NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a follow up on this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=594138)

AOL News Article (http://news.aol.com/article/boy-resists-chemo/488967?icid=main|aimzones|dl1|link3|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Farticle%2Fboy-resists-chemo%2F488967)

So it seems Chemo Boy and Moron Woman are on the run from both the law and intelligent thought all in the name of letting a 13 year old boy die from Hodgkin's lymphoma. What next? Are they going to kill themselves to evade capture from the authorities?!

NEW ULM, Minn. (May 20) -- Authorities nationwide were on the lookout Wednesday for a mother and her 13-year-old cancer-stricken son who fled after refusing the chemotherapy that doctors say could save the boy's life.
Colleen Hauser and her son, Daniel, who has Hodgkin's lymphoma, apparently left their southern Minnesota home sometime after a doctor's appointment and court-ordered X-ray on Monday showed his tumor had grown.
Brown County District Judge John Rodenberg, who had ruled last week that Daniel's parents were medically neglecting him, issued an arrest warrant Tuesday for Colleen Hauser and ruled her in contempt of court. Rodenberg also ordered that Daniel be placed in foster care and immediately evaluated by a cancer specialist for treatment.
The family belongs to a religious group that believes in "natural" healing methods. Daniel has testified he believed chemotherapy would kill him and told the judge that if anyone tried to force him to take it, "I'd fight it. I'd punch them and I'd kick them." There is more in the link.

Like I said in the other thread.

It's the predictable outcome.

I hope they catch them before the boy dies.
Failing that I hope they charge her with manslaughter and send her away for a few years.

I'm not sure which is the more debilitating disease: Hodgkin's Lymphoma or the Nemenhah Band scam.

Like I said in the other thread.

It's the predictable outcome.

Amen.

Nationwide Manhunt for Stupid People
*hides*

Well, I don't want to sound like a dick...but why bother? I don't know if we want people that stupid surviving anyways.

Well, I don't want to sound like a dick...but why bother? I don't know if we want people that stupid surviving anyways.

Well the kid has an excuse; He's 13. 13 year olds are supposed to be stupid. With counseling and proper parenting, he may grow out of it. His mom has no such excuse.

I'm surprised religious orders like that survive major epidemics.

Well the kid has an excuse; He's 13. 13 year olds are supposed to be stupid. With counseling and proper parenting, he may grow out of it. His mom has no such excuse.

True, but they really don't sound like the kind of people that would ever listen to logic.

I'm surprised religious orders like that survive major epidemics.

Well this isn't meant to be a slam on native remedies because I honestly believe that western medicine doesn't hold all the answers like it arrogantly thinks it does, but I'd like to point out that vaunted 'natural' remedies of the indigenous natives didn't help em survive influenza and smallpox did it? Apparently they didn't have all the answers either. :tongue:

True, but they really don't sound like the kind of people that would ever listen to logic.

I'm not convinced that the damage done to the kid is irreversible yet.

If there is a manhunt for stupid people noone will have to look very hard.

I'm not convinced that the damage done to the kid is irreversible yet.

Give it a little while and all damage done to him will be irrevocably irreversible.

To force this kid to do it their way is not right. There are several ways to treat cancer. When the hell was there a cancer version of "Roe vs Wade?

The family's doctor, James Joyce,

Did anyone else notice that? I found it amusing.

To force this kid to do it their way is not right.

No, I say let the kid die, and at the funeral, a grand coalition of doctors gathers around and laughs at the parents with lines like "Where is your natural medicine now?"

Or just charge the parents with neglect caused manslaughter when the kid dies and be done with it.

No, I say let the kid die, and at the funeral, a grand coalition of doctors gathers around and laughs at the parents with lines like "Where is your natural medicine now?"

Please tell me that was Sarcasm...

Please tell me that was Sarcasm...

Sometimes, the only way to get through people's stupidity is in their lowest points. Sometimes it makes them cling harder to their stupidity.

But documenting their stupidity, the consequences, and distributing it however, at least helps prevent the stupid from spreading. Like anti-Co$ tactics.

Sometimes, the only way to get through people's stupidity is in their lowest points. Sometimes it makes them cling harder to their stupidity.

But documenting their stupidity, the consequences, and distributing it however, at least helps prevent the stupid from spreading. Like anti-Co$ tactics.
God help us all...

The stupid... It's just too much!

God help us all...

Well what would you recommend then? Sometimes people are stupid to the point where shielding them from the consequences of it is pointless.

Well what would you recommend then?

Honestly, I'm not sure. But wishing death on them so others can learn from their mistakes... The mistakes of a deluded, and for all practical purposes, brainwashed 13-year old... I don't know where everything has gone, sanity and sense foremost...

Somewhere between feeling sorry for these people - the kid because his mother is irretrievably stupid and should probably be institutionalized and the mother because she is clearly in way over what we laughingly refer to as her head - I can't help but think of what's going to happen down the road a few years. That is if they find them in time and give the kid chemo and he survives.

I see a scenario much like this. The mother, violently resentful of government interference in "her life", instills in her son an equally violent resentment. The two of them, having between them just enough intelligence to point guns away from themselves and at other people, go on a killing spree aimed at everyone who ever thought it would be a good idea to actually try to save their lives.

I don't condone allowing people to die if death can be prevented, but somewhere this little voice tells me that maybe, in this case, we should just let it be.

Call me a heartless bitch if you want.

Somewhere between feeling sorry for these people - the kid because his mother is irretrievably stupid and should probably be institutionalized and the mother because she is clearly in way over what we laughingly refer to as her head - I can't help but think of what's going to happen down the road a few years. That is if they find them in time and give the kid chemo and he survives.

I see a scenario much like this. The mother, violently resentful of government interference in "her life", instills in her son an equally violent resentment. The two of them, having between them just enough intelligence to point guns away from themselves and at other people, go on a killing spree aimed at everyone who ever thought it would be a good idea to actually try to save their lives.

I don't condone allowing people to die if death can be prevented, but somewhere this little voice tells me that maybe, in this case, we should just let it be.

Call me a heartless bitch if you want.

I don't know if it's reasonable to assume that they'd go on a violent rampage though. 'Sides, is that really an ethical reason to let them die?

Honestly, I'm not sure. But wishing death on them so others can learn from their mistakes... The mistakes of a deluded, and for all practical purposes, brainwashed 13-year old... I don't know where everything has gone, sanity and sense foremost...

