|
Home > Archive > Politics and Medicine > August 2006 > WHO OWNS YOUR CHILD?
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
WHO OWNS YOUR CHILD?
|
|
| Ilena Rose 2006-07-26, 4:33 pm |
| http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=17486
Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, DO
July 25, 2006
NewsWithViews.com
This case should send a deep chill through the heart of every parent.
After he had endured three months of ineffective treatments last year
for Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Abraham Cherrix rejected his doctor’s
recommendation to go through a second round of chemotherapy. He chose
instead to seek out more natural, nontoxic methods using alternative
medicine.
After doing his research, he traveled with his father to Bio-Medical
Center in Tijuana, Mexico. His treatments included liquid herbal
supplements and a sugar-free, organic diet consisting mostly of fresh
fruits and vegetables. When they returned home, they spoke to
Abraham’s oncologist, Dr. Rebecca Byrd, to keep her involved in his
care. Wanting no part of their choices, she promptly declared their
decision irrational, labeled it “medical neglect” and called the
Accomack County Department of Social Services.
Within days, the county Social Services personnel had been awarded
partial custody of Abraham and, at 5:20pm on Friday, July 21, Judge
Jesse E. Demps ruled that Abraham’s parents were neglectful. They were
ordered to take their child to the hospital on Tuesday morning, July
25, and sign papers authorizing doctors to provide the treatment that
they – as medical professionals – deem necessary. If they refused to
do so, they could lose custody complete custody of their child, and
quite possibly, put their other four children at risk as well.
caught the attention of the national media because it strikes at the
heart of every parent who should be asking the following questions:
“Who really has control over my child?” “When is a child mature enough
to participate in his own healthcare decisions?” “How did we get to
the place where doctors, judges and social workersParent Rights and
the Foundation for Medical Neglect
This caseWhen it comes to making decisions about their children,
parents have few rights, as demonstrated by the Abraham Cherrix case
and others. The concept of the State control of children came from
antiquity when Plato first suggested the mechanism for a
state-provided public education. He advocated removing children from
their parents’ care and raising them as wards of the State. It is
interesting that in 1918, at the congress of the Communist Party
education workers in Russia it was asserted, "We must remove the
children from the crude influence of their families.”[1]
The enforcement mechanism for “educational neglect”[2] —such as
truancy and in some cases, homeschooling[3] --belongs to teachers and
social workers. In medical decisions, physicians are charged with
forcing medical “standard of care” treatments on children of unwilling
parents. Doctors not only have the right to step in, they are mandated
by state law to report medical abuse and neglect to Children’s
Services. The decision is usually made when a physician feels the
action—or inaction—of a parent places the child in danger of death or
disability. A common occurrence is when a parent, who is a Jehovah’s
Witness, refuses a blood transfusion for their child on religious
grounds.
Wide support and extensive court precedence exists backing a doctor’s
decision to call Children’s Services. The rationale for this authority
is clearly described in a 1996 paper that states, "Whether (the
guardians) are sincere, sane, and in every other capacity model
parents, their insistence upon treatment that is scientifically
inferior to conventionally accepted treatment is abusive, even if
their intent is not."[4]
Because the State agrees with the premise that the “doctor knows
best,” parents are deemed “unfit” when they refuse a suggested
conventional medical treatment. Social workers have the power to seize
the child once notified by a physician that they have an obstreperous
patient on their hands. Police agencies have been known to enforce the
decision at gunpoint.
The current system was set up to protect obviously abused and
neglected children. It would provide adequate protection if medical
professionals were amenable to common sense. In the case of Abraham
Cherrix, the parents respected and liked their conventional oncologist
enough to inform her of their decision, wanting to include her in
Abraham’s ongoing care. The outcome attests to the current mess our
medical system is in. Unfortunately, common sense isn’t very common
these days and disagreeing with your doctor can lead to removal of
your child from your home.
Modern medicine operates under the pretense that it is “science
based.” It claims that its therapies have been developed through the
research Gold Standard: the double-blind, placebo-controlled,
randomized, cross-over study. However, the majority of medical
therapies have never been subjected to this type of analysis.
Evidence-based medicine has only been underway since 1990. The list of
standard medical therapies that have proven to be worthless after they
were scrutinized is long. Tens of thousands of people have suffered
through the use of “usual and customary” therapies before they were
proven to be useless.[5] The implication that the alternative
practices sought by the Cherrix family are “unproven and dangerous”
may very well be said about the conventional treatments being forced
on him by his oncologists.
What you can do
Currently the American Association of Health Freedom (AAHF) is
reaching out to Congress to urgently have a medical hearing over this
case. It has been done before, with the Terri Schiavo case, and it can
be done again. AAHF is the politically active voice at the federal
level, fighting to change laws that restrict a patient’s choice and a
practitioner’s ability to provide alternative medical treatments. As
the VP of the Board of Directors for AAHF, I strongly encourage
parents and doctors alike to support their work. Consumers can join
the lobbying efforts for as little as $20 per year; or larger,
tax-deductible donations can be made to the Health Freedom Foundation.
Please contact AAHF at 800-230-2762 and www.healthfreedom.net for more
information on how to get involved. For part 1 click nelow.
have more rights than parents over the healthcare decisions of a
child?”
Becoming an adult
In most cases, the age when a person acquires all the rights and
responsibilities of being an adult is 18 years old. However, there are
circumstances in which a child can be considered a legal adult before
the assigned age of majority. For example, Arizona, Florida,
Massachusetts, New York and Utah allow marriage at age 16 with
parental consent. You can legally get married in Georgia, Mississippi,
Michigan, and North Carolina with parental consent if you are 15 years
of age. Texas permits 14 year olds to get married with parental
consent, and New Hampshire will even allow 13 year old females to
marry with parental consent and court permission.[1]
In six states (Connecticut, Hawaii, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and
Washington) and Washington DC, a 16 year old has the right to get an
abortion without consent or notification of the parent. Thirty-four
other states have a mechanism in place to bypass the parental consent
or notice requirement.[2]
A 16 year old can hold a full time job, travel outside the country,
drive a car, and have full responsibility for someone’s children while
baby sitting. A 16 year old can even be tried as an adult for murder.
