Forced chemo

[Free Press Editor Joe Spear]

A story that is generating a lot of interest is the child protection case in New Ulm. That's right, it's a child protection case because parents will not allow 13 year old son, or agree with his decision, to not have chemo for his cancer.
Brown County authorities file case to more or less take custody because parents are neglectful. Lots of issues here. What does the forum think? http://is.gd/xW9C

[Dan Conner]

I don't know all the facts in this case. If the doctors and medical experts are sure the child will die without the chemotherapy, then I think the parents are wrong. In that case, authorities should do all they can to get the child life-saving treatment, even if that includes taking the child from their custody. Obviously, the child is not of the legal age where he/she is considered competent to make such decisions for himself/herself.

Religiosity is fine, if it only affects the adult individual believing the stuff, but when religious persons makes life and death decisions for someone else, based on their religion, that is not approppriate. Let us all suffer the consequences of our decisions, but no one else should be forced to endure the consequences of our decisions.

Saving one's life through science is far preferrable to dying for a faith. This would be a needless death. Do what is required to save the child.

[Bob Jentges]

A story that is generating a lot of interest is the child protection case in New Ulm. That's right, it's a child protection case because parents will not allow 13 year old son, or agree with his decision, to not have chemo for his cancer.
Brown County authorities file case to more or less take custody because parents are neglectful. Lots of issues here. What does the forum think? http://is.gd/xW9C

Joe, I have been following this issue through various media outlets. From my perspective human life, from conception through natural death, is precious. Likewise, I think the inaleinable right of liberty is precious. It seems to me the Hauser family understands both those principles very well. Whether 13 year old Dan Hauser has the capacity to fully understand, without undue influence by his parents or others, is the tenuous issue before Judge John Rodenberg.

I have known John Rodenberg personally and professionally for more than 20 years, and his late father Dick prior to that. There is probably not a more thoughtful judge that could have been assigned to this extremely difficult decision. I am confident Judge Rodenberg will investigate and consider all the available facts in this case, and thoughtfully apply the existing law to those facts when making his ruling.

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

Here's a perspective from NaturalNews (http://www.naturalnews.com/026283.html) on the Hauser case:

(NaturalNews) Against the wishes of both the parents and the 13-year-old patient in question, a Minnesota judge has ruled that Daniel Hauser must undergo conventional chemotherapy treatments, which are characterized by the mass-poisoning of the patient with toxic chemicals.

For opting to explore alternative and natural remedies rather than chemotherapy for their son, the parents were accused of medical neglect and now face having their son taken away from them by Child Protective Services (CPS). They may also face prison time if they refuse to follow the judge's orders.

Daniel was diagnosed with Hodgkin's Lymphoma, a health condition that is widely known by alternative cancer practitioners to be reversible (curable), especially in younger patients. Conventional medical doctors have told the courts that unless Daniel is subjected to toxic chemotherapy treatments, he has a 95% chance of dying.

That statistics is an outright lie. It is one of the many deceptive statistics put forth by the cancer industry in order to scare patients into submitting to extremely toxic protocols that cause far more harm than good.

Cancer patients cured by chemotherapy? Zero
There is not a single cancer patient that has ever been cured by chemotherapy. Zero. They don't exist. Not a single documented case in the history of western medicine.

And why is that? Because conventional medicine operates from the false belief that there is no cure for cancer! Thus, anyone offering a cure (or assisting in the body's own natural reversal of the disease) is immediately dismissed as a quack. Meanwhile, the real quackery is found in the pushing of toxic chemotherapy chemicals that are injected into the bodies of patients and called "treatment" when they should really be called "torture." (Nancy Pelosi, by the way, was never briefed on the fact that chemotherapy is torture...)

What's most disturbing in all of this, of course, is that the state is now forcing parents to poison their own children, requiring they hand over money to Big Pharma and conventional cancer treatment centers. The concept of freedom of choice has been stolen away from parents. The idea of protecting your children from toxic chemicals has been not just nullified, but made illegal!