I'm not wishing death. Hardly that at all. If they want to kill themselves out of their own stupidity, too bad for them, but not what I'd wish on them. What I advocate is making use of stupid people's deaths as object lessons on why running in front of the speeding bus and other related stupidity is a bad idea.

I don't know if it's reasonable to assume that they'd go on a violent rampage though. 'Sides, is that really an ethical reason to let them die?

The mother doesn't want it. The kid doesn't want it. Declare it suicide and we'll call it a day. Life isn't so precious (it's actually rather cheap) that if people want to kill themselves, we should stop them.

The mother doesn't want it. The kid doesn't want it. Declare it suicide and we'll call it a day. Life isn't so precious (it's actually rather cheap) that if people want to kill themselves, we should stop them.

The kid is not old enough to chose, and the mother not responsible enough.

The child shouldn't die for the desires of the parent.

To force this kid to do it their way is not right. There are several ways to treat cancer. When the hell was there a cancer version of "Roe vs Wade?

Yes...there are several ways to cure certain kinds of cancer (chemo, radiation). The family, however, is rejecting all treatments that have been shown to be effective. As the boy is the one with the disease, but is not of age to give informed consent, the decision falls to the parents. The parents plan, as it stands, is essentially "let him die". Yes, they have "alternative treatment" (and no, I don't mean to imply that Western med has every answer), but these treatments are not clinically proven. Herbal suppliments will not treat cancer. Vitamins will not treat cancer. Ionized water will not cure cancer. Can these things potentially enhance standard treatment? Very possibly.Are there potentially cancer-fighting chemicals similar to those found in chemo drugs? Maybe, maybe not. But not nearly in the concentration needed to treat cancer that has reached a point where it can be diagnosed. Can they compare to the 85-98% success rate of the accepted chemo and radiation therapies? No. They can't. As such, the parents have chosen their religious beliefs over science. The problem? They aren't the ones that will die from their ignorance. Their 13 year old son will.

Yes, an individual has every right to not accept medical treatment. The issue comes in when their medical proxy, in this case the parents, refuse medical treatment that is, in fact, vital to saving the boys life.

The father said "I know many people around here who have had cancer, they did the chemo, it would come back," Hauser told the newspaper. "They did the chemo again and again and they are all in the grave. Chemo isn't foolproof."
Now, there are several issues here. First of all, he states "it would come back", implying that chemo did, in fact, cure the cancer. Once one has cancer, they are far more likely to get other cancers (or even the same one) later in life. Cancer treatments make no claim to protect you from this. Second, he says "chemo isn't foolproof". And he is right. Some people will die whilst on chemo and radiation. Much of this depends upon age, gender, race, previous health, and other factors. And yes, some young, healthy people will still die on chemo. It does happen. And yet, fewer will die whilst on chemo than will die whilst on vitamin suppliments. The father implies that it must be either/or. Either the boy goes on chemo, or he takes the natural route. There is nothing except parental ignorance preventing him from being treated in every possible way simultaneously, given medical approval.

The mother doesn't want it. The kid doesn't want it. Declare it suicide and we'll call it a day. Life isn't so precious (it's actually rather cheap) that if people want to kill themselves, we should stop them.

The child doesn't believe he is sick. The child believes that the chemo will be what kills him.
The judge has said Daniel, who has a learning disability and cannot read, did not understand the risks and benefits of chemotherapy and didn't believe he was ill.
That is not him not wanting it. That is mommy and daddy telling him he doesn't want it, then proceeding to list all the horrible things it does to you, without so much as a footnote saying "oh yeah...and it will keep you alive."

That's like saying to someone who needs a new liver "you'll have to take pills for the rest of your life. You'll have a major surgery where they will put some dead guys liver in you, and throw yours away. You'll be in incredible pain for weeks. You could even die", without saying "but you'll die in a few hours if you don't do it."

It isn't informed consent.

Yes...there are several ways to cure certain kinds of cancer (chemo, radiation). The family, however, is rejecting all treatments that have been shown to be effective. As the boy is the one with the disease, but is not of age to give informed consent, the decision falls to the parents. The parents plan, as it stands, is essentially "let him die". Yes, they have "alternative treatment" (and no, I don't mean to imply that Western med has every answer), but these treatments are not clinically proven. Herbal suppliments will not treat cancer. Vitamins will not treat cancer. Ionized water will not cure cancer. Can these things potentially enhance standard treatment? Very possibly.Are there potentially cancer-fighting chemicals similar to those found in chemo drugs? Maybe, maybe not. But not nearly in the concentration needed to treat cancer that has reached a point where it can be diagnosed. Can they compare to the 85-98% success rate of the accepted chemo and radiation therapies? No. They can't. As such, the parents have chosen their religious beliefs over science. The problem? They aren't the ones that will die from their ignorance. Their 13 year old son will.

Yes, an individual has every right to not accept medical treatment. The issue comes in when their medical proxy, in this case the parents, refuse medical treatment that is, in fact, vital to saving the boys life.

The father said
Now, there are several issues here. First of all, he states "it would come back", implying that chemo did, in fact, cure the cancer. Once one has cancer, they are far more likely to get other cancers (or even the same one) later in life. Cancer treatments make no claim to protect you from this. Second, he says "chemo isn't foolproof". And he is right. Some people will die whilst on chemo and radiation. Much of this depends upon age, gender, race, previous health, and other factors. And yes, some young, healthy people will still die on chemo. It does happen. And yet, fewer will die whilst on chemo than will die whilst on vitamin suppliments. The father implies that it must be either/or. Either the boy goes on chemo, or he takes the natural route. There is nothing except parental ignorance preventing him from being treated in every possible way simultaneously, given medical approval.

Chemo is not foolproof.

He makes a good point.

Of course NOT-Chemo doesn't have a great history, either...

I don't know if it's reasonable to assume that they'd go on a violent rampage though. 'Sides, is that really an ethical reason to let them die?

I'm a heartless bitch, remember?

Most cancers, as has been pointed out frequently, are, if caught early and treated appropriately, curable.

Stupid isn't curable. Stupid is, in most cases, hereditary. It is also contagious.

99.999999% of the problems we have in this world are because of stupidity.