But if you are 16, you have no right to say what type of treatment is
forced upon you by the medical system, even if your parents support
your right to refuse. Cherrix explained to the press, "This is my body
that I'm supposed to take care of. I should have the right to tell
someone what I want to do with this body. I studied. I did research. I
came to this conclusion that the chemotherapy was not the route I
wanted to take."[3] His maturity carried no weight in the court of law
and held no authority with the medical judge, his doctor.
The Cherrix case is one in a series of recent medical travesties where
judges, doctors and the State have forced medical treatments on
children against the concerns of their parents. In January, 2006,
13-year-old Katie Wernecke was diagnosed with Hodgkin's disease. When
Katie's parents, Michelle and Edward Wernecke, refused radiation
treatments for their daughter, Texas Children Services intervened.
Katie was placed in foster care for four months and her mother was
arrested on charges of interfering with child custody.[4]
Early this month (July, 2006), the parents of a 9-month old boy, Riley
Rogers, were advised that the child needed emergency surgery for a
kidney problem. The mother disagreed and smuggled her son out of the
hospital. Several days later, he was found and sent back to the
hospital; the mother was charged with second-degree kidnapping and
sent to jail. As it turned out, the surgery was not an “emergency”
after all.[5]
Americans are dying on the on the other side of the world in a “fight
for freedom.” And yet, the freedom to choose vitamins, organic food
and herbs over toxic, potentially deadly treatments is considered a
crime. The total number of deaths caused by conventional medicine is
more than 780,000 per year, making the medical system the leading
cause of death and injury in the U.S.[6] Whose freedoms should we be
fighting for?
These stories should enrage every parent. Who really “owns” your
child? Who owns your body? Americans needs to declare their freedom
from grip of conventional medicine and its authoritarian tactics.
~~~~~~~~~~
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/blog.htm
| |
| ericew@gmail.com 2006-07-26, 4:33 pm |
| Why start another thread on this topic.
No one owns a child, parents are responsible for them though. The
state sometime has to step in when the parents choices place the child
in immediate and grave danger.
What's wrong with that?
Eric
| |
|
| ericew@gmail.com wrote:
> Why start another thread on this topic.
>
> No one owns a child, parents are responsible for them though. The
> state sometime has to step in when the parents choices place the child
> in immediate and grave danger.
>
> What's wrong with that?
>
> Eric
Eric, attempts to use logic and ethical debate with such as these is
fruitless.
Some have already started from emotion loaded anti government agenda
driven ranting and some have quickly shown their true colors as being of
that camp, after opening what appeared to be reasoned argument.
Your attempts to play fair are not going to be met with the same ethical
standards.
The concept that children are possessions and the defense of it, as per
the article posted, make plain that you are not debating rational
humane, honorable, and decent human beings.
Their agenda is MORE important than the child's right to protection when
others won't provide it.
The 'State' has to be the enemy. The 'parent' just could not possibly
be. They are always right.
Best, Kane
--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)
| |
| Mark Probert 2006-07-26, 9:28 pm |
| 0:-> wrote:
> ericew@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Eric, attempts to use logic and ethical debate with such as these is
> fruitless.
>
> Some have already started from emotion loaded anti government agenda
> driven ranting and some have quickly shown their true colors as being of
> that camp, after opening what appeared to be reasoned argument.
>
> Your attempts to play fair are not going to be met with the same ethical
> standards.
>
> The concept that children are possessions and the defense of it, as per
> the article posted, make plain that you are not debating rational
> humane, honorable, and decent human beings.
>
> Their agenda is MORE important than the child's right to protection when
> others won't provide it.
>
> The 'State' has to be the enemy. The 'parent' just could not possibly
> be. They are always right.
Excellent analysis of this matter.
With all of the bleating and braying that is going on, I think that the
courts should just dismiss the case, and let Darwin take over.
Of course, when the kid dies from lack of proper care, the AltNuts and
the WackoConspiracyNuts will hoot and howl it was the fault of the delay
in getting the HOAXsey treatment. Of course, when Hoxsey developed
prostate cancer he tried his potions, but, when that did not work, he
resorted to conventional care. Too late.
| |
|
| Mark Probert wrote:
> 0:-> wrote:
>
> Excellent analysis of this matter.
>
> With all of the bleating and braying that is going on, I think that the
> courts should just dismiss the case, and let Darwin take over.
>
> Of course, when the kid dies from lack of proper care, the AltNuts and
> the WackoConspiracyNuts will hoot and howl it was the fault of the delay
> in getting the HOAXsey treatment. Of course, when Hoxsey developed
> prostate cancer he tried his potions, but, when that did not work, he
> resorted to conventional care. Too late.
And some of the Hoxley ingredients appear to be quite toxic on their
own. Serious organ damage is a high risk.
I would not be surprised if it does not DAMAGE or inhibit the immune
system.
Battling cancer, chemically, or otherwise, is NOT a simple formulaic
"grandma's tonic for blood and bowel" situation.
Careful monitoring of conditions during treatment are required, with
subsequent adjustments in the chemo treatment regimen required.
I doubt the boy stayed the course originally.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health...al-remedy_x.htm
Other recipients of chemotherapy report similar seemingly overwhelming
side effects.
This makes the task of decision making horrendous for a child. Even a
6ft 1in teen.
--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)
| |
| Greegor 2006-07-27, 8:26 am |
| The article mentioned the large number of CONVENTIONAL
practices and curatives that have been found to be quackery.
Why are the people who stood solidly behind all of that
quackery for a LONG time now so cheerful about
pretending they know the difference?
The LONG list of accepted treatments and standard
practice that was all BOGUS proves the medical establishment
is in many cases just not as COMPETENT as they would
like to pretend they are.
Let's not forget that the medical establishment
DID have a first crack at this one and STRUCK OUT.
Isn't that a legit time to bring in the
"Lorenzo's Oil" (movie) or the
Ancient Chinese Herbal cures?
Even more rediculous, I know of several cases
where simply seeking a second opinion from
a different US physician resulted in the very
same sort of call to children's services.
In two such cases the first doctor made the call
in an effort to prevent a second opinion which DID take place
and which DID make the first physician's decision look stupid.
In BOTH cases the first doctor made bogus claims of
Munchausens By Proxy in order to support their
overbearing ""God Complex"".