Furthermore, the whole universe of natural cancer cures that really work has been sidelined by this Minnesota judge who is, no doubt, completely ignorant on cancer and human physiology. All these were utterly ignored: Vitamin D (http://www.naturalnews.com/008567.html), selenium, oxygen therapy, medicinal mushrooms, microalgae, Amazon rainforest herbs, Chinese Medicine herbs, high-dose vitamin C, raw foods juicing, wild foods extracts, superfood powders, raw cacao, broccoli sprouts and a thousand other things that we know help the body reverse various cancers.

All these things were apparently thrown out of the courtroom and almost certainly disparaged by drug-pushing doctors who claim that only their own chemicals can treat this disease.

Can you imagine the arrogance of that position? Of all the hundreds of different systems of medicine in our world, with tens of thousands of identified medicinal plant species growing on our planet, with the knowledge and wisdom of over 5,000 years of natural medicine being used across nearly every continent, modern doctors insist there is but one approach to cancer that has any value whatsoever: Chemotherapy. And they believe it so strongly, that they will argue for the arrest and imprisonment of parents who disagree with them.

This is the point at which medicine crosses over the line of anything scientific and becomes a dangerous form of dogma known as "scientism."

Modern medicine is not a scientific debate, folks. It's a system of control. Doctors, judges and courtrooms are simply tools of oppression to manipulate, poison and exploit a diseased population, all while isolating them from the natural cures that really work.

And the people causing this to happen are, in every conceivable way, guilty of mass murder. To deny the population access to accurate information about natural cancer remedies that really work -- and to threaten to imprison those who attempt to protect their children from the harm caused by poisonous chemicals -- is essentially an act of murder. It's not quite the same as putting a gun to someone's head and pulling the trigger, but it's close: Dead is dead, whether they were killed by a bullet or an injection.

It is especially educational to realize that most oncologists refuse to submit to chemotherapy themselves. When cancer doctors get cancer, they avoid chemotherapy as any sensible person would. But they have no hesitation about injecting the poisons into the bodies of other people, including innocent 13-year-old boys who will almost certainly be harmed or even killed by the treatment.

Chemotherapy causes permanent brain damage. It's an undisputed scientific fact. It's called "chemo-brain." (http://www.naturalnews.com/020665.html)

Chemotherapy also causes heart damage and kidney damage. If you want to kill someone, an easy way to accomplish that would be to inject them with chemotherapy chemicals. But if you want to protect someone from danger, it would be far smarter to avoid chemotherapy altogether, and seek natural remedies that really work.

What works? Lots of things. Medicinal mushrooms (www.MushroomScience.com (http://www.MushroomScience.com)) are extremely powerful anti-cancer medicines. So is spirulina (www.Nutrex-Hawaii.com (http://www.Nutrex-Hawaii.com)) and chlorella. Trace minerals are anti-cancer, as is aloe vera (www.GoodCauseWellness.com (http://www.GoodCauseWellness.com)).

Cancer can also be beat with the help of superfoods (www.IntegratedHealth.com (http://www.IntegratedHealth.com)), berries (www.FruitFast.com (http://www.FruitFast.com)), cruciferous vegetables, sprouts (www.TheRawFoodWorld.com (http://www.TheRawFoodWorld.com)) and even resveratrol (www.Vitacost.com (http://www.Vitacost.com)). Eating spinach from your own garden is anti-cancer. The Amazon Herb Company sells numerous Amazon rainforest herbs that are naturally anti-cancer, and vitamin D all by itself can prevent nearly 4 out of 5 cancers (http://www.naturalnews.com/021892.html).

There is no shortage of cancer cures in our world. There is only a shortage of intelligence among court judges, doctors and CPS personnel who have allowed themselves to remain dangerously ignorant of the cancer treatments offered by Mother Nature.

When will the world wake up and figure out the obvious here?