So given that stupidity is a disease which is both contagious, hereditary, incurable and endemic worldwide; given that the stupidity has caused, among other things, Bush's presidency, the attacks on the World Trade Center, homophobia, multiple wars, the recession, the Great Depression and multiple other problems in the world; given that stupidity is the single most expensive disaster to be visited on this planet and given that these people are suffering from one of the most extreme forms of stupidity, tell me how you would handle it? Do you really think it will end well?

When stupidity is involved, nothing ever ends well.

But then, I'm a heartless bitch. Or maybe I've just lived too long.

I'm a heartless bitch, remember?

Most cancers, as has been pointed out frequently, are, if caught early and treated appropriately, curable.

Stupid isn't curable. Stupid is, in most cases, hereditary. It is also contagious.

99.999999% of the problems we have in this world are because of stupidity.

So given that stupidity is a disease which is both contagious, hereditary, incurable and endemic worldwide; given that the stupidity has caused, among other things, Bush's presidency, the attacks on the World Trade Center, homophobia, multiple wars, the recession, the Great Depression and multiple other problems in the world; given that stupidity is the single most expensive disaster to be visited on this planet and given that these people are suffering from one of the most extreme forms of stupidity, tell me how you would handle it? Do you really think it will end well?

When stupidity is involved, nothing ever ends well.

But then, I'm a heartless bitch. Or maybe I've just lived too long.

Whether or not you have lived too long, shouldn't contribute to how much longer a child gets to live.

Whether or not you have lived too long, shouldn't contribute to how much longer a child gets to live.

Somehow or other, I think you missed my point.

Yes, an individual has every right to not accept medical treatment.

Well apperantly they do not or there would not be a nationwide manhunt underway.

Somewhere between feeling sorry for these people - the kid because his mother is irretrievably stupid and should probably be institutionalized and the mother because she is clearly in way over what we laughingly refer to as her head - I can't help but think of what's going to happen down the road a few years. That is if they find them in time and give the kid chemo and he survives.

I see a scenario much like this. The mother, violently resentful of government interference in "her life", instills in her son an equally violent resentment. The two of them, having between them just enough intelligence to point guns away from themselves and at other people, go on a killing spree aimed at everyone who ever thought it would be a good idea to actually try to save their lives.

I don't condone allowing people to die if death can be prevented, but somewhere this little voice tells me that maybe, in this case, we should just let it be.

Call me a heartless bitch if you want.

Honestly, I think they'd either bomb a hospital, or suicide bomb one. Something involving bombs.

Their religious followers could also pull a "Waco".

Maybe they should stop "curing" hunger with food. After all, hunger will come back, and many people who ate are now dead. :headbang:

If anyone takes this post seriously, FOR SHAME!

Well apperantly they do not or there would not be a nationwide manhunt underway.
You missed the rest of the post, didn't you?

I'll break it down in a different way. If the mother had cancer, and was refusing treatment, then there is no issue. It is her body, and her choice to give or not give informed consent.

But it isn't her body. It is her sons body. Her son cannot give consent for medical procedures, as he is not old enough. As such, his parents become his medical proxy. They have chosen to not give treatment to someone else. The state has stepped in and said "no, you can't just let another person die". The parents have the right to give or not give consent for their child right up untill it becomes a death sentence.

The kid is not old enough to chose, and the mother not responsible enough.

The child shouldn't die for the desires of the parent.

Then we're back to the original point. Tie the lifespan of the parent to the child. He dies, they die. Easy to change their mind in a hurry that way.

Of course you could always choose the easier route and simple separate the two forever and pass the child onto social services, where he'll be passed around until someone can take care of him, while he tries to be the biggest brat in existence.

Or you could sit back, record the incident, and be there when he dies, maybe just before, to make sure you have plenty of material for object lessons against in the future.

The child doesn't believe he is sick. The child believes that the chemo will be what kills him.

*snip*

It isn't informed consent.

So it isn't. But I also suspect that by now, the kid is so entrenched in his views, you'll not be able to turn it with mere words.

And so, give him the freedom of choice. And the freedom to die painfully and slowly. Then use his death as an example against and to discredit the load of crock the parents believe in.

You missed the rest of the post, didn't you?

I'll break it down in a different way. If the mother had cancer, and was refusing treatment, then there is no issue. It is her body, and her choice to give or not give informed consent.

But it isn't her body. It is her sons body. Her son cannot give consent for medical procedures, as he is not old enough. As such, his parents become his medical proxy. They have chosen to not give treatment to someone else. The state has stepped in and said "no, you can't just let another person die". The parents have the right to give or not give consent for their child right up untill it becomes a death sentence.

Well that's just it. I, myself wish they would go ahead and do the chemo if in fact it is his best chance but the state should have absolutly no right to say "no you can't do it your way" It's not the state's son. He's not a ward of the state. If the parents think a vitamin is the best way to go for their own son then why on Earth should someone have the power to tell them no? If they want to take him to a witch doctor with voodoo dolls they should be allowed to do so.

So it isn't. But I also suspect that by now, the kid is so entrenched in his views, you'll not be able to turn it with mere words.

And so, give him the freedom of choice. And the freedom to die painfully and slowly. Then use his death as an example against and to discredit the load of crock the parents believe in.
He is 13. At that age, kids are just starting to understand abstract concepts like death beyond "A long, long sleep".

And the beauty of the current system is that, even with his entrenched views, we have a way around them. The court system. If parents do not act in the best interest of their child (in this case, the preservation of their life), the parents lose their right to be medical proxy. The kid can't decide for himself, as he is too young to potentially understand what is going on and what its impact will be. And who knows...if and when he lives, he might just come to realize that it was the chemo that did it.

Well that's just it. I, myself wish they would go ahead and do the chemo if in fact it is his best chance but the state should have absolutly no right to say "no you can't do it your way" It's not the states son. He's not a ward of the state. If the parents think a vitamin is the best way to go for their own son then why on Earth should someone have the power to tell them no? If they want to take him to a witch doctor with voodoo dolls they should be allowed to do so.

Actually, now he is a ward of the state. In the same way that if a parent beats their child. Or if a parent starves their child. Or forces long periods of dehydration. The parent may believe that slamming the kids head into a wall is the best way to raise that child. Hell, they may even be able to convince the child that he deserves and maybe even needs it. And you know what? They're wrong. It can cause long term damage and even death.

It is not their life to play with. It is their son's. Their idiocy is not a good enough reason for them to sit idly by and watch their son die. As they are being just as (if not more) negligent than the parent that hits their kid or starves their kid (as this will almost definatly result in death), they are subject to the same laws that strip them of their rights when it comes to directing the medical treatment of their child.