To me the real issue here is the ""God Complex""
arrogance that is VERY WELL KNOWN in medicine,
and state willingness to encourage or ENABLE
this pathology.
| |
| JohnDoe 2006-07-27, 8:26 am |
| Greegor wrote:
> The article mentioned the large number of CONVENTIONAL
> practices and curatives that have been found to be quackery.
>
> Why are the people who stood solidly behind all of that
> quackery for a LONG time now so cheerful about
> pretending they know the difference?
>
> The LONG list of accepted treatments and standard
> practice that was all BOGUS proves the medical establishment
> is in many cases just not as COMPETENT as they would
> like to pretend they are.
>
> Let's not forget that the medical establishment
> DID have a first crack at this one and STRUCK OUT.
>
> Isn't that a legit time to bring in the
> "Lorenzo's Oil" (movie) or the
> Ancient Chinese Herbal cures?
I hope you are aware that Lorenzo's Oil doesn't work?
As for Ancient Chinese Herbal cures - I forgot where I saw the picture,
but it was from a woman undergoing an Ancient Chinese Herbal cure for I
bleieve gout. She a cigarette sticking out her ear, a walnut place on
her left eye and some burning herbs somewhere on her forehead. Why does
such utter nonsense even need debunking..........
> Even more rediculous, I know of several cases
> where simply seeking a second opinion from
> a different US physician resulted in the very
> same sort of call to children's services.
>
> In two such cases the first doctor made the call
> in an effort to prevent a second opinion which DID take place
> and which DID make the first physician's decision look stupid.
>
> In BOTH cases the first doctor made bogus claims of
> Munchausens By Proxy in order to support their
> overbearing ""God Complex"".
>
> To me the real issue here is the ""God Complex""
> arrogance that is VERY WELL KNOWN in medicine,
> and state willingness to encourage or ENABLE
> this pathology.
>
| |
| George Giesler 2006-07-27, 8:26 am |
|
"JohnDoe" <none@ofyourbusiness.com> wrote in message
news:44c87ba9$0$2021$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...
> Greegor wrote:
>
>
> I hope you are aware that Lorenzo's Oil doesn't work?
> As for Ancient Chinese Herbal cures - I forgot where I saw the picture,
> but it was from a woman undergoing an Ancient Chinese Herbal cure for I
> bleieve gout. She a cigarette sticking out her ear, a walnut place on her
> left eye and some burning herbs somewhere on her forehead. Why does such
> utter nonsense even need debunking..........
Yup - for 5000 years the Chinese have been treating illness with "utter
nonsense" -- and all it took "John Doe" to debunk the whole charade.
Ever get the feeling it's you that's the charade "John"?
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
| |
| JohnDoe 2006-07-27, 8:26 am |
| George Giesler wrote:
> "JohnDoe" <none@ofyourbusiness.com> wrote in message
> news:44c87ba9$0$2021$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...
>
>
>
> Yup - for 5000 years the Chinese have been treating illness with "utter
> nonsense" -- and all it took "John Doe" to debunk the whole charade.
You think putting a wallnut on your eye is going to treat anything? Really?
> Ever get the feeling it's you that's the charade "John"?
Pray tell, how do Chinese doctors treat, hm, let's say syphilis? Herbs
or anti-biotics? I mean, after 5000 years they must have come up with
something. Modern medicine did it in less then 100 years.
>
>
>
| |
| Coleah 2006-07-27, 8:26 am |
|
"JohnDoe" <none@ofyourbusiness.com> wrote in message
news:44c87ba9$0$2021$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...
> Greegor wrote:
>
>
> I hope you are aware that Lorenzo's Oil doesn't work?
> As for Ancient Chinese Herbal cures - I forgot where I saw the picture,
> but it was from a woman undergoing an Ancient Chinese Herbal cure for I
> bleieve gout. She a cigarette sticking out her ear, a walnut place on
> her left eye and some burning herbs somewhere on her forehead. Why does
> such utter nonsense even need debunking..........
Oh yeah....the 'ole cigarette in the ear treatment. Works every time. [The
walnut and burning herbs are just theatrics <g>.]
| |
| Greegor 2006-07-27, 8:26 am |
| Coleah wrote
> Oh yeah....the 'ole cigarette in the ear treatment. Works every time. [The
> walnut and burning herbs are just theatrics <g>.]
As opposed to blood letting, heavy metal poisoning etc.
used in the US Civil War?
Western Medicine as recently as the 1950's had
quite an assortment of medical quackery that was
accepted mainstream medicine. How much persists even now?
| |
| JohnDoe 2006-07-27, 8:26 am |
| Greegor wrote:
> Coleah wrote
>
>
>
> As opposed to blood letting, heavy metal poisoning etc.
> used in the US Civil War?
>
> Western Medicine as recently as the 1950's had
> quite an assortment of medical quackery that was
> accepted mainstream medicine. How much persists even now?
>
Nothing of which we know for sure that doesn't work.
That's the tiny little detail that you forget to mention - during the
Civil War, doctors didn't know that many of their cures didn't work.
That's why it's not quackery. Bloodletting today has only one legitimate
use. With what we know now, any other use is quackery. But not back then.
Sticking cigarettes up your ear doesn't do a thing and we know it.
However, practioners of Ancient Chinese Herbal Remedies still keep on
doing it. Now *that* is quackery.
| |
| George Giesler 2006-07-27, 4:28 pm |
|
"JohnDoe" <none@ofyourbusiness.com> wrote in message
news:44c8b80a$0$2023$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...
> Greegor wrote:
>
> Nothing of which we know for sure that doesn't work.
> That's the tiny little detail that you forget to mention - during the
> Civil War, doctors didn't know that many of their cures didn't work.
> That's why it's not quackery. Bloodletting today has only one legitimate
> use. With what we know now, any other use is quackery. But not back then.
> Sticking cigarettes up your ear doesn't do a thing and we know it.
> However, practioners of Ancient Chinese Herbal Remedies still keep on
> doing it. Now *that* is quackery.
I think you're fairly ignorant of Ancient Chinese Herbal Remedies - to
dismiss a proven system of medicine because you believe it involves
"sticking cigarettes up your ear" just illuminates your closed mind.
You're full of shit John, and just blow smoke 'cause some idiot has taught
you some cute jingles. lol.
| |
| Coleah 2006-07-27, 4:28 pm |
|
"JohnDoe" <none@ofyourbusiness.com> wrote in message
news:44c8b80a$0$2023$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...
