Public health and free expression

[Jack of Kent]

In following the skeptic debates about public health and free expression, it appears to me that an interesting distinction is emerging.

On one hand, there is concern about the attempts to use libel (and other law, such as copyright) to restrict or deter criticism of certain treatments. Here the skeptic instinct is that free expression should not be limited.

On the other hand, there are calls by skeptics to use the law to restrict or eliminate promotional claims about certain treatments, for example the unfair commercial practice regulations, ASA, the Cancer Act, etc. Here a skeptic is perhaps saying by implication that free expression has limits.

Accordingly, is the skeptic position that criticism of CAM should always be free, whilst promotion of CAM should always be regulated?

(And, is the CAM position the converse of this: that criticism should be regulated but promotion should not be?)

Or is this an invalid distinction?

I do wonder if some people simply "want it both ways": I should be free to say what I want, but you are not.

Any thoughts or comments?

[Matt]

The truth should be free, fraud should be regulated against. It's not about for or against CAM, it's about for or against truth.

[Trinoc]

The truth should be free, fraud should be regulated against. It's not about for or against CAM, it's about for or against truth.
The truth according to whom? Skeptics are just as prone to being selective about the evidence as are the people they claim to oppose.

The genuine skeptical view should be to allow anyone to have access to the information from all points of view. It is not our business to decide what other people should be allowed to know.

[Matt]

The truth according to whom? Skeptics are just as prone to being selective about the evidence as are the people they claim to oppose.

Would it be a no true scotsman fallacy to say that someone being selective of the evidence wasn't being a very good skeptic? But yes I agree. It's quite possible for both sides to belive they have the truth on their side, that the truth will vindicate them and that the opposition are posting harmful lies which whihc should be quashed for the good of everybody. It's up to the courts to decide who's right and firthermore to punish those who abuse the system.


The genuine skeptical view should be to allow anyone to have access to the information from all points of view. It is not our business to decide what other people should be allowed to know.

You think fraud is just another point of view? You think that it's OK for me to sell you property I don't own so long as other points of view are available?

[Trinoc]

You think fraud is just another point of view? You think that it's OK for me to sell you property I don't own so long as other points of view are available?
I should of course have pointed out that your dichotomy between "truth" and "fraud" was not a balanced one. The opposite of "truth" is "untruth", and there is no law against saying something untrue per se. Fraud, as Jack will often remind us, is a serious offence of knowingly using untruth to make a dishonest gain (Jack can doubtless supply the exact definition).

[Matt]

I should of course have pointed out that your dichotomy between "truth" and "fraud" was not a balanced one. The opposite of "truth" is "untruth", and there is no law against saying something untrue per se. Fraud, as Jack will often remind us, is a serious offence of knowingly using untruth to make a dishonest gain (Jack can doubtless supply the exact definition).

But it was fraud I was talking about.

[Trinoc]

But it was fraud I was talking about.
OK, understood. I was addressing the main point of the thread - I quoted your post because I wanted to comment on the issue of who decides what is true and what other people should be allowed to know.

[chaggle]

In following the skeptic debates about public health and free expression, it appears to me that an interesting distinction is emerging.

On one hand, there is concern about the attempts to use libel (and other law, such as copyright) to restrict or deter criticism of certain treatments. Here the skeptic instinct is that free expression should not be limited.

On the other hand, there are calls by skeptics to use the law to restrict or eliminate promotional claims about certain treatments, for example the unfair commercial practice regulations, ASA, the Cancer Act, etc. Here a skeptic is perhaps saying by implication that free expression has limits.

Accordingly, is the skeptic position that criticism of CAM should always be free, whilst promotion of CAM should always be regulated?

(And, is the CAM position the converse of this: that criticism should be regulated but promotion should not be?)

Or is this an invalid distinction?

I do wonder if some people simply "want it both ways": I should be free to say what I want, but you are not.

Any thoughts or comments?

Jack, are you saying that CAM should be a special case?

I don't see that it should be treated differently from anything else. If you are selling or promoting cars, food or washing machines you are not allowed to make untrue claims for them and you must be able to substantiate and any claims you make. If you do not comply you would rightly be called to account sooner or later either by the public or by the authorities.

Conversely if someone makes unfair or untrue criticisms or comments about your product, you would have every right to ask for restitution by whatever means.