How about we give the cancer to the parents?

Actually, now he is a ward of the state. In the same way that if a parent beats their child. Or if a parent starves their child. Or forces long periods of dehydration. The parent may believe that slamming the kids head into a wall is the best way to raise that child. Hell, they may even be able to convince the child that he deserves and maybe even needs it. And you know what? They're wrong. It can cause long term damage and even death.

It is not their life to play with. It is their son's. Their idiocy is not a good enough reason for them to sit idly by and watch their son die. As they are being just as (if not more) negligent than the parent that hits their kid or starves their kid (as this will almost definatly result in death), they are subject to the same laws that strip them of their rights when it comes to directing the medical treatment of their child.

Well yes NOW he is a ward of the state. And if the parents has made the claim that death is the best option then I would agree with the state. But this child is not being beaten and mistreated. Sure seems to me like this is along the lines of simply seeking a second opinion. They seem to have found that second opinion and choose to use vitamins. Maybe it's not what you or I would do but that child does not belong to either one of us. And should be no businesses of the states. Right?

Well yes NOW he is a ward of the state. And if the parents has made the claim that death is the best option then I would agree with the state. But this child is not being beaten and mistreated. Sure seems to me like this is along the lines of simply seeking a second opinion. They seem to have found that second opinion and choose to use vitamins. Maybe it's not what you or I would do but that child does not belong to either one of us. And should be no businesses of the states. Right?

From whom did they get this second opinion from? Where does he hold a medical license? When one seeks a second opinion, they seek it from another doctor...usually one with a relevant specialization (oncology, in this case). Does the person suggesting vitamins to treat cancer hold this specialization?

In other words, do we have any reason to believe that vitamins are a valid alternative to chemo? Is there any debate as to the efficacy of chemo, where vitamins might have a superior edge? Or does the choice of vitamins over chemo essentially mean that the family should begin making funeral arrangements?

If a parents decision results in the near-certain death of the child, it is likely the wrong decision. Moreover, it is likely also negligent, abusive, neglectful, or a combination. As the parents are acting in a manner which endangers the life of the child, it is, in fact, the states responsibility to protect him. Same as it would be if the parents were doing any other abusive action.

From whom did they get this second opinion from? Where does he hold a medical license? When one seeks a second opinion, they seek it from another doctor...usually one with a relevant specialization (oncology, in this case). Does the person suggesting vitamins to treat cancer hold this specialization?

In other words, do we have any reason to believe that vitamins are a valid alternative to chemo? Is there any debate as to the efficacy of chemo, where vitamins might have a superior edge? Or does the choice of vitamins over chemo essentially mean that the family should begin making funeral arrangements?

If a parents decision results in the near-certain death of the child, it is likely the wrong decision. Moreover, it is likely also negligent, abusive, neglectful, or a combination. As the parents are acting in a manner which endangers the life of the child, it is, in fact, the states responsibility to protect him. Same as it would be if the parents were doing any other abusive action.

So why should the law dictate that the better odds MUST be played? Maybe he got his alternative ideas off the internet from some dot com doctor. It is not illegal to do so. Unless the parents gave ANYBODY (a nurse an orderly or whatever) an indication that they want their son to die, how the heck can this be a case for authorities? It's not abuse. It's a legal choice. (or it should be anyway)

So why should the law dictate that the better odds MUST be played? Maybe he got his alternative ideas off the internet from some dot com doctor. It is not illegal to do so. Unless the parents gave ANYBODY (a nurse an orderly or whatever) an indication that they want their son to die, how the heck can this be a case for authorities? It's not abuse. It's a legal choice. (or it should be anyway)

We are talking about the odds of cancer clearing itself up (roughly 0) vs. the odds of cancer being treated via medical treatment (roughly 80, depending on various factors). This isn't a law saying that better odds must be played. It is saying that you can't essentially say your kid must die. There is absolutly no evidence that vitamins, herbal suppliments, or any other alternative medicine will even so much as slow cancer.

What the hell is a dot-com doctor? They are not a doctor unless they hold a valid medical license, and if they are practicing without one, then yes. They are, in fact, breaking the law.

And no, intent is not needed at all. The kid WILL die, regardless of what the parents want. More importantly, the childs extremely preventable death will be entirely because of their decision. Most parents that abuse their children don't want the kid dead...if they did, they would just kill the child.

These parents decision not to treat will kill their child. They might as well tie their kid to a train track. They still won't directly kill their child, but their course of action will.

We are talking about the odds of cancer clearing itself up (roughly 0) vs. the odds of cancer being treated via medical treatment (roughly 80, depending on various factors). This isn't a law saying that better odds must be played. It is saying that you can't essentially say your kid must die. There is absolutly no evidence that vitamins, herbal suppliments, or any other alternative medicine will even so much as slow cancer.

What the hell is a dot-com doctor? They are not a doctor unless they hold a valid medical license, and if they are practicing without one, then yes. They are, in fact, breaking the law.

And no, intent is not needed at all. The kid WILL die, regardless of what the parents want. More importantly, the childs extremely preventable death will be entirely because of their decision. Most parents that abuse their children don't want the kid dead...if they did, they would just kill the child.

These parents decision not to treat will kill their child. They might as well tie their kid to a train track. They still won't directly kill their child, but their course of action will.

Yes. Believe it or not there are a lot of real doctors with websites that give basic medical information. There was a report the other day on local news about them saying it is better to go visit a doctor but sometimes the web information can work.

Now I didn't say they are depending on the cancer cleaning itself up. (or I don't think they made that claim rather)

I googled a bit and found this:
300+ alternative cancer treatments (http://www.cancertutor.com/)
Are these alt treatments illegal? No. So why the manhunt? Now the site claims 50 to 93% cure rate. Sure those numbers are probably crap but I don't think the number is zero.

Yes. Believe it or not there are a lot of real doctors with websites that give basic medical information. There was a report the other day on local news about them saying it is better to go visit a doctor but sometimes the web information can work."basic medical advice" is not cancer treatment. If that doctor said anything except "Go find an Oncologist NOW", he commit malpractice, and risks having his license revoked. An online doctor could tell you the yellow phlegm is normal during allergy season, but to see a doctor if it gets worse. Or that pain in your shin is what's commonly called a shin splint and to rest it. It is not suggesting treatments for a cancer that cannot be diagnosed across distances without medical records, and cannot be treated without monitoring.