> Greegor wrote:
[The[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Nothing of which we know for sure that doesn't work.
> That's the tiny little detail that you forget to mention - during the
> Civil War, doctors didn't know that many of their cures didn't work.
> That's why it's not quackery. Bloodletting today has only one legitimate
> use. With what we know now, any other use is quackery. But not back then.
> Sticking cigarettes up your ear doesn't do a thing and we know it.
> However, practioners of Ancient Chinese Herbal Remedies still keep on
> doing it. Now *that* is quackery.
I met a lady who swore the way to get rid of warts was to tie a string
around it and then take the string and bury it in the yard. Yeah, right.
She was a delightful woman with a hocus-pocus spirit, unfortunately it
killed her.
| |
| Johnny Huang 2006-07-27, 4:28 pm |
| JohnDoe,
That is not a professional Chinese Medical treatment for gout. It may
have been somebody's own protocol, but it is nothing like what is
taught and practiced in the PRC, Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, etc.
Gout treatments are most frequently Acupuncture with dietary advice,
occasionally some herbs.
Your example of this so-called gout treatment bears no more relation to
professional Chinese Medicine than does Hoxey to professional oncology.
JohnDoe wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> Greegor wrote:
>
>
> I hope you are aware that Lorenzo's Oil doesn't work?
> As for Ancient Chinese Herbal cures - I forgot where I saw the picture,
> but it was from a woman undergoing an Ancient Chinese Herbal cure for I
> bleieve gout. She a cigarette sticking out her ear, a walnut place on
> her left eye and some burning herbs somewhere on her forehead. Why does
> such utter nonsense even need debunking..........
>
| |
| Ilena Rose 2006-07-27, 4:28 pm |
| www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/coleah.htm
claimed:
>I met a lady who swore the way to get rid of warts was to tie a string around it and then take the string and bury it in the yard. Yeah, right. She was a delightful woman with a hocus-pocus spirit, unfortunately it killed her
Sure Coleah ... was it the wart or the tying of the string that killed
her?
www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/blog.htm
| |
| Jan Drew 2006-07-27, 4:28 pm |
| *Anecdotes can be made up. They teach how in the P.T. Barnum School Of
Internet Marketing, Scamming and MLMing.*
*Anecdotes are Bullshit...*
02-06-06
"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:0sqFf.690$qW1.351@fe08.lga...
Anecdotes are bullshit and prove nothing.
"Coleah" <coleah@pacifier.com> wrote in message
news:12chjrini523e23@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "JohnDoe" <none@ofyourbusiness.com> wrote in message
> news:44c8b80a$0$2023$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...
> [The
>
> I met a lady who swore the way to get rid of warts was to tie a string
> around it and then take the string and bury it in the yard. Yeah, right.
> She was a delightful woman with a hocus-pocus spirit, unfortunately it
> killed her.
>
>
>
| |
| Herman Rubin 2006-07-27, 4:28 pm |
| In article <1153941797.663150.113750@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
<ericew@gmail.com> wrote:
>Why start another thread on this topic.
>No one owns a child, parents are responsible for them though. The
>state sometime has to step in when the parents choices place the child
>in immediate and grave danger.
>What's wrong with that?
And what happens when a minion of the state makes a
decision which puts the child in equally grave danger,
or otherwise harms the child or the parents or the
parent-child relationship? They are rarely penalized.
We have cases where a child, who was not learning in
school, did well when home schooled, but the state
insisted that he go to the public school because
otherwise he would not be properly socialized.
Frankly, at this time I would suggest that anyone
who can be home schooled; the public schools are run
by a closed circle of incompetents.
I have often disagreed with my doctors.
In the case under discussion now, I do not think the
doctors are right, and neither do I think the parents
are right. I would hesitate to judge on the evidence.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
| |
| Herman Rubin 2006-07-27, 4:28 pm |
| In article <1154003511.609478.286980@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
Greegor <Greegor@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Coleah wrote
[vbcol=seagreen]
>As opposed to blood letting, heavy metal poisoning etc.
>used in the US Civil War?
>Western Medicine as recently as the 1950's had
>quite an assortment of medical quackery that was
>accepted mainstream medicine. How much persists even now?
There is not a single study which shows that increasing
carbohydrate calories while decreasing fat calories does
any good whatever. I have seen supposed criticisms of
Atkins, etc., based on assumptions that certain effects
were automatically bad, when some of the effects were
even aimed for.
The statin studies are cases of stupid use of statistics.
The medical profession is prone to assumptions, often made
in other sciences, but which are invalid when the things
studied are living beings. AFAIK, the first observation of
this was made by a geneticist, and it is now well known in
economics. For example, are people in good health because
they exercise, or do they exercise more because they are in
good health?
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
| |
| Vernon 2006-07-27, 4:28 pm |
| As we drift more and more into socialism (AKA Nazi, liberalism) we are less
owned by ourselves and more by the great and caring government.
"Ilena Rose" <BIA@mundo.com> wrote in message
news:paffc2l851nck4lqadf9ri0ub7o3kucl99@4ax.com...
> http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=17486
>
> Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, DO
> July 25, 2006
> NewsWithViews.com
>
> This case should send a deep chill through the heart of every parent.
>
> After he had endured three months of ineffective treatments last year
> for Hodgkin's lymphoma, Abraham Cherrix rejected his doctor's
> recommendation to go through a second round of chemotherapy. He chose
> instead to seek out more natural, nontoxic methods using alternative
> medicine.
>
> After doing his research, he traveled with his father to Bio-Medical
> Center in Tijuana, Mexico. His treatments included liquid herbal
> supplements and a sugar-free, organic diet consisting mostly of fresh
> fruits and vegetables. When they returned home, they spoke to
> Abraham's oncologist, Dr. Rebecca Byrd, to keep her involved in his
> care. Wanting no part of their choices, she promptly declared their
> decision irrational, labeled it "medical neglect" and called the
> Accomack County Department of Social Services.
>
> Within days, the county Social Services personnel had been awarded
> partial custody of Abraham and, at 5:20pm on Friday, July 21, Judge
> Jesse E. Demps ruled that Abraham's parents were neglectful. They were
> ordered to take their child to the hospital on Tuesday morning, July
> 25, and sign papers authorizing doctors to provide the treatment that
> they - as medical professionals - deem necessary. If they refused to
> do so, they could lose custody complete custody of their child, and
> quite possibly, put their other four children at risk as well.
