Recently, I wrote about the court case of a French naturopath. Last week, the judge has issued his verdict. Miguel Barthéléry was sentenced
to a two-year suspended prison term and to a fine of 5 000 Euros. Two cancer patients had died following his treatments and recommendations. Barthéléry was also found guilty of impersonating a doctor and illegally practising medicine. In addition, he was also banned for life from practising as a healthcare professional.
The Paris criminal court found that Miguel Barthéléry had deliberately created confusion about his qualifications by presenting himself as a doctor on the internet and in text messages to the two victims. The defendant had claimed to have a doctorate and a post-doctorate from the United States. The judgment “has the consequence of dissuading all those who engage in the same abuses, they are now warned that we can not do anything with the health of people,” said the judge.
The case had begun in February 2019 with the complaint of the companion of a man who had died two months earlier of testicular cancer. Diagnosed in 2016, the patient had not consulted a doctor but had preferred to follow a “health plan” drawn up by the naturopath. It was based on fasting and cures, raw food, and essential oils. Later, the family of a Belgian physiotherapist, who died of uterine cancer at the age of 39, joined the legal case. However, according to Code Source, the Parisien podcast, the case is more extensive, with seven further suspicious deaths of Barthéléry’s patients.
Barthéléry’s lawyer said that the decision “raises questions more generally about the appreciation that we now have of alternative therapeutic practices, which now seem, although not prohibited by law, to be subject to condemnation by the courts.”
26 Responses to A naturopath responsible for the death of two cancer patients was sentenced to two years
Leave a Reply to has Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
“Sentenced to two years”, but won’t do any time at the pleasure of La Republique.
Is that enough to deter quacks and charlatans?
Sigh.
As always: ‘Caveat emptor’ which I guess is the same in French!
More sighs.
And still people ask “what’s the harm”.
Miguel Barthéléry has a PhD in molecular medicine, no he is no MD. He first pursued a career in research, but then decided to act as a quack, destroying human lives (“Naturopathic Practitioner – Herbalist – Aromatherapist – Bodywork Coach”).
https://fr.linkedin.com/in/miguel-barthelery-phd-28737621
This is particularly sad as testicular cancer (even with extensive metastases) is nearly always curable with conventional treatment.
I find this more alarming in that this man does have a science background, appears to have performed research isolating cancer cell lines and must have some understanding of cancer biology. He therefore cannot have been acting out of blind faith and belief in what he did as some other quacks might be and must have known he was not helping, but harming. Surely this should have been considered when he was sentenced!
Science based medicine kills thousands every month, but nobody blinks an eye.
https://ethics.harvard.edu/blog/new-prescription-drugs-major-health-risk-few-offsetting-advantages
“Few people know that new prescription drugs have a 1 in 5 chance of causing serious reactions after they have been approved. That is why expert physicians recommend not taking new drugs for at least five years unless patients have first tried better-established options, and have the need to do so.
Few know that systematic reviews of hospital charts found that even properly prescribed drugs (aside from misprescribing, overdosing, or self-prescribing) cause about 1.9 million hospitalizations a year. Another 840,000 hospitalized patients are given drugs that cause serious adverse reactions for a total of 2.74 million serious adverse drug reactions. About 128,000 people die from drugs prescribed to them. This makes prescription drugs a major health risk, ranking 4th with stroke as a leading cause of death. The European Commission estimates that adverse reactions from prescription drugs cause 200,000 deaths; so together, about 328,000 patients in the U.S. and Europe die from prescription drugs each year. The FDA does not acknowledge these facts and instead gathers a small fraction of the cases.”
“In a recent decade, between 2002 and 2011, independent reviews by clinical expert teams in France, Canada, and the Netherlands have concluded that only 8 percent of 946 new products were clinically superior, down from 11 to 15 percent in previous decades (see Figure, below). Only 2 were breakthroughs and another 13 represented a real therapeutic advance.”
This is why millions of patients have turned away from CONmed, failed science leads to failed experiences.
“CONmed”
Roger, is that you? Another socket puppet?
That might have been more relevant if you had’ve provided some links to naturopaths condemning his negligence and trying to find out what exactly he did wrong. Did he misunderstand naturopathy, or did he uncover a theoretical problem with naturopathy itself, for example.
Bart says…
“failed science leads to failed experiences.”
Nicely said Bart! I love it! With your permission I would like to put your quote on a bumper sticker and sell it for $2 and will give you 50% of the profits. Those millions of patients who turned away from CONmed will buy the bumper sticker and we will both be millionaires overnight. Do we have a deal?