Now I didn't say they are depending on the cancer cleaning itself up. (or I don't think they made that claim rather)No...they're depending on vitamins and herbal suppliments to do the job of some of the most powerful anti-cancer drugs we currently have. So yes...hoping it clears itself up.
Now, as I said before...some of these vitamins and herbs may, in fact, have properties that reduce the risk of cancer, or can help the body fight the cancer. They do not, however, carry the power that is required to properly treat cancer.

I googled a bit and found this:
300+ alternative cancer treatments (http://www.cancertutor.com/)
Are these alt treatments illegal? No. So why the manhunt? Now the site claims 50 to 93% cure rate. Sure those numbers are probably crap but I don't think the number is zero.
Find me a single article...a single statistic, for that matter, relating to any of these treatments. I should think that the Framingham study or GUTS study or any of the dozens of studys relating to the efficacy of vitamins or any other large scale medical study would notice a correlation between vitamins and increased survivability relating to cancer. And I'm even willing to give the benefit of the doubt that they may HELP in the treatment of cancer. But they themselves are not valid treatments.
And no, choosing FOR ONES SELF to take alternative treatments is fine. You can also strap yourself to a train track.
Choosing to seek alternative treatments for someone who MUST do what you say, however, is illegal if it results in their death. Same as how I cannot tie you to a train track. Sure, I didn't kill you. But I had a pretty good idea that a train would come around sooner or later.

There is a significant difference between an adult granting or not granting informed consent for themselves, and that same adult doing it for another person.

Are these alt treatments illegal? No. So why the manhunt?

Because while an adult, engaging on his own free will, to choose his medical treatment is not illegal, violating a court order is.

The fact is, parents have a responsibility to their children. These "treatments" they want to use on him? Might as well be no treatment at all. The fact is, with chemo, he has a very good chance of survival.

Without it, he has an almost certain chance of death.

And that's it, that's all there is to say. They're engaging in a path that will almost certainly kill him. And sorry, children aren't property, and parents don't get to do that.

"basic medical advice" is not cancer treatment. If that doctor said anything except "Go find an Oncologist NOW", he commit malpractice, and risks having his license revoked. An online doctor could tell you the yellow phlegm is normal during allergy season, but to see a doctor if it gets worse. Or that pain in your shin is what's commonly called a shin splint and to rest it. It is not suggesting treatments for a cancer that cannot be diagnosed across distances without medical records, and cannot be treated without monitoring.

No...they're depending on vitamins and herbal suppliments to do the job of some of the most powerful anti-cancer drugs we currently have. So yes...hoping it clears itself up.
Now, as I said before...some of these vitamins and herbs may, in fact, have properties that reduce the risk of cancer, or can help the body fight the cancer. They do not, however, carry the power that is required to properly treat cancer.


Find me a single article...a single statistic, for that matter, relating to any of these treatments. I should think that the Framingham study or GUTS study or any of the dozens of studys relating to the efficacy of vitamins or any other large scale medical study would notice a correlation between vitamins and increased survivability relating to cancer. And I'm even willing to give the benefit of the doubt that they may HELP in the treatment of cancer. But they themselves are not valid treatments.
And no, choosing FOR ONES SELF to take alternative treatments is fine. You can also strap yourself to a train track.
Choosing to seek alternative treatments for someone who MUST do what you say, however, is illegal if it results in their death. Same as how I cannot tie you to a train track. Sure, I didn't kill you. But I had a pretty good idea that a train would come around sooner or later.

There is a significant difference between an adult granting or not granting informed consent for themselves, and that same adult doing it for another person.
Links within the link:
Here are some cheap cancer treatments:
http://www.cancertutor.com/faq/faq_inexpensive.html

Here are some success stories:
http://www.cancer-success.com/success_stories.htm

And these people don't have the right to try these themselves? It is their son. (or was before the state of Minnesota decided to make this a "Roe vs Wade" and classifying the boy as a ward)

And these people don't have the right to try these themselves? It is their son. (or was before the state of Minnesota decided to make this a "Roe vs Wade" and classifying the boy as a ward)

As much of a right parents have to decide that their son needs chainsaw surgery right around his neck to fix that sprained ankle apparently.

My own parents thought that the best way to cure me of a fever when I was a kid was by giving me water poisoning, specifically gallons of it that had been "blessed". Parents can be idiots. So can their kids. Fortunately in my case, I dumped the ridiculous amount of water they wanted me to drink in one go in the drain when they weren't looking.

Links within the link:
Here are some cheap cancer treatments:
http://www.cancertutor.com/faq/faq_inexpensive.html

Here are some success stories:
http://www.cancer-success.com/success_stories.htmAnd these are peer reviewed? We have a single shred of evidence that these stories actually happened?
Hell, they link vitamin C to curing cancer? We haven't even had a reliable study to demonstrate that it help with the common cold.
Like I said. Peer reviewed, medical research. Any. At all. New England Journal of Medicine. JAMA. The Lancet. Any.
And these people don't have the right to try these themselves? It is their son. (or was before the state of Minnesota decided to make this a "Roe vs Wade" and classifying the boy as a ward)
"their" son does not imply posession. They do not own the boy. They cannot kill him just because they feel like it, or even because they think that effective medicine is bad and evil. They have a right to use these alternative treatments in conjunction with chemo, as per the court order. Prior to the court order, no. They did not have the right to kill their son, be it directly or indirectly.

Because while an adult, engaging on his own free will, to choose his medical treatment is not illegal, violating a court order is. Well yes. But the fact that this is a matter for the courts is the problem.

The fact is, parents have a responsibility to their children. These "treatments" they want to use on him? Might as well be no treatment at all. The fact is, with chemo, he has a very good chance of survival.

Without it, he has an almost certain chance of death.

And that's it, that's all there is to say. They're engaging in a path that will almost certainly kill him. And sorry, children aren't property, and parents don't get to do that.[/QUOTE]

Alts HAVE worked before. If the parents think that chemo is certain death then they should have the right to seeks those alts.

As much of a right parents have to decide that their son needs chainsaw surgery right around his neck to fix that sprained ankle apparently.

I understand your point but there are absolutly NO doctors with such recomendations.

I understand your point but there are absolutly NO doctors with such recomendations.