>
> caught the attention of the national media because it strikes at the
> heart of every parent who should be asking the following questions:
> "Who really has control over my child?" "When is a child mature enough
> to participate in his own healthcare decisions?" "How did we get to
> the place where doctors, judges and social workersParent Rights and
> the Foundation for Medical Neglect
>
> This caseWhen it comes to making decisions about their children,
> parents have few rights, as demonstrated by the Abraham Cherrix case
> and others. The concept of the State control of children came from
> antiquity when Plato first suggested the mechanism for a
> state-provided public education. He advocated removing children from
> their parents' care and raising them as wards of the State. It is
> interesting that in 1918, at the congress of the Communist Party
> education workers in Russia it was asserted, "We must remove the
> children from the crude influence of their families."[1]
>
> The enforcement mechanism for "educational neglect"[2] -such as
> truancy and in some cases, homeschooling[3] --belongs to teachers and
> social workers. In medical decisions, physicians are charged with
> forcing medical "standard of care" treatments on children of unwilling
> parents. Doctors not only have the right to step in, they are mandated
> by state law to report medical abuse and neglect to Children's
> Services. The decision is usually made when a physician feels the
> action-or inaction-of a parent places the child in danger of death or
> disability. A common occurrence is when a parent, who is a Jehovah's
> Witness, refuses a blood transfusion for their child on religious
> grounds.
>
> Wide support and extensive court precedence exists backing a doctor's
> decision to call Children's Services. The rationale for this authority
> is clearly described in a 1996 paper that states, "Whether (the
> guardians) are sincere, sane, and in every other capacity model
> parents, their insistence upon treatment that is scientifically
> inferior to conventionally accepted treatment is abusive, even if
> their intent is not."[4]
>
> Because the State agrees with the premise that the "doctor knows
> best," parents are deemed "unfit" when they refuse a suggested
> conventional medical treatment. Social workers have the power to seize
> the child once notified by a physician that they have an obstreperous
> patient on their hands. Police agencies have been known to enforce the
> decision at gunpoint.
>
> The current system was set up to protect obviously abused and
> neglected children. It would provide adequate protection if medical
> professionals were amenable to common sense. In the case of Abraham
> Cherrix, the parents respected and liked their conventional oncologist
> enough to inform her of their decision, wanting to include her in
> Abraham's ongoing care. The outcome attests to the current mess our
> medical system is in. Unfortunately, common sense isn't very common
> these days and disagreeing with your doctor can lead to removal of
> your child from your home.
>
> Modern medicine operates under the pretense that it is "science
> based." It claims that its therapies have been developed through the
> research Gold Standard: the double-blind, placebo-controlled,
> randomized, cross-over study. However, the majority of medical
> therapies have never been subjected to this type of analysis.
> Evidence-based medicine has only been underway since 1990. The list of
> standard medical therapies that have proven to be worthless after they
> were scrutinized is long. Tens of thousands of people have suffered
> through the use of "usual and customary" therapies before they were
> proven to be useless.[5] The implication that the alternative
> practices sought by the Cherrix family are "unproven and dangerous"
> may very well be said about the conventional treatments being forced
> on him by his oncologists.
>
> What you can do
>
> Currently the American Association of Health Freedom (AAHF) is
> reaching out to Congress to urgently have a medical hearing over this
> case. It has been done before, with the Terri Schiavo case, and it can
> be done again. AAHF is the politically active voice at the federal
> level, fighting to change laws that restrict a patient's choice and a
> practitioner's ability to provide alternative medical treatments. As
> the VP of the Board of Directors for AAHF, I strongly encourage
> parents and doctors alike to support their work. Consumers can join
> the lobbying efforts for as little as $20 per year; or larger,
> tax-deductible donations can be made to the Health Freedom Foundation.
> Please contact AAHF at 800-230-2762 and www.healthfreedom.net for more
> information on how to get involved. For part 1 click nelow.
> have more rights than parents over the healthcare decisions of a
> child?"
>
> Becoming an adult
>
> In most cases, the age when a person acquires all the rights and
> responsibilities of being an adult is 18 years old. However, there are
> circumstances in which a child can be considered a legal adult before
> the assigned age of majority. For example, Arizona, Florida,
> Massachusetts, New York and Utah allow marriage at age 16 with
> parental consent. You can legally get married in Georgia, Mississippi,
> Michigan, and North Carolina with parental consent if you are 15 years
> of age. Texas permits 14 year olds to get married with parental
> consent, and New Hampshire will even allow 13 year old females to
> marry with parental consent and court permission.[1]
>
> In six states (Connecticut, Hawaii, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and
> Washington) and Washington DC, a 16 year old has the right to get an
> abortion without consent or notification of the parent. Thirty-four
> other states have a mechanism in place to bypass the parental consent
> or notice requirement.[2]
>
> A 16 year old can hold a full time job, travel outside the country,
> drive a car, and have full responsibility for someone's children while
> baby sitting. A 16 year old can even be tried as an adult for murder.
>
> But if you are 16, you have no right to say what type of treatment is
> forced upon you by the medical system, even if your parents support
> your right to refuse. Cherrix explained to the press, "This is my body
> that I'm supposed to take care of. I should have the right to tell
> someone what I want to do with this body. I studied. I did research. I
> came to this conclusion that the chemotherapy was not the route I
> wanted to take."[3] His maturity carried no weight in the court of law
> and held no authority with the medical judge, his doctor.
>
> The Cherrix case is one in a series of recent medical travesties where
> judges, doctors and the State have forced medical treatments on
> children against the concerns of their parents. In January, 2006,
> 13-year-old Katie Wernecke was diagnosed with Hodgkin's disease. When
> Katie's parents, Michelle and Edward Wernecke, refused radiation
> treatments for their daughter, Texas Children Services intervened.
> Katie was placed in foster care for four months and her mother was
> arrested on charges of interfering with child custody.[4]
>
> Early this month (July, 2006), the parents of a 9-month old boy, Riley
> Rogers, were advised that the child needed emergency surgery for a
> kidney problem. The mother disagreed and smuggled her son out of the
> hospital. Several days later, he was found and sent back to the
> hospital; the mother was charged with second-degree kidnapping and
> sent to jail. As it turned out, the surgery was not an "emergency"
> after all.[5]
>
> Americans are dying on the on the other side of the world in a "fight
> for freedom." And yet, the freedom to choose vitamins, organic food
> and herbs over toxic, potentially deadly treatments is considered a
> crime. The total number of deaths caused by conventional medicine is
> more than 780,000 per year, making the medical system the leading
> cause of death and injury in the U.S.[6] Whose freedoms should we be
> fighting for?