I fail to see why CAM should be treated differently.

[Jack of Kent]

Jack, are you saying that CAM should be a special case?

I don't see that it should be treated differently from anything else. If you are selling or promoting cars, food or washing machines you are not allowed to make untrue claims for them and you must be able to substantiate and any claims you make. If you do not comply you would rightly be called to account sooner or later either by the public or by the authorities.

Conversely if someone makes unfair or untrue criticisms or comments about your product, you would have every right to ask for restitution by whatever means.

I fail to see why CAM should be treated differently.

Nope; you're attacking a straw man.

[chaggle]

Nope; you're attacking a straw man.

Oh well. I'll shut up then.

[Pebble]

Is not the pivotal point here 'promotion'

Free speech is fine, if someone wishes to say that jungle juice is a wonder treatment for whatever - they are free to do so.

If however one advertises, promotes or otherwise tries to convince potential customers to buy said jungle juice, are we net dealing with an entirely different issue?

[SimonC]

Is not the pivotal point here 'promotion'

Free speech is fine, if someone wishes to say that jungle juice is a wonder treatment for whatever - they are free to do so.

If however one advertises, promotes or otherwise tries to convince potential customers to buy said jungle juice, are we net dealing with an entirely different issue?

Yep, that would be exactly my stance on this issue, Pebble. If a person wants to claim that homeopathy ( crystal healing/whatever ) works, then fine - I'll enter into debate with them if it's appropriate, but they are completely free to express their opinion as rigorously as they wish.

If, on the other hand, that person sets-up in business, advertises themself and charges for their 'service', then they place themself in a different category.

[Allo Allo]

If, on the other hand, that person sets-up in business, advertises themself and charges for their 'service', then they place themself in a different category.

But what if they were offering a service they had trained in, believing it to be beneficial and provide it to their clients who also believe it to be beneficial?

For me, this is a can of worms...

Should, say, Priests be charged with fraud on giving final absolution to dying patients of their Parish? Or performing a Christening?

Some CAM has beneficial outcomes for people who use it. It is used by the NHS everytime they pass people over to, say, Cancer Care. Millions of people use some form of loving touch therapy at some point in their lives, and we ALL use alternative stuff every time we 'treat' ourselves at home!

As usual, I am trying to defend the good parts of CAM. The last discussion I had here, on another thread, was about a new report on herbal remedies. The remedies that were found, scientifically, 'to work' are no longer considered CAM. Something a bit cocked up there I think - don't you?

Public Health should be about Public Heath and the enormously beneficial aspect of 'well being'. People derive health from many different aspects of their lives. If someone wants to visit a crystal healer, they should be free to. And the crystal healer should be able to offer his service without persecution. It seems to be a belief system, like prayer.

I think a priest has the right to offer christenings, blessings, prayer - whatever - to the people who are wanting it - that is their right and his too.

Jack of Kent

In following the skeptic debates about public health and free expression, it appears to me that an interesting distinction is emerging.

On one hand, there is concern about the attempts to use libel (and other law, such as copyright) to restrict or deter criticism of certain treatments. Here the skeptic instinct is that free expression should not be limited.

On the other hand, there are calls by skeptics to use the law to restrict or eliminate promotional claims about certain treatments, for example the unfair commercial practice regulations, ASA, the Cancer Act, etc. Here a skeptic is perhaps saying by implication that free expression has limits.

Accordingly, is the skeptic position that criticism of CAM should always be free, whilst promotion of CAM should always be regulated?

(And, is the CAM position the converse of this: that criticism should be regulated but promotion should not be?)

Or is this an invalid distinction?

I do wonder if some people simply "want it both ways": I should be free to say what I want, but you are not.

Any thoughts or comments?This is Uk Skeptics forum so I think the CAM haters will just be poisonous as usual because CAM (to them) = Homeopathy and Woo.

At this point there is usually an addled attack on me from Cuddles.....after which I go away for a rest. :boohoo:

[bindeweede]

Hello, Allo Allo!


and we ALL use alternative stuff every time we 'treat' ourselves at home!I apologise if this is a selective quote, but when I use loperamide, ibuprofen, paracetamol, allo(!)purinol, and other stuff, at home, these are not "alternative" medicines, they are proven to be effective.

