We recognize you are attempting to access this website from a country belonging to the European Economic Area (EEA) including the EU which enforces the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and therefore access cannot be granted at this time. For any issues, contact web@tulsaworld.com or call 918-581-8300.
Joe Tippens was only given three months to live. But doctors later enrolled him in a clinical trial they hoped could give him more time.
Tippens said he received a tip from a veterinarian who suggested he try a dog dewormer drug called fenbendazole, which was believed to display cancer-fighting properties, according to cell studies.
In his blog, Tippens wrote that after receiving his fourth cancer-free diagnosis at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston last April, the results indicated that his cancer was gone after two years of treatment.
Dr. Stephen Prescott, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation president, said Tippens’ story interested him after speaking to a scientist at Johns Hopkins University who conducted a case study where scientists implanted immune-deficient mice with human tumors.
While the experiment was still in progress, a veterinarian at Johns Hopkins University put the mice on the same deworming medications that Tippens used.
After examining the results, scientists found that the implanted tumors would not grow, he said.
“They were trying to make cancer in mice and unbeknownst to them, something that the veterinarian in the facility had done prevented that,” Prescott said.
Shortly after, Prescott said he met Tippens through mutual friends.
While director of the Huntsman Cancer Institute in Salt Lake City, Prescott said he “would hear stories all the time about new approaches to cancer medical treatments,” but remained skeptical.
However, Prescott said he and a team Tippens is putting together will collaborate to explore alternative care methods.
“It would be a wonderful thing if we discovered that there is this compound that has broad activity with dramatic responses like with Mr. Tippens, what a great thing that would be,” he said.
Prescott said they plan to spend six to 12 months researching the medical records of cancer patients.
In their study, they will consider specifics such as the treatment they received, how they reacted and how long they were given to live.
By studying Tippens’ case further, Prescott said they could provide more truth to the dog dewormer medicinal impact.
One problem made evident by some anticancer medications is that over time they become ineffective, he said.
It is the reason why patients today are seeking other treatments.
Most anticancer drugs attack a specific target on or in the cancer cell, he explained.
“What often happens is that it works initially and then quits working,” Prescott said.
“And the reason is the cancer has continued to change and have additional mutations, so what was the initial targets no longer respond to the drug.”
Part of Tippens’ treatment regimen was CBD.
Chip Paul, the founder of Owasso-based GnuPharma, a company that specializes in developing natural products, said he is unsure how influential CBD alone was on Tippens’ cancer cells.
“If he was just taking cannabidiol, it is doubtful that it affected his cancer because it does not have the right actives in it to be able to signal that,” Paul said.
Prescott said as the clinical trial develops, he hopes that it will eventually lead to answers regarding Tippens’ shocking recovery.
“I do really applaud Mr. Tippens for his forthrightness and aggressive stance for something he believes has helped him and can help us as a people,” Prescott said.
“He has done more than any patient has done in that regard.”
If an EU citizen/resident/etc accessed the site from a country that’s not blocked, or via VPN, are they unable to ask for their information or have it scrubbed?
What if a person later becomes an EU citizen?
What if they are a dual citizen?
I don’t understand how these geo blockers are able to make anyone compliant.
All the rest of our laws travel with jurisdictions, not with individuals' citizenship status. The GDPR doesn't really have any standing to impose obligations on companies that refuse to do business inside EU jurisdictions. We won't know until it's tested in court, but demonstrating a best effort to keep your product out of EU jurisdiction seems like a pretty good first defense.
How would an EU enforcer actually enforce the GDPR in this case? Unless there's been a violation of a trade agreement, any attempt to apply EU law to a US-based company operating on US soil is going to be utterly impotent.
Geo location for IPs is a very inexact science so they almost certainly are processing EU citizens' data. Hell I can access it with a VPN while sat in the EU so yep, they are liable if they store anything about me (apparently IP addresses are considered PII in terms of GDPR too)
No idea how they'd enforce it - various murky-references to "international law" are floating around. I guess these sort of things are covered in trade treaties etc like with patents and copyright etc.
Governments enforce their laws with the threat of depriving you of your assets or personal liberty. In order to do that, they have to first have the power (via unchallenged jurisdiction) to deprive you of assets or liberty. In this case, unless the EU can get the US to enforce EU law on US soil, or to extradite offenders to the EU, the GDPR has no teeth.
"COKE ROT Cocaine can ROT your skin and genitals – as drug is cut with dangerous cattle de-wormer, experts warn"
the interesting thing is in the article it says cocaine can be cut with Levamisole, which:
was used to treat arthritis and bowel cancer in the past, but it was banned for use by humans in 2000....Now, it's only supposed to be used in veterinary medicine to kill parasitic worms.