>
> These stories should enrage every parent. Who really "owns" your
> child? Who owns your body? Americans needs to declare their freedom
> from grip of conventional medicine and its authoritarian tactics.
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~
>
> www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/blog.htm
| |
| ericew@gmail.com 2006-07-27, 4:28 pm |
|
Vernon wrote:
> As we drift more and more into socialism (AKA Nazi, liberalism) we are less
> owned by ourselves and more by the great and caring government.
Anarchy for all! Down with the government! Let's start with those
nasty roads and other critical infastructure.
Eric
| |
|
| Greegor wrote:
> The article mentioned the large number of CONVENTIONAL
> practices and curatives that have been found to be quackery.
>
> Why are the people who stood solidly behind all of that
> quackery for a LONG time now so cheerful about
> pretending they know the difference?
Not quite sure what you mean, but likely the answer is, "things change."
If they didn't we'd be using blood letting to release the "humours."
> The LONG list of accepted treatments and standard
> practice that was all BOGUS proves the medical establishment
> is in many cases just not as COMPETENT as they would
> like to pretend they are.
The long list of accepted laws and rules that have proved bogus show
that we progress.
> Let's not forget that the medical establishment
> DID have a first crack at this one and STRUCK OUT.
He is alive and a year has passed. He started the Hoxley treatment and
his Cancer is back.
The judge has not ruled that he does not have to go back to conventional
treatment. The judge has ruled that he be observed for a few weeks, a
hearing held (where likely a lot of medical testimony related to his
observed condition will be given) and another decision made.
> Isn't that a legit time to bring in the
> "Lorenzo's Oil" (movie) or the
> Ancient Chinese Herbal cures?
It's being done. Why are you screaming for something to be done that is
in fact happening already?
> Even more rediculous, I know of several cases
> where simply seeking a second opinion from
> a different US physician resulted in the very
> same sort of call to children's services.
That's nice. Tell us more.
> In two such cases the first doctor made the call
> in an effort to prevent a second opinion which DID take place
> and which DID make the first physician's decision look stupid.
Golly. THAT's never happened before with adults, only this case with a
child, right?
> In BOTH cases the first doctor made bogus claims of
> Munchausens By Proxy in order to support their
> overbearing ""God Complex"".
Your supposition of the doctor's reasons destroys your credibility as an
unbiased objective reporter. Sorry.
> To me the real issue here is the ""God Complex""
> arrogance that is VERY WELL KNOWN in medicine,
> and state willingness to encourage or ENABLE
> this pathology.
Your cure?
You appear to want everyone in authority to be groveling at your feet
taking your opinion in place of their own expertise.
Judges. Social workers. Health professionals. Mental health
practitioners. I think, as I recall from your conversation with a
retired cop on an issue of use of lethal force by parents, even law
enforcement officers.
Why is that, Greg?
And why is it when they don't, and just go their own professional way,
you see yourself as their victim?
How are you going to fix this 'problem' you see with folks like these
doctors with 'God complex?'
0:->
--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)
| |
| dragonsgirl 2006-07-27, 4:28 pm |
|
"Coleah" <coleah@pacifier.com> wrote in message
news:12chjrini523e23@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "JohnDoe" <none@ofyourbusiness.com> wrote in message
> news:44c8b80a$0$2023$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...
> [The
>
> I met a lady who swore the way to get rid of warts was to tie a string
> around it and then take the string and bury it in the yard. Yeah, right.
> She was a delightful woman with a hocus-pocus spirit, unfortunately it
> killed her.
My mother used to swear by my great grandmothers hill doctoring.
The one thing I know for certain is this: When you had my grandpa's cough
medicine you didn't care if you were sick or not...didn't cure you, but by
golly, it sure did make you feel good.
(white lightning and rock candy)
HE HE!
And...for those who are unfamiliar with the old ways:
My grandparents had a HUGE calendar in their bedroom when I was a
teen...they planned EVERYTHING by it...trips, planting, everything.
Most times the clendar would say something like 'today the bowels are in the
feet'...what-ever-the-hell that meant.
Grandmother was also a firm believer in faith healing.
Yes, she died...with a huge weakened spot in the main aorta in her spine,
and of an anyerism (oh sweetly she did pass, quick and most nearly painless,
however, her illnesses never 'healed' from her faith)
My great grandmother also practiced 'scarfying'.
Look it up some time, it's quite interesting.
She also made something like a power drink for ill babies...do NOT ask what
was in it, I have no clue other than goat milk or sow milk if she could find
it.
Scary the way people used to live...or, more to the point, NOT live.
No CPR back then, and I vividly recall seeing my cousin laying in her
mother's arms just passed from a gunshot wound...cpr may have helped her had
it been available and widely taught as it is now.
Progress has brought us a long way in medicine, technology, etc..but,
honestly, there are times when I sorely miss the 'old days'.
>
>
>
| |
| Vernon 2006-07-27, 4:28 pm |
|
<ericew@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154021803.809578.67630@s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Vernon wrote:
>
> Anarchy for all! Down with the government! Let's start with those
> nasty roads and other critical infastructure.
>
> Eric
>
Yep, the two extremes are chaos and downfall.
Anarchy 0
Socialism 100
USA 80
| |
| Jan Drew 2006-07-27, 9:26 pm |
| It is Hoxsey. Not Hoxley.
"0:->" <pohaku.kane@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:JOednXWxr4WDYlXZnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@scnresearch.com...
> Greegor wrote:
>
> Not quite sure what you mean, but likely the answer is, "things change."
>
> If they didn't we'd be using blood letting to release the "humours."
>
>
> The long list of accepted laws and rules that have proved bogus show that
> we progress.
>
>
> He is alive and a year has passed. He started the Hoxley treatment and his
> Cancer is back.
>
> The judge has not ruled that he does not have to go back to conventional
> treatment. The judge has ruled that he be observed for a few weeks, a
> hearing held (where likely a lot of medical testimony related to his
> observed condition will be given) and another decision made.