Anyway, getting back to the topic of failed science, what would you consider a successful science, Barty? Homeopathy? Naturopathy? Chiropractic? Energy Healing? Cowpathy? or something else? And why?
I might use some CAM remedies from time to time, a few even more regularly. However, I don’t promote homeopathic or CAM methods, neither do I disdain them. I have tried some that were effective, and some that were not effective … for ME.
CONmed interventions are not effective for 100% of patients, not even close. Why should we expect the same from CAM ?
Nobody here seemed to have any response to the link I posted;
https://ethics.harvard.edu/blog/new-prescription-drugs-major-health-risk-few-offsetting-advantages
BTW – You can have all my proceeds from your bumper sticker…. your gig, not mine.
Honest-ape
Also, I forgot to mention. Improved oxygen delivery can be obtained by sick patients laying in the prone position rather than on back side. (proning)
An option to using forced breathing machines. I used this method myself with success. Why I’ve never heard it from my MD, nor in the main stream media is puzzling. Everyone should be taught this simple treatment.
https://www.pennmedicine.org/updates/blogs/penn-physician-blog/2020/may/proning-during-covid19
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4848155/
for your sake, I hope you never fall seriously ill
@Bart
I see, you treat yourself based on your own experience plus lot of “research” and not based on any scientific evidence. This is very enlightening Bart! How come no one ever thought of that before? That is because you are an absolute genius and everyone else are dumb as a rock.
Bart Says..
Elsewhere you mentioned that you had the Janssen shot for covid and take ivermectin periodically. If you are sure that CONmed interventions are not effective for 100% of patients, how come you used them? You and I both know that CONmed interventions come with a lot of side effects. Risking side effect for something that is not at all effective seems un-genius like on your part. Don’t you think?
You again prove to be a genius Brother Brat!
That is right! Where are all the nay-sayers at? Crickets! I am taking to you EE and Co. Bart and I are waiting for response from you all for the above blog post written by some random dude on the internet who says prescription drugs are a major health risk without presenting much in the form of evidence. What say you? Drop everything you are doing and get right on with drafting a response and while you are at it make sure you apologize to my buddy Bart for your late response and for doubting him.
Keep on owning CONmed supporters and stay genius, Brother Bart!
@Honest-Ape
Honest-Ape said;
“Elsewhere you mentioned that you had the Janssen shot for covid and take ivermectin periodically. If you are sure that CONmed interventions are not effective for 100% of patients, how come you used them?”
I already have given my reasons here for using Ivermectin and for taking the Jannsen jab. So I’ll say it again.
I take Ivermectin as needed because is IS effective, with minimal side effects.
I took the jab not because I believe what it will do for me, but because of what it will do for my life style.
@ Bart:
THIS IS THE LAST OF YOUR NONSENSICAL, OFF-TOPIC COMMENTS THAT I LET PASS.
either you stop behaving like a troll or you are out.
@Bart
Bart says…
Ivermectin is CONmed Bart! It is very hypocritical of you to take ivermectin when you think CONmed interventions are NOT effective for 100% of patients.
Are you trying to have your bullshit and eat it too Barty?
You talk the big talk but lack the conviction to stick to your guns. You have been whining about vaccine side-effects for a while now, that is a very high price to pay just to retain your lifestyle. FDA just recommended a booster for everyone who got Janssen jab. Are you going to get the booster Bart? When will this booster madness stop?
I have always admired your bravery for trying to stick it to big-pharma by coming on to this blog and setting the record straight with your very insightful youtube research, but it turns out that you are a big-pharma lackey yourself. You are not my friend anymore Barty!!
Bart, in the UK, the technique of laying Covid hospital patients on their front was ALL OVER the mainstream television news.
Bart,
I think you will find that most doctors don’t know about it as it is only really applicable to mechanical ventilation in Intensive Care where moving the (unconscious, ventilated) patient from the supine to the prone condition can in certain situations improve oxygenation. Most of what goes on in ITU is too specialised to be on the radar of doctors who don’t work there.
@Edzard
Professor, publish my latest post… you bald headed pussy !
You’re censuring again.
what a nice guy Bart is … no WAS, because he’s banned.
[but he made me laugh heartily on parting]
I think by “censuring again”, he probably meant “censoring”. He certainly deserves censure AND censoring. What bad manners!