Tippens said he received a tip from a veterinarian who suggested he try a dog dewormer drug called fenbendazole, which was believed to display cancer-fighting properties, according to cell studies.
In his blog, Tippens wrote that after receiving his fourth cancer-free diagnosis at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston last April, the results indicated that his cancer was gone after two years of treatment.
Dr. Stephen Prescott, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation president, said Tippens’ story interested him after speaking to a scientist at Johns Hopkins University who conducted a case study where scientists implanted immune-deficient mice with human tumors.
While the experiment was still in progress, a veterinarian at Johns Hopkins University put the mice on the same deworming medications that Tippens used.
After examining the results, scientists found that the implanted tumors would not grow, he said.
“They were trying to make cancer in mice and unbeknownst to them, something that the veterinarian in the facility had done prevented that,” Prescott said.
Shortly after, Prescott said he met Tippens through mutual friends.
While director of the Huntsman Cancer Institute in Salt Lake City, Prescott said he “would hear stories all the time about new approaches to cancer medical treatments,” but remained skeptical.
However, Prescott said he and a team Tippens is putting together will collaborate to explore alternative care methods.
“It would be a wonderful thing if we discovered that there is this compound that has broad activity with dramatic responses like with Mr. Tippens, what a great thing that would be,” he said.
Prescott said they plan to spend six to 12 months researching the medical records of cancer patients.
In their study, they will consider specifics such as the treatment they received, how they reacted and how long they were given to live.
By studying Tippens’ case further, Prescott said they could provide more truth to the dog dewormer medicinal impact.
One problem made evident by some anticancer medications is that over time they become ineffective, he said.
It is the reason why patients today are seeking other treatments.
Most anticancer drugs attack a specific target on or in the cancer cell, he explained.
“What often happens is that it works initially and then quits working,” Prescott said.
“And the reason is the cancer has continued to change and have additional mutations, so what was the initial targets no longer respond to the drug.”
Part of Tippens’ treatment regimen was CBD.
Chip Paul, the founder of Owasso-based GnuPharma, a company that specializes in developing natural products, said he is unsure how influential CBD alone was on Tippens’ cancer cells.
“If he was just taking cannabidiol, it is doubtful that it affected his cancer because it does not have the right actives in it to be able to signal that,” Paul said.
Prescott said as the clinical trial develops, he hopes that it will eventually lead to answers regarding Tippens’ shocking recovery.
“I do really applaud Mr. Tippens for his forthrightness and aggressive stance for something he believes has helped him and can help us as a people,” Prescott said.
“He has done more than any patient has done in that regard.”
GDPR compliance can be extremely expensive to implement, especially for complex software comprised of thousands of microservices that handle customer data. And imagine working in an industry where data retention is legally mandated by other jurisdictions...
I'm not saying GDPR is bad (I'm all in favor!), but the costs can be quite large to implement to the letter of the law (GDPR export requirements, etc)
Bullshit. It's trivial to implement. Don't store my personal data. Done.
It may be extremely expensive to store and process my personal data and remain GDPR compliant, if you insist on doing that. And admittedly it may be expensive to store and process others' personal data while excluding EU citizens from that mechanism. But the blanket statement "GDPR compliance can be extremely expensive to implement" is on its own extremely misleading in this context.
> And imagine working in an industry where data retention is legally mandated by other jurisdictions...
Perhaps, but this is not relevant to a news organisation publishing a general article online from the USA, where (AFAIK) there is no such data retention requirement in any jurisdiction within the USA.
Correct. I did cover this when I said, in the post you are replying to: "...admittedly it may be expensive to store and process others' personal data while excluding EU citizens from that mechanism"
Tell that to the dozens of engineers that spent months on GDPR compliance at my company.
I personally spent two weeks making sure my systems had both export and deletion capability. These systems were engineered for soft delete data retention and maintaining change logs across writes. In several different databases. And offline data warehouses. And feeds consumed by downstream systems.
> But the blanket statement "GDPR compliance can be extremely expensive to implement" is on its own extremely misleading in this context.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Every system out there handling personal information needs to be re-engineered. Soft deletes, change logs, feeds, plumbing between microservices, data validation logic, primary keys and foreign keys with PII, on and on... it all needs to be changed to handle new APIs: delete and export. That requires a lot of work to do correctly and capture all of the surface area.
> Perhaps, but this is not relevant to a news organisation publishing a general article online from the USA
Maybe they can't afford to change things? Sure, they might be collecting too much information in order to sell ads, but they have to decide if the EU traffic is worth rebuilding what they already have in place.
Don't take a gut value judgement about GDPR being the right thing to do and equate it to being inexpensive. It is not.