>
>
> It's being done. Why are you screaming for something to be done that is in
> fact happening already?
>
>
> That's nice. Tell us more.
>
>
> Golly. THAT's never happened before with adults, only this case with a
> child, right?
>
>
> Your supposition of the doctor's reasons destroys your credibility as an
> unbiased objective reporter. Sorry.
>
>
> Your cure?
>
> You appear to want everyone in authority to be groveling at your feet
> taking your opinion in place of their own expertise.
>
> Judges. Social workers. Health professionals. Mental health practitioners.
> I think, as I recall from your conversation with a retired cop on an issue
> of use of lethal force by parents, even law enforcement officers.
>
> Why is that, Greg?
>
> And why is it when they don't, and just go their own professional way, you
> see yourself as their victim?
>
> How are you going to fix this 'problem' you see with folks like these
> doctors with 'God complex?'
>
>
> 0:->
>
> --
> "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
> to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
> contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)
| |
|
| Jan Drew wrote:
> It is Hoxsey. Not Hoxley.
http://www.alliance-natural-health....tion=news&ID=76
"But others, marketed as cures, were dangerous. Examples included Essiac
(a Canadian herbal mixture), Hoxley formula (also a herbal mixture),
mistletoe, laetrile (derived from the seeds of bitter almonds and
apricots) and shark cartilage."
http://www.newstarget.com/000902.html
"Finally, what's most amusing about this story is that many of the
substances ridiculed here are, in fact, powerful cancer-fighting
products or compounds: Essiac herbal tea, the Hoxley formulas, and
laetrile."
http://www.scienceblog.com/communit.../20043376.shtml
"... Di Bella therapy (complex treatment developed by an Italian
doctor), Hoxley formula (herbal mixture), mistletoe, laetrile (derived
from the seeds of bitter almonds and apricots) and shark cartilage."
Thank you.
Would you mind connecting with some of those sources listed and
correcting their mistake? Thanks.
However, google replied to my query thusly on "Richard Hoxsey"
Your search - "Richard Hoxsey" cancer - did not match any documents.
While I got many references to Hoxley, as you can see.
Can you sort this out. I seem to be out of resources.
Kane
>
> "0:->" <pohaku.kane@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:JOednXWxr4WDYlXZnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@scnresearch.com...
>
>
--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)
| |
| JohnDoe 2006-07-28, 2:25 am |
| George Giesler wrote:
> "JohnDoe" <none@ofyourbusiness.com> wrote in message
> news:44c8b80a$0$2023$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...
>
>
>
> I think you're fairly ignorant of Ancient Chinese Herbal Remedies - to
> dismiss a proven system of medicine because you believe it involves
> "sticking cigarettes up your ear" just illuminates your closed mind.
I don't 'believe' it involves sticking cigarettes up your ear, I've seen
it. I suppose it's a form a moxibustion, which is widely used in Chinese
medicine. But you knew that of course.
> You're full of shit John, and just blow smoke 'cause some idiot has taught
> you some cute jingles. lol.
Care to show me your alleged proof of the efficacy of your 'proven
system' or are you just going to spout foul language because don't have
any? FYI, just because something has been around for a few thousand
years doesn't mean it's proven to work. Just look at bloodletting.
| |
| JohnDoe 2006-07-28, 8:29 am |
| Johnny Huang wrote:
> JohnDoe,
>
> That is not a professional Chinese Medical treatment for gout. It may
> have been somebody's own protocol, but it is nothing like what is
> taught and practiced in the PRC, Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, etc.
I'm sorry, but this sounds an awful lot like a 'no true Scotsman'
defense to me.
> Gout treatments are most frequently Acupuncture with dietary advice,
> occasionally some herbs.
>
> Your example of this so-called gout treatment bears no more relation to
> professional Chinese Medicine than does Hoxey to professional oncology.
As you may have guessed, I'm a fan of evidence based medicine. And I
don't care whether any of it comes from TCM, the labs of Roche or the
little old lady down the street. Thing is, I haven't seen too much
evidence for TCM, and that's an understatement. That is not to say it's
all worthless. I'm sure TCM has lots of stuff worth looking into with
proper scientific research, just like we got some useful stuff from
Western herbalism. But as long as the folks sticking cigarettes up
people's ears have as much evidence for the efficacy of their treatments
as there is for the whole of TCM, I don't think you are in a position to
criticize them or to claim that that isn't 'professional' TCM.
> JohnDoe wrote:
>
>
>
| |
| Jan Drew 2006-07-28, 8:29 am |
|
"0:->" <pohaku.kane@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Zv-dnVPuFZcl91TZnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@scnresearch.com...
> Jan Drew wrote:
>
> http://www.alliance-natural-health....tion=news&ID=76
> "But others, marketed as cures, were dangerous. Examples included Essiac
> (a Canadian herbal mixture), Hoxley formula (also a herbal mixture),
> mistletoe, laetrile (derived from the seeds of bitter almonds and
> apricots) and shark cartilage."
>
> http://www.newstarget.com/000902.html
> "Finally, what's most amusing about this story is that many of the
> substances ridiculed here are, in fact, powerful cancer-fighting products
> or compounds: Essiac herbal tea, the Hoxley formulas, and laetrile."
>
> http://www.scienceblog.com/communit.../20043376.shtml
> "... Di Bella therapy (complex treatment developed by an Italian doctor),
> Hoxley formula (herbal mixture), mistletoe, laetrile (derived from the
> seeds of bitter almonds and apricots) and shark cartilage."
>
> Thank you.
>
> Would you mind connecting with some of those sources listed and correcting
> their mistake? Thanks.
You're welcome.
>
> However, google replied to my query thusly on "Richard Hoxsey"
>
> Your search - "Richard Hoxsey" cancer - did not match any documents.
Say what?
Richard Hoxsey?
Richard Hoxsey cancer.
That is two different searches.
Richard Hoxsey leads to *Harry* Hoxsey.
>
> While I got many references to Hoxley, as you can see.
I can see you searched wrong.
>
> Can you sort this out. I seem to be out of resources.
>
> Kane
Google search.
Try this Hoxsey.
Web Results 1 - 10 of about 95,400 for Hoxsey. (0.05 seconds)
http://www.cancure.org/hoxsey_clinic.htm
Harry. Not Richard.