Cancer is not caused by a poison deficiency. And poisoning the body while calling it "treatment" is a prime example of extreme intellectual dishonesty on the part of oncologists and Big Pharma pill pushers who, at the very least, are responsible for the deaths of perhaps half a million people a year worldwide.

By any honest mathematical analysis, cancer doctors are orders of magnitude more dangerous to our world than all the terrorists, ocean pirates and serial killers combined. And now, with the help of ignorant court judges, they have outlawed NOT using their own brand of poison.

It's sick beyond imagination. It's a crime against humanity, and I can only pray that one day the people responsible for the deaths of all these children being poisoned by chemotherapy will face their own court trials for mass murder.

[Dan Conner]

Here's a perspective from NaturalNews (http://www.naturalnews.com/026283.html) on the Hauser case:

I find this diatribe beyond common sense. While you dismiss years of medical research and the expertise of hundreds of thousands of doctors, you accept the benefits of various vitamin treatments without scientific evaluation. What has caused such perverse mistrust of our medical system? I read one of you articles and it never even alluded to a cancer cure. It did say it could help prevent cancer, but not cure it or put it into remission.

Our laws were promulgated with an intent to protect people, even from themselves. That's why it is against the law to committ suicide. It is so paradoxical that people can stand against abortion in ALL cases, but allow someone to committ suicide by refusing medical treatment. The law has long held that a 13-year-old child is not legally competent to make adult decisions and parents are not allowed to make decisions to endanger the lives of their children. It was only reasonable, legal, and for the best benefit of the child that the decision was made to resume chemotherapy treatment.

If the various non-medical sources tout their methods as cancer treatments, then they should submit their scientific studies to the AMA to be included as accepted cancer treatments. There is a scientific method to use and verifiy findings. Then, medical and scientific experts can evaluate their findings and the methodology of their research to determine if their claims are true. They need to do this instead of making arbitrary claims.

Until these non-medical claims are verified, I don't feel it is appropriate to gamble with someone else's life.

[Jonathan Kovaciny]

I find this diatribe beyond common sense. While you dismiss years of medical research and the expertise of hundreds of thousands of doctors, you accept the benefits of various vitamin treatments without scientific evaluation. What has caused such perverse mistrust of our medical system? I read one of you articles and it never even alluded to a cancer cure. It did say it could help prevent cancer, but not cure it or put it into remission.

Why are you speaking as though I wrote this article? I don't have cancer, nor do I personally know anyone who does, so I haven't spent a great deal of time researching the various remedies.

Our laws were promulgated with an intent to protect people, even from themselves. That's why it is against the law to committ suicide. It is so paradoxical that people can stand against abortion in ALL cases, but allow someone to committ suicide by refusing medical treatment. The law has long held that a 13-year-old child is not legally competent to make adult decisions and parents are not allowed to make decisions to endanger the lives of their children. It was only reasonable, legal, and for the best benefit of the child that the decision was made to resume chemotherapy treatment.

If the various non-medical sources tout their methods as cancer treatments, then they should submit their scientific studies to the AMA to be included as accepted cancer treatments. There is a scientific method to use and verifiy findings. Then, medical and scientific experts can evaluate their findings and the methodology of their research to determine if their claims are true. They need to do this instead of making arbitrary claims.

Until these non-medical claims are verified, I don't feel it is appropriate to gamble with someone else's life.

The trouble with non-pharmacological treatment is that there is no money in it, so no one has the incentive to pay for extensive clinical studies, FDA approval, etc. No one is going to make a ton of money if rutabaga leaves cure migraines, so no one is going to spend $10 million getting FDA approval for rutabaga leaves as a migraine treatment. Even if the treatment worked spectacularly, since there would be no clinical studies, few establishment-trained doctors would recommend such treatments.