Perhaps I have misunderstood.

PS Cuddles has not posted here for quite some time.

[Trinoc]

I apologise if this is a selective quote, but when I use loperamide, ibuprofen, paracetamol, allo(!)purinol, and other stuff, at home, these are not "alternative" medicines, they are proven to be effective.
Interesting implication here. According to this definition, anything that works is not CAM (as Allo Allo implied seems to be the standard belief among skeptics), therefore the standard skeptical retort that CAM does not work becomes nothing more than a hollow tautology.

If you define it this way ... Conventional = Works, CAM = Doesn't work ... then you are no longer logically entitled to say something like, say, some sorts of herbs do not work simply because they are in a field regarded as CAM. Such a definition of CAM can not co-exist with the simple "CAM is whatever doesn't work" idea ... unless of course you can provide conclusive evidence that (in this particular example) all herbs, without exception, are ineffective, and that this ineffectiveness is intrinsic to their herbal nature.

[bindeweede]

Interesting implication here. According to this definition, anything that works is not CAM (as Allo Allo implied seems to be the standard belief among skeptics), therefore the standard skeptical retort that CAM does not work becomes nothing more than a hollow tautology.

If you define it this way ... Conventional = Works, CAM = Doesn't work ... then you are no longer logically entitled to say something like, say, some sorts of herbs do not work simply because they are in a field regarded as CAM. Such a definition of CAM can not co-exist with the simple "CAM is whatever doesn't work" idea ... unless of course you can provide conclusive evidence that (in this particular example) all herbs, without exception, are ineffective, and that this ineffectiveness is intrinsic to their herbal nature.

Bugger. Should have kept me mouth shut, as usual.

According to this definition,...... not sure what definition you are talking about, but I am up to 100% certain you are right.

[Trinoc]

... not sure what definition you are talking about, but I am up to 100% certain you are right.
I apologise if I was incorrectly ascribing to you the idea that the distinction between conventional medicine and CAM is the same as the distinction between working and not working. Allo Allo seemed to imply (correctly in my view) that a lot of skeptical opinions seem to assume this, and it seemd to me that you were concurring with this ... though I admit you only stated the "If it's effective it isn't CAM" half of the definition.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

On one hand, there is concern about the attempts to use libel (and other law, such as copyright) to restrict or deter criticism of certain treatments. Here the skeptic instinct is that free expression should not be limited.

On the other hand, there are calls by skeptics to use the law to restrict or eliminate promotional claims about certain treatments, for example the unfair commercial practice regulations, ASA, the Cancer Act, etc. Here a skeptic is perhaps saying by implication that free expression has limits.

Accordingly, is the skeptic position that criticism of CAM should always be free, whilst promotion of CAM should always be regulated?

I think it's a bloody good question: it makes us think about the relationship between assesssing assertions and having the right to make assertions.

IMO, for entirely practical reasons, the right to assert that CAM of various sorts is efficacious may be limited to exclude advertisements that are ignorant or reckless or deluded. The reason is this: we are mostly in the dark about most things, including many things that matter to our health, wealth and welfare. If we have to detect as best we can claims that are ignorant or reckless or deluded — as well as outright mendacity — we shan't have much time to get on with other things.

What about freedom for skeptics? Well, I think the answer is implicit in the last paragraph. If we are to distinguish between what is and what is not ignorant, reckless or deluded, we must be free to speak. Of course, that does not mean that skeptics should be free to make accusations of mendacity without being ready to defend them in court. It's one thing to say that a man's an eejit, and another to say that he's a liar.

[bindeweede]

I apologise if I was incorrectly ascribing to you the idea that the distinction between conventional medicine and CAM is the same as the distinction between working and not working. Allo Allo seemed to imply (correctly in my view) that a lot of skeptical opinions seem to assume this, and it seemd to me that you were concurring with this ... though I admit you only stated the "If it's effective it isn't CAM" half of the definition.

Tired. If a medicine works, tested and all the other stuff, whether you call it conventional, alternative, complementary, interplanetary or what ever, does not matter. If it works, it isn't anything other than effective, surely.

[MischiefMonkey]

Some CAM does have some evidence that it works.

Acupuncture has some limited evidence to suggest it is effective for the relief of pain.

