You see it in newspapers and websites across the 'net: People insisting that 13-year-old Daniel Hauser must be injected with chemotherapy in order to "save his life," and that anyone refusing to go along with that is a criminal deserving of arrest and imprisonment.What's most astonishing about the mainstream reaction to the forced chemotherapy of Daniel Hauser is not merely that they believe states now own the children, but that they believe in the entire world there exists but one single treatment for cancer, and it happens to be the one that makes pharmaceutical companies the most money. The arrogance (and ignorance) of that position is mind boggling.
There was once a time when western medical doctors believed that the heavy metal mercury was a medicine, too. They methodically used mercury to treat hundreds of different diseases and conditions, oblivious to the fact that they were actually poisoning people with this toxic heavy metal.And yet, imagine if authorities had arrested parents for not treating their children with mercury. Imagine if they threw parents in prison for refusing their "mercury medicine." That would be equivalent to today's arrogant, misguided and extremely dangerous campaign to outlaw saying "no" to chemotherapy.
A brief history of medical quackery
3 comments:
Hello D.V., I checked your site out a few days ago after seeing a link on CNu's page. Just thought I'd be polite and introduce myself before commenting.
About the Daniel Hauser case. The child suffers from Hodgkins Lymphoma, which is a VERY HIGHLY treatable cancer...on the order of 90% 5-year survival (80% in adults), if treated with chemo. The regiment works. Why would a parent risk their childs life on some unproven "alternative" method?
The real quacks are those who claim their nuts and berries alternative method works when they've performed absolutely NO reproducible peer reviewed double blind published studies. Why would anyone take their word on it? Testimonials can't be counted as data. If the nuts and berries crew subjects their method to a higher level of scrutiny and it turns out to be better...guess who will be the first one to prescribe it? Me. Until that day, they should stop pushing their nonsense and stop being so reluctant to have it analyzed properly.
It was a crime for those parents to keep that boy away from proper medical care as the tumor continued to grow slowly impinging on his trachea.
But by all means if you want to choose alternative medicine, and not vaccinate your kids do so. But if your child suffers horribly or dies from some easily preventable disease, be prepared to take full responsibility.
I understand Hodgkins lymphoma is treatable by chemotherapy. However, would I use it to treat my own kids' cancer? I honestly can't say that I would.
Sure, a child may live because of the chemotherapy, but how many other possible diseases might that child suffer from later in life because of the chemotherapy, including another form of cancer?
By going the chemotherapy route, it might be a temporary cure until something else develops, and then what? More chemotherapy? Yeah right.
Brandon,
I guess your question is, would you rather your child die in a few months from Hodgkin's Lymphoma (which will likely kill him now), or take the chance of being diagnosed with another disease at a later date.
Do you have an better alternative to treating Hodgkin's?
Post a Comment