured their hips) and also was believed to put einen at higher risk of heart attacks. Of course, our understanding of the mechanism of action of HRT has evolved and now the stronger recommendation is against its routine use.

Even insulin has risks. Particularly a person with Type 2 diabetes who can maintain reasonable HbA1C and time in range with oral medications may be ill-served by initiating insulin too soon. As we know, an overdose of insulin can be rapidly fatal. But if I extrapolate, due to insufficient knowledge, from one person’s death due to insulin overdose, and then suggest that someone with Type 1 “stay away from that dangerous insulin” I would be responsible for that death.

Anyway, I’m curious, if the girl who died had been an adult, and had chosen on her own to rely on prayer rather than insulin, would we be as eager to prosecute her supporters and enablers?

I read the article about the girl that started this whole digressive discussion, and it seemed that everyone really cared for her, loved her, wanted to support her, and amazingly, seem to have no regrets about her death!!

1 Like
12

Reminds me of the book “The Educated”. Due to religion, my mom could not sign for blood transfusions for my brother when he was in hospital. My dad did so.

1 Like
13

What’s uncommon about this is that they are charging 14 people. That means there were a lot of people actively concealing this situation - probably a community that self isolated. This isn’t as uncommon as you might think. Typically, though, if anybody catches wind of it, they give a court order for care.

In my area of the country, there are lots of pockets of different religious communities who do associate illness with sin. So, if someone gets sick, they hide it, because it’s considered an indication of them committing sin. In those communities you might hear people express an opinion that they CANT get sick because God protects them from that. I was encountering a lot of those perspectives during covid when I inquired about why people weren’t getting vacc’ed. I was pretty surprised by how widespread that perspective was. Its possible that there were a lot more people out and about who were not afraid of covid, and those were people who felt innately protected. It was interesting.

I think that I encounter the association between illness and sin in the realm of nutrition, where that sort of moral judgment seems pretty pronounced, even in the general population. Its interesting.

2 Likes
14

I think “love” can be a complicated concept for people in extremist religions especially.

If a child leaves the religion as they age into adulthood, they’re often ostracized for directing their own life path. The parents may even still say they love that child even as they’ve ceased contact or lost all interest in the child. What I think they often mean is that they love the version of the child that they wish the child had become. They want the child to come back and accept the role assigned to them by the community/church/cult. It begs the question, is that “love?”

I don’t think so. I think love requires the recognition that a child is uniquely separate from the parents. While the parents are obligated to help the child learn values and skills as wells as provide for their health needs until adulthood, they are not entitled to direct the child’s life path as the child ages into adulthood.

In this particular case, not providing for the health needs of the child prevents the child from even having the opportunity to individuate in adolescence or early adulthood. If we only value people because of the roles they play in our lives, we’re really not recognizing them as individuals, and I’d say that means love isn’t really possible. I’ve seen this kind of “love,” and I think it’s purely toxic.

I think a parent in this cult that was actually capable of seeing their daughter as an individual would have provided for her medical needs at least until adulthood at which point the daughter could make the heart-wrenching choice to leave behind their beliefs or die. Of course, that story doesn’t make much sense because the daughter may be so indoctrinated, having been raised isolated in this cult, she might just choose to die anyway. I’d guess that’s why the whole family went along with the cessation of insulin. It’s all really sad and disturbing.

2 Likes
15

Parable of the faithful man and the flood.

Tropical storm drops huge rainfall in the area where a man of great faith lives, and the flood waters are rising. Emergency services send buses around to evacuate the locals. “No thanks,” he waves them off. “I have faith! The Lord will protect me!” Some hours later, flood waters are up several feet, inundating the first floor of his house. Emergency services send boats around to evacuate the trapped stragglers. “No thanks!” he waves them off. “I have faith! The Lord will protect me!” Waters keep rising and a few hours later he’s on the roof of his house. Emergency services send a helicopter to rescue the last few holdouts. “No thanks! I have faith! The Lord will protect me!” Waters keep rising, engulfing the house and washing the guy away to his death. He appears before his Maker in heaven, feeling pretty miffed. “I had faith! I trusted you to protect me! What happened?” God: “I sent a bus, I sent a boat, I sent a f’rcripesake HELICOPTER. What the heck did you want?”

4 Likes