St John Wort has some evidence to suggest it provides some relief from mild/moderate depression.

BUT

You also have to factor in self medication - is the back pain indicative of something more sinister than muscle strain? Could the St John's Wort affect other medication like the contraceptive pill? Something for the (medically qualified) GP to govern surely.

Then add, is this the best medication? Might co-codomol not be better for back pain? Might any SSRI be a better option for depression?

While I'd say don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, I'd also say go for the best option. Which might not be the all 'natural' CAM.

[Allo Allo]

Hello, Allo Allo!

I apologise if this is a selective quote, but when I use loperamide, ibuprofen, paracetamol, allo(!)purinol, and other stuff, at home, these are not "alternative" medicines, they are proven to be effective.

Perhaps I have misunderstood.

PS Cuddles has not posted here for quite some time.

Hello Bindeweede - how's your tinnitus?! :smiley:

But if at a time you suspected you were developing a cold, or 'flu and you used a lemon and honey concoction, or drank a ginger infusion, or you had a hot bath and chicken soup you would be using an alternative solution. Or similarly, if you soaked your sore feet in a mustard bath. If you used a pain medication as well - you'd be using it in a complementary way not so?

Well - that's good news about Cuddles!

Mischief Monkey

While I'd say don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, I'd also say go for the best option. Which might not be the all 'natural' CAM.Well, I agree. Trouble is not all CAM is 'natural'. If you investigate how Apricot Kernels are used for cancer, the dosage is so high, it is, in effect, Chemotherapy. The same applies to MMS. I find that scary.

To me, the good part of CAM is the loving touch and finding simple solutions for non-life threatening conditions that help people STAY well and feel they have the power to look after their own health. The constant ridicule it gets undermines that.

I think it SHOULD be criticised - but always acknowledging that some CAM has real benefits....and that legally both customers and practitioners should be free to follow the way they choose and not become oppressed by nit- picky legislation of which we have too much already.

I am truly impressed that no poisonous skeptics have posted on this thread yet - something must have changed!

[Croydon Bob]

St John Wort has some evidence to suggest it provides some relief from mild/moderate depression.

BUT

Could the St John's Wort affect other medication like the contraceptive pill? Something for the (medically qualified) GP to govern surely.



I thought that it was established that St John's Wort negates the effect of the contraceptive pill? It has several substances in it that have clear medicinal effects, just not the ones that "Traditional Chinese Medicine" say it has.

One of the reasons that sCAM can be so dangerous is that it can sometimes have an effect (random quantities of real drugs, HIV on acupuncture needles), not just that it has no effect when someone needs genuine treatment.

[MischiefMonkey]

I thought that it was established that St John's Wort negates the effect of the contraceptive pill? It has several substances in it that have clear medicinal effects, just not the ones that "Traditional Chinese Medicine" say it has.

One of the reasons that sCAM can be so dangerous is that it can sometimes have an effect (random quantities of real drugs, HIV on acupuncture needles), not just that it has no effect when someone needs genuine treatment.

Yep - that was my point. Just because a clinical trial says it might work there are more things to consider such as drug interactions, mis-diagnosis and other risks.

[Allo Allo]

I thought that it was established that St John's Wort negates the effect of the contraceptive pill? It has several substances in it that have clear medicinal effects, just not the ones that "Traditional Chinese Medicine" say it has.

One of the reasons that sCAM can be so dangerous is that it can sometimes have an effect (random quantities of real drugs, HIV on acupuncture needles), not just that it has no effect when someone needs genuine treatment.

Yes - this is true. But I think the assumption that people who use (say) St John's Wort are ignorant of its side effects or effect on other drugs they might be taking is promoting the idea that people using CAM are ignorant idiots. I will not use the term sCAM because it implies that CAM is a fraudulent, useless system, which any thinking person will know it is not. It is insulting and ignorant.

I should think implying you can get HIV from acupuncture needles is like suggesting people should keep away from tattoo parlours for the same reason. You assume gross ignorance from practitioners, which in a third world country might be a consideration.