I know a "doctor" who thought the best way to get rid of painful boils was by pouring lots of hydrochloric acid on it. And one religious nut pretending to be better than doctors certainly gave my parents the bright idea of killing, I mean, curing me of childhood fever with water poisoning.

NERVUN can give you plenty of horror stories about Japanese "doctors".

Alts HAVE worked before. If the parents think that chemo is certain death then they should have the right to seeks those alts.

Prove it. A single reliable source. Peer reviewed journals would be good. Anything that demonstrates that a single one of these treatments has been PROVEN effective.

Chemo has been PROVEN to be 90% effective when found early, and still has a high cure rate even in later stages. Moreover, Hodgkins has a low remission rate. The parents can think what they want. It doesn't change the fact that one treatment almost certainly has the boy live, and the other almost certainly has the boy die.

But they can keep ignoring that train speeding down the tracks.

I understand your point but there are absolutly NO doctors with such recomendations.

Exactly. Every doctor in this story would reccomend chemo or possibly radiation. Absolutly NO doctor would suggest a big dose of vitamin C. Why? Because there has not yet been a single clinical trial that has demonstrated its efficacy, and prescribing a treatment that is not FDA approved or in trials (with informed consent) would be grounds for malpractice.

And these are peer reviewed? We have a single shred of evidence that these stories actually happened?

Exactly just that should be researched by the parents. (for the treatment they are seeking) These people made a decision. That should be end of story.


"their" son does not imply posession. They do not own the boy. They cannot kill him just because they feel like it, or even because they think that effective medicine is bad and evil. They have a right to use these alternative treatments in conjunction with chemo, as per the court order. Prior to the court order, no. They did not have the right to kill their son, be it directly or indirectly.

They have not given any indication that they wish to "kill him just because they feel like it." Why MUST it be in conjunction with chemo? I know the court order is now in effect, the question is why the court is needed?

Alts HAVE worked before.

Doing absolutely nothing has worked before too. People survive shit all the time. People have survived lightning bolts, ebola, and falling out of airplanes. Shit happens.

However I haven't seen one piece of evidence, on single shred of scientific fact that these "alternative treatments" are statistically any better than doing nothing at all.

Cancer has gone into spontaneous remission, it's happened. However, in all likelihood, based on our understanding of scientific fact, it almost certainly won't. And he will almost certainly die if he relies on these "alternative treatments".

If the parents think that chemo is certain death then they should have the right to seeks those alts.

Yes they should. For themselves. They don't get to play russian roulette with their children's lives however.

Having a child in this country is a choice. If you chose to have children, you chose to willingly put aside some of your own beliefs in raising that child.

I understand your point but there are absolutly NO doctors with such recomendations.

How many doctors are there, actual doctors, with MDs from accredited medical schools, that recommend "native-american faith healing" as a viable alternative to chemotherapy for non-hodgkins lymphoma?

I know the court order is now in effect, the question is why the court is needed?

Because parents should not, and are not allowed to make choices that will almost certainly result in the death of their children.

Exactly just that should be researched by the parents. (for the treatment they are seeking) These people made a decision. That should be end of story.And it should be researched by you, the one who made the extremely large claim that they, in fact, work.
And they made a decision for someone else. If it was for themselves, fine. But it isn't.


They have not given any indication that they wish to "kill him just because they feel like it." Why MUST it be in conjunction with chemo? I know the court order is now in effect, the question is why the court is needed?
Because chemotherapy is the effective treatment for this form of cancer. Because it is the treatment that gives the boy the greatest chance of survival. Because not a single one of those alternative treatments has a single shred of evidence that they work.

And the court is needed because they do not own their child. Because their decision will in all likelyhood kill the boy. Because we don't allow parents to do assinine things to endanger the lives of their children. And when they endanger the lives of their children, the state has the duty and right to step in.

If a parent tied their kid to a train track, would you have an issue with a police officer cutting him free, despite even the childs wishes that you don't?

Because parents should not, and are not allowed to make choices that will almost certainly result in the death of their children.

In some doctors eyes it is certain death. In other doctors eyes it is not. Are any of the doctors on my links fake?

These parents are what happens when you let hippies live.

And it should be researched by you, the one who made the extremely large claim that they, in fact, work.
And they made a decision for someone else. If it was for themselves, fine. But it isn't.

No. The claims on the links are by "doctors" The success stories are on a "doctors" link. If they say it might can work, who are we to dissagree?

In some doctors eyes it is certain death. In other doctors eyes it is not. Are any of the doctors on my links fake?

What doctors? I haven't seen a single actual doctor in any of those. A real MD with a license to practice medicine. Any doctor who prescribes treatment without...you know...a valid medical backing...is not going to be a doctor for long.

What doctors? I haven't seen a single actual doctor in any of those. A real MD with a license to practice medicine. Any doctor who prescribes treatment without...you know...a valid medical backing...is not going to be a doctor for long.

From the disclaimer page:
http://www.cancertutor.com/Disclaimer.html
About the Author - R. Webster Kehr
This website is owned, operated and written by R. Webster Kehr, a bona fide cancer researcher. Mr. Kehr has developed the following cancer treatments and made the following discoveries:

1) His model of how cancer forms at the cellular level is the most accurate model in history. Ron Gdanski, Dr. Alan Cantwell, Dr. Virginia Livingston, and others have done critical work in developing the individual pieces. Webster Kehr put all the pieces together, coupled with an understanding of mitochondria, and came up with a comprehensive model. An understanding of this model, and an understanding of the pleomorphic nature of microbes, is critical to an understanding of how to cure cancer. See:
The Theory of Cancer

2) He is the "father" of the concept of an "Overnight Cure For Cancer," whereby every cancer cell in a person's body can be reverted into a normal cell within 24 hours. This is a potential reality if a person understands what really causes cancer. In the 1930s, researcher Dr. Royal Rife cured cancer within minutes because he understood exactly what causes cancer. The American Medical Association offered many times to buy his technology (no doubt with the intent to "bury" the technology), but Dr. Rife refused to "sell-out." The FDA then stepped in and destroyed his equipment. The point is that that cancer can be cured very quickly if a person knows what causes cancer.

From the disclaimer page:
http://www.cancertutor.com/Disclaimer.html

Having "Dr." in front of your name does not mean you have any expertise related to cancer. It does not even mean you have an MD. It means you have SOME doctorate (assuming these people are even telling the truth). How in the fuck would a PhD in Russian literature or sociology make someone any more qualified to treat cancer?