@Prof Ernst: “Bart is … no WAS, because he’s banned”
I was amused by “Bart’s” protest of being censured—a self-fullfilling prophecy, as it happily turns out! (Terminal fool doesn’t know “censured” from “censored”; I’m only surprised he didn’t claim his 1st Amendment Freedums of Speech were being trampled on too. Definitely not the sharpest bulb in the butter drawer.)
I would like to say “he won’t be missed”, as in “good riddance to bad trash”, though I suspect he won’t be missed because he’ll be back under a new sock before very long. Ah well, we can enjoy the significant uptick in collective IQ while it lasts.
@Bart: “CONmed interventions are not effective for 100% of patients, not even close. Why should we expect the same from CAM?”
This is the wrong question to ask. The efficacy or otherwise of “CONmed” has absolutely zero bearing on the efficacy of CAM. “CONmed” could be an absolute useless sack of knackers and that still wouldn’t justify the promotion, sale, and use of CAM. CAM needs to stand on its own merits (and shortcomings), or not at all.
The correct question is: What efficacy should we as a society demand of CAM before permitting it to be peddled as “effective”? From which follows the question: How do we test if [a particular form of] CAM is effective? Which inevitably arrives at: So why hasn’t it already been tested by now, and all forms of CAM that prove to be ineffective permanently discarded?
Remember, “CONmed” knows its treatments aren’t 100% effective for 100% of patients, which is why it continues to develop new and [mostly] better ones. Whereas CAM knows its treatments are effective… because. That’s a frighteningly low standard to set for something that can kill if it’s wrong. “As long as it sells” seems to be the only true test of efficacy that CAM really cares for; the mere thought of trying to prove themselves wrong beyond anathema. We keep hearing from CAMsters about the evils of Big Pharma (and not too many disagreements there) but, honestly, Big Pharma could only dream of getting away with half of the crap that CAMsters enthusiastically praise and champion.
Therefore, if you wish to keep on talking about “CONmed”, then we will be happy to talk about “deflections”, “distractions”, and “double standards”. And that is not an argument you can win in the eyes of any honest observer, because it’s apparent just from comparing your words and behavior to ours who is weaseling here.
So the argument here is that because some medical interventions can cause problems (which is of course true) a better approach is to offer quackery?
Having my hip joint replaced might cause me harm, so better if I rub some magic cream on it?
One cannot but wonder whether there exists a definable psychopathological entity that manifests itself in an insatiable urge to play doctor and pretend to be able to cure disease. This bloke seems to be a prime example of someone who just made it up but probably doesn’t realise his total fallacy. The far left on the Dunning-Krüger curve so to speak. Other notable cases that come to mind as examples of the same are Robert O. Young, Jim Humble, Rick Simpson, Kerri Rivera and many more who seem not to be simple run off the mill grifters but religiously convinced of their imaginary medical mastery. Then of course we have the entire congregation of water healers,i.e. the homeopaths and not to forget the sprinkling of medical school graduates who slipped off their rockers into medical fantasy land e.g. Dr. Robert Rowen (ozone per rectum etc.) and Dr. Bill Gray ( homeopathic white noise). Maybe there is an ICD code for this particular kind of grandiose medical delusions??
“One cannot but wonder whether there exists a definable psychopathological entity that manifests itself in an insatiable urge to play doctor and pretend to be able to cure disease. … Maybe there is an ICD code for this particular kind of grandiose medical delusions??”
Type 2 Cluster B, I’ll wager. (Includes paranoiacs, narcissists, and psychopaths.) I think I read somewhere that Cluster Bs make up 1-6% of the population; although considering the last 5 years I think somebody dropped a zero there.
AltMed is certainly highly compatible with other rigid ideologies that put unquestioning belief and absolute tribal loyalty above critical thinking and willingness to embrace [self-]doubt and uncertainty (which are weaknesses in the authoritarian eye). The Khmer Rouge were notorious for dragging real medics out to the paddy fields and murdering them, just so they could dress up and pretend to be doctors themselves. Mao pawned off the great unwashed on his “barefoot doctors” (while happily reserving western medicine for himself). The Nazis were big on the purity cult aspect. Trumpers are up to their eyeballs in ivermectin grift to own the libs. And so on. Even at the soft “hippy liberal” end of altmed, I suspect if you scratch hard you will find the authoritarian desire for control underneath.
And wherever you look, there are stone-cold sociopaths only too delighted to take them for every buck they’ve got. And the marks love them for it.