>
>
>
>
> --
> "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
> to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
> contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)
| |
| George Giesler 2006-07-28, 8:29 am |
|
"JohnDoe" <none@ofyourbusiness.com> wrote in message
news:44c9bd6c$0$2032$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...
> Johnny Huang wrote:
>
>
> I'm sorry, but this sounds an awful lot like a 'no true Scotsman' defense
> to me.
>
>
> As you may have guessed, I'm a fan of evidence based medicine.
What's 'evidence based medicine' John - when the FDA meets the dope
companies to exchange gratuities for rigged 'reports'.
Or did 'evidence based medicine' give us fen-fen, vioxx, zyprexa and a list
of poison too long to list. Is this 'evidence based medicine' John ? -
foisting known poisons on unsuspecting folks so the rich can get richer. No
wonder folks don't trust doctors or drug companies. lol.
| |
| JohnDoe 2006-07-28, 8:29 am |
| George Giesler wrote:
> "JohnDoe" <none@ofyourbusiness.com> wrote in message
> news:44c9bd6c$0$2032$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...
>
>
>
> What's 'evidence based medicine' John - when the FDA meets the dope
> companies to exchange gratuities for rigged 'reports'.
What, no Illuminati? No mention of Bilderberg or the Rockefellers? Neophyte!
> Or did 'evidence based medicine' give us fen-fen, vioxx, zyprexa and a list
> of poison too long to list. Is this 'evidence based medicine' John ? -
All medications proven to do what they're supposed to. And yes, they
carry risks. Which is monitored, noticed and dealt with. Unlike the
medicine I guess you promote - plenty of harm done, no proven benefits
and in very many cases, proven to have no benefit at all, only risks and
barely anyone who cares enough to do something about it.
> foisting known poisons on unsuspecting folks so the rich can get richer. No
> wonder folks don't trust doctors or drug companies. lol.
Assuming that you are an adult (as opposed to Abraham Cherrix), I'm
quite happy to let natural selection do its job on you.
| |
| George Giesler 2006-07-28, 8:29 am |
|
"JohnDoe" <none@ofyourbusiness.com> wrote in message
news:44c9db64$0$2015$ba620dc5@text.nova.planet.nl...
> George Giesler wrote:
>
> What, no Illuminati? No mention of Bilderberg or the Rockefellers?
> Neophyte!
>
>
> All medications proven to do what they're supposed to. And yes, they carry
> risks. Which is monitored, noticed and dealt with. Unlike the medicine I
> guess you promote - plenty of harm done, no proven benefits and in very
> many cases, proven to have no benefit at all, only risks and barely anyone
> who cares enough to do something about it.
>
>
> Assuming that you are an adult (as opposed to Abraham Cherrix), I'm quite
> happy to let natural selection do its job on you.
Y thanks Lord - 'preciate it. lol
| |
| Johnny Huang 2006-07-28, 8:29 am |
|
JohnDoe wrote:
> Johnny Huang wrote:
>
>
> I'm sorry, but this sounds an awful lot like a 'no true Scotsman'
> defense to me.
>
>
> As you may have guessed, I'm a fan of evidence based medicine. And I
> don't care whether any of it comes from TCM, the labs of Roche or the
> little old lady down the street. Thing is, I haven't seen too much
> evidence for TCM, and that's an understatement. That is not to say it's
> all worthless. I'm sure TCM has lots of stuff worth looking into with
> proper scientific research, just like we got some useful stuff from
> Western herbalism. But as long as the folks sticking cigarettes up
> people's ears have as much evidence for the efficacy of their treatments
> as there is for the whole of TCM, I don't think you are in a position to
> criticize them or to claim that that isn't 'professional' TCM.
>
Yes, I am in a position to criticize. The NIH would disagree with your
view on evidence as would several medical schools which do the research
and teach Acupuncture. Ever hear of Duke University?
If someone says that using Hulda Clark's methods is western oncology,
I'll say that it isn't. I don't have to withhold comment because
someone might use the no true oncologist "scottsman" defense.
TCM is a professional science with properly accreditted Phd programs in
several asian and european countries and a clinical doctorate in the
USA. Using cigaretes in people's ears is not a part of TCM any more
than Hoxley is a part of mainstream oncology. Don't make that baseless
comparison again.
[vbcol=seagreen]
| |
|
| Jan Drew wrote:
> "0:->" <pohaku.kane@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Zv-dnVPuFZcl91TZnZ2dnUVZ_rmdnZ2d@scnresearch.com...
>
> You're welcome.
>
> Say what?
>
> Richard Hoxsey?
>
> Richard Hoxsey cancer.
>
> That is two different searches.
>
> Richard Hoxsey leads to *Harry* Hoxsey.
>
> I can see you searched wrong.
>
> Google search.
>
> Try this Hoxsey.
>
> Web Results 1 - 10 of about 95,400 for Hoxsey. (0.05 seconds)
>
>
> http://www.cancure.org/hoxsey_clinic.htm
>
> Harry. Not Richard.
Ah, thank you. My error.
Best wishes, Kane
--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)
| |
| JohnDoe 2006-08-01, 8:29 am |
| Johnny Huang wrote:
> JohnDoe wrote:
>
>
>
> Yes, I am in a position to criticize. The NIH would disagree with your
> view on evidence as would several medical schools which do the research
> and teach Acupuncture. Ever hear of Duke University?
Johnny, are you interested in starting a new seperate thread on this
subject? Since I've never seen you spout utter nonsense, resort to
namecalling etc and you seem knowledgable about the subject, we might
have an interesting discussion on the subject.
> If someone says that using Hulda Clark's methods is western oncology,
> I'll say that it isn't. I don't have to withhold comment because
> someone might use the no true oncologist "scottsman" defense.
>
> TCM is a professional science with properly accreditted Phd programs in
> several asian and european countries and a clinical doctorate in the
> USA. Using cigaretes in people's ears is not a part of TCM any more
> than Hoxley is a part of mainstream oncology. Don't make that baseless
> comparison again.
I guess you'd like to make a distinction between TCM and what could be
called TCFM - Traditional Chinese Folk Remedies, which can be as silly
as the Traditional Western Folk Remedy of tying a string around a wart
and then burn the string. But on what basis would you assign a remedy to
one or the other category?
>
|
| |
|
|