And what the hell is a "bona fide cancer researcher"? I googled "cancer" - does that make me a "bona fide cancer researcher"?

Having "Dr." in front of your name does not mean you have any expertise related to cancer. It does not even mean you have an MD. It means you have SOME doctorate (assuming these people are even telling the truth). How in the fuck would a PhD in Russian literature or sociology make someone any more qualified to treat cancer?

And what the hell is a "bona fide cancer researcher"? I googled "cancer" - does that make me a "bona fide cancer researcher"?

It is the MD I would look for. You can get a PHD from a non credentialed degree mill for about 300 dollars.
though when his sight recommended Colloidal Silver I know it was bogus.

From the disclaimer page:
http://www.cancertutor.com/Disclaimer.html

uh huh...section 1...doctors that agree with his cellular model of cancer. This is in no way equivalent to agreeing with any form of alternative cancer treatment.

Dr. Alan Cantwell...well, isn't he a special one...
"More recently, he has written speculative articles on the origin of HIV, suggesting it may have been a released biological warfare virus and/or deliberately put into a Hepatitis B vaccine used in a trial targeted at American homosexuals or black men."

Section 2....says that Dr. Rife managed to revert a cancer cell back to its original state within minutes. Says nothing of what method was used. Again, not an endorsement. Not to mention that his methods still have not been replicated elsewhere.


So...three doctors specifically mentioned, but not a single one actually endorsing alternative treatment. I also can't find any evidence that Rife was actually a doctor...Cantwell was a dermatologist, and Livingston was an internist.

Yeah...going to need more than that.

Having "Dr." in front of your name does not mean you have any expertise related to cancer. It does not even mean you have an MD. It means you have SOME doctorate (assuming these people are even telling the truth). How in the fuck would a PhD in Russian literature or sociology make someone any more qualified to treat cancer?

And what the hell is a "bona fide cancer researcher"? I googled "cancer" - does that make me a "bona fide cancer researcher"?

Maybe you should have googled
Dr. Alan Cantwell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Cantwell)

Dr. Virginia Livingston (http://www.ralphmoss.com/livingston.html)

Dr. Royal Rife (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Rife)

Yeah...going to need more than that.

Maybe to convince you, but if parents have convinced themselves, that should be the end of it.

Maybe you should have googled
Dr. Alan Cantwell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Cantwell)

Dr. Virginia Livingston (http://www.ralphmoss.com/livingston.html)

Dr. Royal Rife (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Rife)

Didn't read that last one very carefully, did you? "Doctor" appears twice on that page...once regarding others, and once in the references section. "Dr." appears once, refering to a different doctor, Dr. Edward C. Rosenow, M.D. It says nowhere that Mr. Royal Rife held any sort of post-graduate degree, let alone a PhD of any sort, never mind one in any relevant medical field.

Maybe to convince you, but if parents have convinced themselves, that should be the end of it.

Thereby, by your reasoning, I should have subjected myself to water poisoning at my parents behest because they were convinced by some kook? I say nuts to that.

Maybe to convince you, but if parents have convinced themselves, that should be the end of it.

And yet, it isn't. Because, once again, parents don't have the right to kill their child. They don't have the right to do whatever they want. A parent cannot endanger the life of their child. They cannot place their child in a situation that will almost certainly mean the child will die. That simple. End of story.

Maybe you should have googled
Dr. Alan Cantwell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Cantwell)

The doctor that claims HIV is a government plot.
Didn't he cure HIV in 1984?


Dr. Virginia Livingston (http://www.ralphmoss.com/livingston.html)

Dr. Royal Rife (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Rife)

Thus far all I have seen of his gadgets is fraudulent use.
like this.

In 2009 a US Federal jury convicted James Folsom of 26 felony counts for sale of the Rife devices sold as “NatureTronics,” “AstroPulse,” “BioSolutions,” “Energy Wellness,” and “Global Wellness.” He used the false name “Jim Anderson” to avoid detection by the FDA and gave buyers the false impression that the FDA had approved them for investigation. He is in custody and will be sentenced in May 2009.

Thereby, by your reasoning, I should have subjected myself to water poisoning at my parents behest because they were convinced by some kook? I say nuts to that.

By his reasoning, Josef Fritzl was well within his rights as a parent.

Maybe you should have googled
Dr. Alan Cantwell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Cantwell)
From that page:
This biography of a living person does not cite any references or sources. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. (February 2009) Find sources: (Alan Cantwell – news, books, scholar)
Dr. Virginia Livingston (http://www.ralphmoss.com/livingston.html)
From here (http://www.rense.com/general72/cancer.htm)
Sixteen years after her death she is now largely forgotten but still condemned by such powerful organizations as the American Cancer Society-and blacklisted on Quackwatch-a self-proclaimed "non-profit corporation dedicated to combating health-related frauds, myths, fads, and fallacies. "
Dr. Royal Rife (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Rife)
From that page:
Well-known debunker Peter Bowditch points out that no single virus, even Rife's hypothesized 'BX' virus which "caused all cancers", can account for all forms of cancer.[9] According to the current medical understanding, viruses are only responsible for approximately 15% of all cancers.

Hang on. I'm seeing a pattern here. Anyone notice that Dragontide is once again, referring to discredited, unreliable, or just outright fraudulent sources for "evidence" of his claims?

Didn't read that last one very carefully, did you? "Doctor" appears twice on that page...once regarding others, and once in the references section. "Dr." appears once, refering to a different doctor, Dr. Edward C. Rosenow, M.D. It says nowhere that Mr. Royal Rife held any sort of post-graduate degree, let alone a PhD of any sort, never mind one in any relevant medical field.

Dr Rife lived through some tough times:
1944 —Dr. Milbank Johnson, head of the Special Medical Research Committee of the University of Southern California, mysteriously dies. Shortly thereafter, all the files relating to Rife “vanish.”


But was revered by many doctors as a scientific genius.

http://www.unitedearth.com.au/rife.html#obituary

Dr Rife lived through some tough times:


But was revered by many doctors as a scientific genius.

http://www.unitedearth.com.au/rife.html#obituary

That's...wonderful. And irrelevant. And doesn't distract from the fact that parents cannot endanger the life of their child.

That's...wonderful. And irrelevant. And doesn't distract from the fact that parents cannot endanger the life of their child.

They would not be if they are seeking one of the 300+ treatments.

That's...wonderful. And irrelevant.

It's Dragontide's conspiracy obsessed mind at work, so to him, it's relevant in some kind of bizarre logic.

Why haven't we shot all the hippies who believe in native American cancer cures yet ?

They would not be if they are seeking one of the 300+ treatments.

If...and this is the big part, if any of those 300+ treatments had any evidence of efficacy. It is not enough that parents are convinced. Medical basis must be used to make medical decisions. Regardless of parental delusion.

It's Dragontide's conspiracy obsessed mind at work.

What conspiracy? Like.....ummmm....UFOs? The ball is not in my court on that thread. See you there then?

Why haven't we shot all the hippies who believe in native American cancer cures yet ?

If these nutty laws in Minnesots spread, could that plan be on the horizon? If so, we'll be sure to get you the DVD (special edition director's cut)
:D

What conspiracy? Like.....ummmm....UFOs? The ball is not in my court on that thread. See you there then?

When you actually make an honest effort at addressing all the valid objections raised in that thread instead of pretending they don't exist so you can pat yourself on your back with the ravings of delusional fools, you would have a legit shot at reviving that thread. Until then, you'll just keep polluting other threads with your brand of fraud, straw men, evasions and lies.

If...and this is the big part, if any of those 300+ treatments had any evidence of efficacy. It is not enough that parents are convinced. Medical basis must be used to make medical decisions. Regardless of parental delusion.

Now that is a good argument. Unforortunatly it is a good argument that should be used against some of these pharmaceutical companies that have turned us all into guinea pigs.

So it seems Chemo Boy and Moron Woman are on the run from both the law and intelligent thought all in the name of letting a 13 year old boy die from Hodgkin's lymphoma. What next? Are they going to kill themselves to evade capture from the authorities?!


Doesn't that qualify as attempted murder, too? (with the side circumstances of the target being ill, underage, and the method of killing being particularily slow, painful and cruel)

Darwin, where art thou? :headbang:

When you actually make an honest effort at addressing all the valid objections raised in that thread instead of pretending they don't exist so you can pat yourself on your back with the ravings of delusional fools, you would have a legit shot at reviving that thread. Until then, you'll just keep polluting other threads with your brand of fraud, straw men, evasions and lies.

When I get pwnd, I'll let ya know. As for now I'm quite lie free here thank you very much.

When I get pwnd, I'll let ya know.

When you stop being a lying no account nut, you won't have to let us know, we'll be able to tell. So far, you haven't.


As for now I'm quite lie free here thank you very much.

No you aren't, for trying to pass off frauds and quacks as legitimate doctors, you're perpetuating a lie.

How about we give the cancer to the parents?

Winner. Absolutely.

When you stop being a lying no account nut, you won't have to let us know, we'll be able to tell. So far, you haven't.



No you aren't, for trying to pass off frauds and quacks as legitimate doctors, you're perpetuating a lie.

If they cheated to get MDs then other doctors would most likely expose them as frauds. Any proof of that. (dont bother because there's not)

If they cheated to get MDs then other doctors would most likely expose them as frauds. Any proof of that. (dont bother because there's not)

Once again you try to wriggle your way out by insisting that having an MD makes you incapable of being a quack or a fraud. Let's take a look at the "Doctors" you brought up.

Alan Cantwell. This one might actually have an MD. What a shock. Except it's in dermatology. Who insists HIV is a government plot. Next you'll be taking brain surgery from a plumber high on marijuana. Maybe you actually did. It would explain your persistence in treating fiction as fact.

Virginia Livingston. Already blacklisted as a hack.

Rife. What a shock. Everything he claimed hasn't been corroborated by anyone else in medical circles, and in fact, has been debunked.

All of this has already been pointed out in the thread, but you choose to ignore them, pretending that if you don't address them, you can still pump your thrash as valid.

No one's buying it. You're still the same lying nut.

Why haven't we shot all the hippies who believe in native American cancer cures yet ?

Because there's no need to waste bullets on them. They're going to enjoy death by cancer anyway - even cancers that would be easily cured by the evil "western" medicine.

By the way, whenever I heard "western medicine", somehow I think of:
http://historyrhymes.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/doc-holliday.jpg
Doc Holliday!

Hang on. I'm seeing a pattern here. Anyone notice that Dragontide is once again, referring to discredited, unreliable, or just outright fraudulent sources for "evidence" of his claims?
I noticed that too.
Why haven't we shot all the hippies who believe in native American cancer cures yet ?
We have to make sure none of them work, otherwise we could be missing out on a cure for cancer. And a business opportunity.
If they cheated to get MDs then other doctors would most likely expose them as frauds. Any proof of that. (dont bother because there's not)

Well obviously if they have an MD(even if its in dermatology) then they're right.

Why do I get the feeling that its not even that he's a real medical doctor that has you convinced? Why do I get the feeling you think he's right because he's just like all those other conspiracy nuts you cite? He doesn't go along with modern medical science, makes some stuff up on his own, and in your eyes he seems to be worth listening to.

Why do I get the feeling that its not even that he's a real medical doctor that has you convinced?

Because you rarely know what your talking about?


Why do I get the feeling you think he's right because he's just like all those other conspiracy nuts you cite?


If they are nuts then why cannot you debunk them? (see question above first though)

He doesn't go along with modern medical science, makes some stuff up on his own, and in your eyes he seems to be worth listening to.

In they eyes of many.

Here is what the family laywer says:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/05/21/minnesota.forced.chemo/index.html

The first and foremost important principle is: It is a violation of spiritual law to invade the consciousness of another without their consent.


This is a case of Love vs. Power. Love gives. Power takes.


The state does not have a right to take.


A parent's love and affection is a positive social right we all share.


The court compelled Colleen Hauser to make a decision between three chemotherapy providers. Apparently, she didn't like the list.


The court was forcing her to decide.
The decision for treatment cannot be forced.


Anthony and Colleen Hauser share Danny's viewpoint: They do not approve of chemotherapy. Under the circumstances of this case, chemotherapy constitutes assault and torture when given to a young man who believes that it will kill him.



The man knows what he's talking about.

There are several legit ways and places to effectivly treat cancer besides chemo whether you wish to acknowledge their existence or not.:
http://www.doctorofhope.com.mx/

http://www.sunridgemedical.com/cancercare?gclid=CIvk2eH7zZoCFdhL5QodsH3k3A

http://alternativecancer.us/

http://www.stopcancer.com/

Just to name a few.