The complaint is that this website should not be handling any personal information. (Whether you agree with that or not.)
The GDPR also holds you liable for your outsourced work, which means that any ad network that serves a single malicious ad violating GDPR could make you violate the law. It’s a tough conflict.
GP says:
> News outlets have relied on advertising to make their content accessible and still profitable since the 1830s[0]. It would be in immense industry shift to change from and advertising based model.
But the immense shift has already been happening, just the other way, -away from a somewhat acceptable kind of contextual advertising model ("put my ad next to the recipes pages") to the current dragnet surveillance behavioural advertising model.
What is needed isn't much more than going back to 2009 or when it was Google bought Doubleclick, when the separation between shady spyware, passive ads and content was somewhat clear.
Of course this would be expensive, in the same way that getting your buildings fire safe would be expensive after you've relied on lack of inspections to rake in rents for years from cheap housing.
Meta: HN could need a feature to "flag" when someone is abusing downvotes like on parent comment. I can always send a mail as I sometimes do, but I guess a way to flag for general moderator attention would improve reporting of such abuses.
The comment is trivially easy to prove right, points out an important detail and is still downvoted.
I always find this argument a bit skewed.
Yes, it is expensive if your site has more js than content and if your business model is to overtrack and overprofile your readers
On the other hand a static page is GDPR compliant. Doesn't seem to be too expensive to implement.
Large organizations have implementation costs and considerations outside of IT, however.
I’m sure they could also change their revenue model, but that costs exponentially more than just changing the website to be a static page.
To be very honest even if you keep the logs it is extremely unlikely just logging, even with full IPs is a "material" violation of GDPR unless your static page/file is extremely specific
(You can also expire or fully anonymize the logs before keeping them)
I only know of the broad strokes of GDPR, but wouldn't the costs be mostly mitigated if one just decided to not collect data? I thought the cost was really only borne if an entity decided to collect and retain data.
1. Implement GDPR globally, reduced profit globally (by bearing cost of gdpr)
2. Implement GDPR in EU only, and only see reduced profit in EU. Also have two versions of the system: EU and everyone else
3. Don’t implement GDPR, serve EU, risk fines
4. Don’t implement GDPR, don’t serve EU, lose all EU revenue
Assuming data => revenue, there is no free solution (except not to have had EU as a customer in the first place)
In fact it is so far from the letter and spirit of the law that I find it odd that any company with a significant internet presence, that should have access to competent lawyers can misinterpret it so badly.
Then again, European companies burn themselves in USA all the time on basic stuff too; a UX designer I worked with described how they lost a lawsuit against a bloke after he had broken into a site, opened the machine, jammed something into the door sensor and started operating the machine, all while being influenced by drugs. The first part of the story ended when he got his hand jammed in some kind of shredder unit.
The second part of that story ends when their American legal team finds out there is no sticker that tells people not to put their hand into the machine and tells them they’ll likely lose in court and convinces them to settle.
After that nobody forgot about the stickers.
But to most Europeans I think it sounds outrageously stupid that you can break into a site, operate a machine after deliberately jamming the safety mechanism and still get a settlement because there was no sticker to tell him not to put his hand in the shredder.
So, for Americans, here is how I understand the GDPR law:
Except in special circumstances (criminal justice etc) you are not allowed to store customer data except as needed to run the actual service for your customers (and that doesn’t include monetizing by ads or spyware).
You can ask a customer for permission to store data, but the default is no, and - AFAIK - you are not allowed to penalize someone for not accepting.
The only grey area I see is where you default to not storing info and inform the customer that they can opt in to more personalized and possibly more meaningful ads.
See? Nothing there about popups. They should default to off, so meaningless in the first place, something no one seems to get. Or they get it but are deliberately doing it anyway, pretending not to get it like last time.
If someone else has a better understanding of GDPR, feel free to roast my understanding, - or add details to it. [I know there is a lot more.)
Also, FWIW, here is what I think is a good example of data collection done correctly under GDPR, the customer has a clear choice, the benefits are obviously linked to the data collected and the default is no: https://erik.itland.no/observation-gdpr-and-privacy-done-rig...
- An EU citizen can ask to be expunged (aka "right to be forgotten") from your system, and you must delete all records you have on the person. It can't be anonymized or soft deleted - it must be entirely scrubbed of PII or destroyed.
- An EU citizen can invoke "data export" and ask for any and all information you maintain on them. Anything you store that is foreign keyed to them is fair game. You must provide it all in a format they can download and read. JSON dumps of all the records is probably sufficient.
IANAL, and I'm pretty sure I haven't covered everything. It's a pretty broad law.
> Literally nobody except maybe Richard Stallman was pining for websites to need cookie popups and need affirmative consent to log their IP address.