There are aspects of Cam therapies which emphasise the metaphysical rather than the physical. If people follow such a way of thinking, science as proof or non proof of a metaphysical benefit or non benefit of any such practise is not applicable. Legally, people need the freedom to follow their own path. Similarly, it is not unlawful to pig out on chocolate and cakes if you are a diabetic, if you want to, even though it is leading to your own death! Laws that take away people's freedom to treat their own body in the way they wish according to their beliefs of personal benefit and well being, are a dangerous form of suppression.

[Pebble]

If you used a pain medication as well - you'd be using it in a complementary way not so?

The difference that is being overlooked is that what defines CAM is lack of evidence, not evidence that it does not work. Conventional medicine is not closed minded, if it works and can be shown to work, the contents are predctable, and the risk of use can be shown to be acceptably low for the condition treated then the therapy will be adopted. The only requirement for CAM is promoting the use of therapies that cannot work (homeopathy), have not been shown to work (osteopathy in non musculoskeletal conditions), have non standardised constituents (herbal remedies) or have risks that probably exceed expected benefits (collodial silver).



Monkey Well, I agree. Trouble is not all CAM is 'natural'. If you investigate how Apricot Kernels are used for cancer, the dosage is so high, it is, in effect, Chemotherapy. The same applies to MMS. I find that scary.

Being natural is not what is important, it is natural to die in childbirth in your late 20s, for infections to be the dominant mode of death and for cyclical starvation to control population numbers.


me, the good part of CAM is the loving touch and finding simple solutions for non-life threatening conditions that help people STAY well and feel they have the power to look after their own health. The constant ridicule it gets undermines that.

!

Conventional medicine utilises these soft parts extensively. The problem over the past half century is that as substantial scientific advances have been made, many have forgotten how important this is, second the move to a supermarket approach to life in general has also influenced the delivery of effective services, including healthcare. The reputation of CAMartists for the provision of this important aspect of care is responsible for their continued resurgence, nothing to do with the fact that in reality they are willfully ignorant or frauds or deluded.

If this aspect was simply promoted and sold for itself (caring aspect) without all the associated nonsense, CAMartists could become very useful, healing practitioners.

[Allo Allo]

The difference that is being overlooked is that what defines CAM is lack of evidence, not evidence that it does not work. Conventional medicine is not closed minded, if it works and can be shown to work, the contents are predctable, and the risk of use can be shown to be acceptably low for the condition treated then the therapy will be adopted.

So you are saying if it works it's not CAM?


The only requirement for CAM is promoting the use of therapies that cannot work (homeopathy), have not been shown to work (osteopathy in non musculoskeletal conditions), have non standardised constituents (herbal remedies) or have risks that probably exceed expected benefits (collodial silver).And that CAM only exists to promote that which has been rubbished - eg coloidal silver which used to be used in the old days?


Being natural is not what is important, it is natural to die in childbirth in your late 20s, for infections to be the dominant mode of death and for cyclical starvation to control population numbers. Absolutely!


Conventional medicine utilises these soft parts extensively. It does???????
The problem over the past half century is that as substantial scientific advances have been made, many have forgotten how important this is, second the move to a supermarket approach to life in general has also influenced the delivery of effective services, including healthcare.Absolutely!


The reputation of CAMartists for the provision of this important aspect of care is responsible for their continued resurgence, nothing to do with the fact that in reality they are willfully ignorant or frauds or deluded.

If this aspect was simply promoted and sold for itself (caring aspect) without all the associated nonsense, CAMartists could become very useful, healing practitioners.Yes - you got a point there. CAM'artists' hey? So CAM does not exist as meaning Complementary/Alternative/Medicine that is useful. The word exists to only mean sCAM/CAMartist ?

Well, I dunno really. I thought Complemantary/Alterative/Medicine meant something more lofty....:undecided:

[Pebble]

Allo Allo,

The point I was trying to make is that conventional medicine ought (does not always I agree) confine itself to using that which has evidence to support its use. Where such evidence is lacking, a rational assessment of what has most likelihood of being effective made and an agreed program for getting the requisite evidence undertaken. It should always eschew that which has been shown to be useless or have a negative risk benefit ratio.

The problem with much of CAM is that many approaches with a lower evidence base than is available for other options continue to be promoted. Not infrequently practitioners promote a particular approach (acupuncture or whatever) for virtually all conditions to be treated. Finally there is the notion of alternative rather than adjunctive. If much of what is promoted as possibly making patients feel better, either while the body cures itself or is cured by effective medicines, was seen as purely adjunctive both in the minds of the practitioners and patients there would be considerably less derision poured on the CAM scene.

