Posted on 05/26/2009 7:34:01 PM PDT by Scythian
(NaturalNews) If there's one thing that cancer doctors and health authorities can't stand, it's being wrong. And in the case of 13-year-old Daniel Hauser, the cancer doctors insist that unless the boy submits to chemotherapy as a "treatment" for Hodgkin's Lymphoma, he will almost certainly die.
But there's a problem with that claim. The problem is a man named Billy Best, now 31 years old, who was diagnosed with Hodgkin's Lymphoma at the age of 16. Like Daniel Hauser, Billy Best was told he would die if he didn't submit to chemotherapy. But with remarkable courage and wisdom about his own body's healing capabilities, Billy Best fled the health authorities, ran away from his family and began eating roots, superfoods and medicinal herbs. He regularly drank an alternative cancer liquid formula (made from plants) and before long his cancer was cured.
Billy, of course, is alive and well today... fifteen years after his cancer doctors said he should be dead.
I’m not going to argue with you about it, you go to the doctor if you get cancer, I wont get it.
Magnesium, google two words together, heart and magnesium, do it if you want to avoid heart issues.
why not both? When my son was getting chemo for leukemia there were parents who were working WITH the doctors by also using homeopathic remedies.
Why does it have to be one or the other?
Chemo treatments gave me 8 additional months with my little boy and they were glorious.
Unless you cause hypocalcemia and die from a prolongnation of the QT interval.
“The one horrible thing about cancer is: you and I can have the same cancer and it acts differently in everyone.”
Incredibly important point you make. As an example, i was discussing with an ER doctor all the things you hear to do for a rattlesnake bite. (where i live, theory often gives way to practice)
He explained how these true stories of “proven treatments” seem 100% true to the bite victim. They arent lying, but they are uninformed. He said how many are actually dry bites, with no venom. I remember him saying how you could do a voodoo incantation over those and they would be “healed”.
This is an example of the danger of listening to testimonials when making medical decisions.
So my childhood cancer was caused by hypoxia and acidic blood?
That means 1 chance in 20, so you can find people who did survive without treatment. This is one. Now, what happened to the other 19?
>I’m not going to argue with you about it, you go to the doctor if you get cancer, I wont get it.
If you’re not willing to argue/discuss/educate regarding it how can I ever learn?
Also note that I have said nothing one way or the other, regarding doctors and/or cancer, on this thread.
You can absolutely do both. But I don’t think a family should be forced into a decision that is against their faith. Personally, I have seen the affects of chemo, and I have seen people go without the chemo. It is I personally who would rather try to find alternative sources...quite possibly joined with radiation, if need be.
I have seen tests done where they put poison on an antibody and inject it into the body. The antibody delivers the poison right to the tumor, so the rest of the body doesn’t get sick.
Like I said, it works different for everybody. I believe people should have their choice. I thank God you had those precious 8 months...
Mag is Magnesium.
Would you be in the market for some bridge stock??
“It’s not a substitute for modern medicine. The parents are abusing him”
Those are clearly worded sentences. And while possible, I don’t think the two sentences follow each other automatically, in this case.
I am trying to understand this situation.
Please correct me if my summation is in error:
A child was diagnosed with a particular form of cancer. Doctors prescribed a treatment plan. The parents (ignore the childs wishes, as do I) refused, and were sued (by someone) to force them to comply.
I also have two questions.
Who initiated the legal suit?
Medical treatment is not “free”. Who is going to be required to pay for this treatment?
There are numerous, “natural” strategies, potentially preventive or to put certain cancers into remission, that seem beneficial according to multiple, legitimate medical studies, and I’m familiar with quite a few of them. Copper reduction therapy is one. An antiangiogenic approach is another. Many herbs have been shown to promote apoptosis. Simple dietary changes can be quite beneficial as well.
That said, I still wouldn’t toss conventional medicine out the window. Sometimes you need a flyswatter, sometimes you need a cannon, sometimes the two work synergistically together and sometimes they don’t. Some of the most powerful, beneficial herbal therapies actually hamper the effectiveness of chemotherapy because they’re at cross purposes. Chemo suppresses the immune system and promotes targetted (not completely, but for the most parf) cell death. Herbal therapies support and strengthen the immune system.
You’re not wrong in your enthusiasm, since there is genuine health benefit in a lot of this. But, there is quackery as well. And, to go to the extent of condemning all medical treatment in favor of alternative methods is slipping into dogmatism.
Here is the crux: if the govt has control over your children, then by definition, YOU DON’T.
An astoundingly inaccurate headline about the Daniel Hauser case:
Billy Best actually did undergo at least a couple of rounds of curative chemotherapy for Hodgkin's disease, possibly more, over four or five months before he decided to run away. He did not "survive without chemo." Most likely, he survived because of chemo.
Easy Question - which pays better...
Monopoly medicine = gunpoint medicine ?
Chemotherapy may have great short term survival rates for children for some cancers, but it isn’t the only treatment (especially long term) and it doesn’t address the underlying causes.
Monopoly medicine has no financial incentive to pursue natural (ie. non-patentable) treatments for cancer because they don’t pay as well as a toxic dose of chemo.
Almost all states have laws which recognize the right of parents to exempt their children from vaccines (which do not treat illness, and often do cause great harm). Medical freedom means that a) all treatment options with plausible justifications should be permitted and b) parents and children trump State and Big Pharma.
bump
Was this article written in cahoots with that Trudeau guy who hawks natural cures in infomercials?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.