I believe the medical field may do more harm than good in some cases because doctors must always 'do something' even if doing nothing, or doing something non-mainstream, may be best for the patient. If a doctor does nothing, and something bad happens, they can be sued. But if they do something (even if that something was not ideal for the patient), and something bad happens, then they can at least say they tried everything they could. This is one reason why the C-section rate is so high. If a woman's labor is starting to look risky, they rush to C-section because it keeps them safe from malpractice suits if the baby would die in childbirth - even though C-sections themselves carry considerable risk (as do all major surgeries).

Also, it's not like the accepted body of knowledge in the medical field never changes. Infant formula, for example was heralded as a breakthrough of science which should replace breastmilk in all cases unless the mother absolutely could not afford formula. Today, formula's risks and breastmilk's many benefits are well known. There are conflicting studies on just about everything. Similarly, what if chemotherapy really is the greater of two evils for some patients? What if in 10 years it IS shown that the Hauser's methods are better, and we've just commanded them to do what they may view as feeding poison to their child?

[Dan Conner]

Why are you speaking as though I wrote this article? I don't have cancer, nor do I personally know anyone who does, so I haven't spent a great deal of time researching the various remedies.



The trouble with non-pharmacological treatment is that there is no money in it, so no one has the incentive to pay for extensive clinical studies, FDA approval, etc. No one is going to make a ton of money if rutabaga leaves cure migraines, so no one is going to spend $10 million getting FDA approval for rutabaga leaves as a migraine treatment. Even if the treatment worked spectacularly, since there would be no clinical studies, few establishment-trained doctors would recommend such treatments.

I believe the medical field may do more harm than good in some cases because doctors must always 'do something' even if doing nothing, or doing something non-mainstream, may be best for the patient. If a doctor does nothing, and something bad happens, they can be sued. But if they do something (even if that something was not ideal for the patient), and something bad happens, then they can at least say they tried everything they could. This is one reason why the C-section rate is so high. If a woman's labor is starting to look risky, they rush to C-section because it keeps them safe from malpractice suits if the baby would die in childbirth - even though C-sections themselves carry considerable risk (as do all major surgeries).

Also, it's not like the accepted body of knowledge in the medical field never changes. Infant formula, for example was heralded as a breakthrough of science which should replace breastmilk in all cases unless the mother absolutely could not afford formula. Today, formula's risks and breastmilk's many benefits are well known. There are conflicting studies on just about everything. Similarly, what if chemotherapy really is the greater of two evils for some patients? What if in 10 years it IS shown that the Hauser's methods are better, and we've just commanded them to do what they may view as feeding poison to their child?

I still don't understand what you are saying. You say there is no money in non-pharmaceuticals? Well, there sure is. There are entire natural medicine stores selling their products, not to mention all sorts of herbal drink concoctions. They are a multi-billion dollar business. They can afford plenty of research, but why, if it can't establish what they claim?

Who knows what method of healing will work better, but whatever it is, it needs to be established through scientific testing and verification. It has been proven that chemotherapy and radiation can heal cancer, but not in all cases. Where's the research for the vitamin/herbal treatments?

Doctors were relatively certain that the child would die without treatment, but have a good chance at recovery using conventional chemotherapy. Until there is better science, we must stick with that. If the parents want to gamble with their own lives they can, but not with someone else's life.

[Liz Ratcliff]

I think that Western medicine has removed the power of the individual in healing oneself. While in many cases western medicine is necessary, the power of the individual should be taken into account (and is often not done). I believe in alternative medicine, but I also think we have to hedge our bets. If western medicine is likely to successfully treat a disease, then treatment should be given, adult patient willing. Since Daniel isn't an adult, the issue becomes very difficult. I can't speak for Daniel or his parents, but if a loved one's life is on the line, I would likely use all available options TOGETHER. I believe Daniel's parents have the best intentions, but if I were in their situation, I would use all the available resources. I wish Daniel and his family the best and I hope for healing for all of them. I am saddened by the conflict that he and his family are not confronted with as that is not a step in the direction of peace and healing.