PS colloidal silver is still being very actively promoted e.g. for AIDS

[bindeweede]

Did anyone watch "Professor Regan's medicine Cabinet" on BBC2. She looks into homeopathy, insomnia, herbal medicine, painkillers. It is available on BBC iPlayer.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00k2lt2/Professor_Regans..._Medicine_Cabinet/

Also available to download for non-UK residents.

http://www.filefactory.com/file/agdf761/n/Professor_Regans_-_Medicine_Cabinet_b00k2lt2_default_mov

[Allo Allo]

Did anyone watch "Professor Regan's medicine Cabinet" on BBC2. She looks into homeopathy, insomnia, herbal medicine, painkillers. It is available on BBC iPlayer.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00k2lt2/Professor_Regans..._Medicine_Cabinet/

Also available to download for non-UK residents.

http://www.filefactory.com/file/agdf761/n/Professor_Regans_-_Medicine_Cabinet_b00k2lt2_default_mov

Not seen this video before - but I have now - very good - thank you for the link.

It ended with the problem of knowing one's genetic makeup - and I remembered reading THIS (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/sciencenews/5190914/Genetic-magic-bullet-cures-have-proven-a-false-dawn.html) recently. Quote from the article -
Even when scientists have identified genes linked to conditions such as diabetes and Crohn's disease they have discovered that they account for less than 10 per cent of inherited influence.From Pebble
Allo Allo,

The point I was trying to make is that conventional medicine ought (does not always I agree) confine itself to using that which has evidence to support its use. Where such evidence is lacking, a rational assessment of what has most likelihood of being effective made and an agreed program for getting the requisite evidence undertaken. It should always eschew that which has been shown to be useless or have a negative risk benefit ratio.

The problem with much of CAM is that many approaches with a lower evidence base than is available for other options continue to be promoted. Not infrequently practitioners promote a particular approach (acupuncture or whatever) for virtually all conditions to be treated. Finally there is the notion of alternative rather than adjunctive. If much of what is promoted as possibly making patients feel better, either while the body cures itself or is cured by effective medicines, was seen as purely adjunctive both in the minds of the practitioners and patients there would be considerably less derision poured on the CAM scene.

PS colloidal silver is still being very actively promoted e.g. for AIDSThank you - very valid thoughts with which I agree - I know colloidal silver is used by people as a cure all - I've seen the videos of blue people! But it is not used in proper medicine is it?

:knitter:

[Trinoc]

I know colloidal silver is used by people as a cure all - I've seen the videos of blue people! But it is not used in proper medicine is it?
Colloidal silver is a good topical antiseptic. It may even make a bit of a comeback for minor surface infections if antibiotics get used less for fear of breeding resistant bacteria. I know of no evidence, though, that it has any other useful medical properties, and you certainly won't catch me drinking the stuff (though I suppose a gargle for a bacterial sore throat might help a bit).

[Croydon Bob]

I should think implying you can get HIV from acupuncture needles is like suggesting people should keep away from tattoo parlours for the same reason. You assume gross ignorance from practitioners,

I'm not assuming gross ignorance on the part of ALL practitioners. But there is evidence (and anecdote) to show that many people involved in sCAM don't use safe methods. After all, some of them don't even believe that viruses and bacteria cause disease. Examples of dirty needle use by sCAM practitioners: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-03-15-canada-hiv-tests_x.htm . http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1024753.stm

[Allo Allo]

I'm not assuming gross ignorance on the part of ALL practitioners. But there is evidence (and anecdote) to show that many people involved in sCAM don't use safe methods. After all, some of them don't even believe that viruses and bacteria cause disease. Examples of dirty needle use by sCAM practitioners: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-03-15-canada-hiv-tests_x.htm . http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1024753.stm


Not that I am saying such things don't happen to CAM practitioners - I would hesitate to use the adjective 'many', especially in UK, but as you can see if you read the articles you posted - they happen in ordinary medicine as well - the first link was about a GP - a questionable one - and the second, as well as the acupuncture story, told of a Canadian HIV infected surgeon operating on thousands of children in a children's hospital. I hope such things happen very rarely.....:sad: