Daniel Hauser is a 13-year old with Hodgkin lymphoma, which is one of the cancers that actually can be cured. Sadly, he will not be cured of Hodgkin lymphoma, and here’s why. His mommy refuses treatment:
Hauser, whose son was diagnosed in January with Hodgkin’s lymphoma, said conventional treatments such as chemotherapy conflict with the family’s religious beliefs. She said they prefer natural remedies such as herbs and vitamins.
Asked where she learned about the alternative healing techniques, Hauser said, “on the Internet.”
And mommy, Colleen Hauser, doesn’t even have the guts to speak to reporters herself:
The Hausers declined to speak to reporters after Friday’s court session. But Dan Zwakman, a member of the Nemenhah religious group to which they belong, acted as the family spokesman. He argued that this is a case about religious freedom, noting that the group’s motto is “our religion is our medicine.”
This is repulsive and should be criminal. You might as have the kid’s funeral now so at least he can attend.
I’ve never quite understood this line of reasoning. They are prepared to give him some medicines — albeit ineffective herbal ones — and not others — even thought the others are effective. That’s loony.
I would have thought if God allowed any medicine, then He would allow all medicine. If He didn’t want any, then He would ensure ALL herbal ones were ineffective.
Have you ever had a kid battle cancer? Who are you to judge? We have a right to raise our children as we see fit. Do you realize chemotherapy is a freakin poision. If you are for it so much you go put it in your body.
My son died of Leukemia 2 freakin years ago. I did every medical procedure they recommended. It made him worse and worse until the treatment itself killed him.
So, I support this family for standing up and trying an alternative form of medicine. Everyone wants the separation of Government and Religion. So back up out of our Religious beliefs.
Turner, you are absolutely right. I can’t believe HOW stupid people are. “traditional” treatment surgery/chemo and radiation treat symptoms.And that is why cancer Always come back. Alternative addresses the cause of cancer. Body can heal itself from anything. My friend with cancer is living proof , that with proper nutrition and mind/body connection you can beat anything. Healing always comes from inside.
That is incorrect, Sam. Chemotherapy does not merely treat symptoms but the disease itself. And if treated, Daniel’s odds of survival are believed to increase from 5% to about 95%. Further, cancer doesn’t always come back. On occasion it does. That’s certainly a risk. Fortunately, none of the cancer survivors I know have had a return. And contrary to the nonsense alternative medicine practitioners feed you while selling your their snake oil, the body can’t heal itself from anything. Good nutrition is great but it’s no substitute for real medicine. That’s why the life expectancy of humans was 30 years prior to the advent of modern medicine.
Who am I to judge? Are you serious? Do you also have the right to kill your children as you see fit? Chemotherapy has an extraordinary track record for success. But no, I would not undergo it unless I had cancer. I also wouldn’t undergo heart surgery unless I had a heart problem. Whether a person would undergo a procedure when it’s wholly unnecessary is not a legitimate criteria for whether it’s an appropriate procedure for treating a cancer patient. Now if I did have a treatable and entirely curable condition, I absolutely would undergo the therapy as I’m not crazy. And I do know people who have undergone chemotherapy and are alive today because of it.
Now I’m sorry if your son died of Leukemia but nobody ever promised medical intervention was 100% effective. And while the treatment would indeed weaken a person, it most certainly would not have been the cause of death, which would have probably been the Leukemia itself.
But that’s great that you support this family’s decision. Maybe they’ll invite you to the funeral. You can swap dead son stories.
why people treat each other the way the do? Do you want to cut Turner’s throat? Are you blood thirsty? Educate yourself before making your statements. Cancer can be cured by addressing the cause of it with nutrition, meditation and other alternative treatments. In a pursuit of a healthy body most valuable possession is an open mind. A cynical attitude is an obstacle to learning, but blind acceptance is just as bad. Run mother, run.
SO, if medical intervention isn’t 100%, why not let an alternative approach out for a try. My daugther was told that her hole in her heart would not heal. I just went into the doctor for the followup ultrasound and it healed 95% in 3 weeks. Humm… sometimes doctors can’t heal everything. With a little faith and god’s answered prayers, our little girl is doing great.
I commend the family for sticking up for what they feel is in the best interest of their family. Now that a large portion of why treatments work is the person’s faith and believing that it will work.
Shame on the “government” for thinking that they have the right to manage our families. What’s next… If I have a child with a terminal illness and I want treatment for my child… will they be denied treatment because they are not worth saving…. It works both ways people!
Cathy, I believe you are falling victim to the logical fallacy known as a False Continuum. The options aren’t simply 100% effectiveness vs. 0% effectiveness. While REAL medical treatments are not 100% effective (nor is anything), they come pretty damned close, particularly with regards to Daniel’s chemotherapy, which doctors believe has a 90-95% likelihood of success. Now with regards to an “alternative” approach, it depends on the approach. Some “alternative” “medicine” modalities are actually dangerous while others are benign. Assuming we’re talking about a benign “alternative” “treatment”, I would have no serious objection to it so long as it’s IN ADDITION to the proven methods of science. My only concern in that case would be that I’d hate for the bogus treatment to get credit for saving him when it was really the medical treatment that did it. But at least he’d survive, which I’m sure we both would agree, is the most important thing. But to provide only an unproven treatment without also using the proven treatment would be medically unethical and possibly criminal.
I don’t commend the family and in fact, the situation has gotten worse. After the judge ruled that Daniel would have to be treated with REAL medicine, the mother has now kidnapped Daniel and is on the run. And so far everyone on all sides of this issue have publicly opposed her response. So instead of giving Daniel a 95% chance of survival, his likelihood of survival is now dropping each day, simply because this mother is too proud and arrogant to admit there are people who know more about her son’s condition than she does.
And studies show the opposite of what you’re saying. A treatment works regardless of whether you believe it will or not. Further, your analogy is a false one, which bares no resemblance whatsoever to the actual case win which a boy is being deprived of necessary and proven medical care by his selfish, ignorant, and arrogant mother.
But I’m sure your commending her will be great comfort to her at her son’s funeral. Maybe you can get an invite.
The mother did not kidnap her child. Nobody has business in this childs ordeal but his . Al if anyone can love and care more about this child than his mother. It is criminal for anyone to intervene. You mention a lot of studies. Who conducted and financed those studies? Do you know? Thousands kids suffer from real abuse, neglect where is the government to help them?
Daniel should be left to his family to decide what to do. As an example read the book “Raw family” about a mother who refused to put her child on insulin when he was diagnosed with Diabetes. Nutrition and only nutrition healed him. Diabetes is known in medical world as “untreatable”
I have to agree with Turner. Look at history- what if the judge was ordering a lobotomy. That was common in the 1930-1950s so now we are resorting to that again. People were cured by that as well but many died from it as well. Yes chemo can kill people but it also saves people. This boy did one round of chemo and after that he & his family decided to look at other alternatives (which were researched on the internet where most people in the mother’s position would turn to find what else is out there). He does not want chemo again & said that he will physically fight anyone who tries to do that to him again. If it was my child, I would most likely go w/ the chemo (although difficult to pump radiation into my child killing both good & bad cells and watching it make my child sick) but I would want to research the options & make the decision not have courts force me. I believe that this family is using religion as a crutch instead of saying chemo is too difficult & we want other options. I also know people that survived cancer who used natural methods & also ones who used chemo. To each their own. Keep the courts out of family decisions. Parents should also not be forced to vaccinate their children- are we going to to start charging them w/ crimes too or maybe if they do vaccinate & the child gets autism then we should charge the parent for making the wrong choice. That is where this heading, taking parents rights away & then charging them for making decisions that aren’t popular or have negative effects.
“hat if the judge was ordering a lobotomy.” Depends on the case. If the boy has only a 5% chance of survival and the experts all agree that a lobotomy will increase those odds to 90-95& (as in this case), then I’m all for the lobotomy. Rejecting a hard reality in favor of the far more comforting lies of a charlatan selling magic beans is no solution to Daniel’s problem. Daniel is 13 years old and a minor. The judge had every legal authority to rule against the family and insist on proven life-saving treatments. And when Daniel is 18 years old, he has every right to throw his life away on bogus remedies.
Now I’m very happy to hear you say that you would embrace the medical treatment proven most effective in fighting cancer. I’m all for personal freedoms but when it comes to risking the lives of minors, that’s a different story. The community has a responsibility to protect children too, even sometimes from their own parents. That’s why Child Protective Services exists in the first place. The judge ruling in the case as well as myself think that their involvement here was appropriate.
Further, the idea that vaccines cause autism is a malicious myth. No child has ever been proven to have become autistic because of vaccines and the evidence is overwhelmingly against that hypothesis. I recommend the sites:
http://www.stopjenny.com
http://www.dangerousttalk.net/a-team/Vaccines
What makes you a judge? Who are the experts? You know NOTHING about alternative medicine. Just because it doesn’t fit your narrow mind doesn’t make it “bogus”. Why are you so easy with labels? I think it is called a “fanatic”? Can you imagine that many cancer cells would never grow to become a problem if you leave them alone? Hunting every cancer cell with chemo and radiation is an absurd.
I am quite educated on the subject. It’s quite arrogant for you to assume I’m not just because I disagree with your beliefs. If alternative medicine was worth it’s salt, it wouldn’t be alternative but part of regular medicine. The problem is that REAL medicine requires empirical evidence of its effectiveness and has a system of accountability if things go wrong, whereas alt. med. continually fails every controlled study that might prove it’s effectiveness and if it fails, the practitioner can just claim the victim didn’t follow the plan closely enough. And in doing so, they ensure that they can never be wrong even when they are.
No, REAL science actually undergoes a rigorous peer review process where scientists actually try to dis-confirm their own beliefs to ensure quality control, whereas no such mechanism exists in the alt. med. world. Everything simply is assumed to work because it people have been doing it for thousands of years and because of anecdotal evidence alone. But the science is clear. The more carefully controlled the study, the more the alleged effects of alternative medicine disappear. Smoke and mirrors. And again, if such methods were so effective for thousands of years, why did it take the arrival of modern Western medicine to drastically improve quality of life and life expectancy rates? A few hundred years ago, most babies died at birth and people didn’t live much longer than 30 years. You confuse a skeptical attitude that demands actual evidence proportional to extraordinary claims with being a cynic. I am not a cynic and am as open-minded as the next person. I’m simply not so open-minded that my brain falls out. And you project your own blind acceptance onto me. I have no emotional attachment to any conclusion. I will happily change my mind given the appropriate level of evidence. And all it takes to convince me is for alt. med. practitioners to do exactly what they say they can do under proper scientifically controlled conditions that will prevent any chance of cheating. That’s an entirely reasonable position, and one that prevents me from gullibly accepting a lie.
Are you aware that ONLY USA considers alternative medicine as an alternative? In the rest of the world alternative is a mainstream medicine. Doctors are trained in herbal therapy, light therapy, sound therapy electro therapy, acupuncture, etc. and many other types of therapy. You need proof? Are you following the story of Kris Carr with untreatable cancer stage 4? Google her name. My dear friend living with cancer 4 years past his “time” determined by doctors. First chemo almost killed him and permanently damaged his nerves. When cancer came back in more aggressive form, and it always does, as the cause of it was not being addressed, the doctors said there is nothing they can do. Oh, well, my friend had an open mind and with nutrition and mind-body connection therapy and nothing else, he is living quite well.
A grew up without going to doctors not because we had no doctors, but because there always was a home remedy, mostly herbs. Kids colds were treated with herbs, light therapy, cupping, etc. and never with antibiotics. even pneumonia was treated without pills. I am sorry, but you are the product of American media brain washing. That is quite said as you call yourself educated and hav narrow mind.
just for the sake of this argument, read the book ” A Cancer Battle Plan” by David J. Fraham.
The body can heal itself, you just have to help it.
“Are you aware that ONLY USA considers alternative medicine as an alternative? In the rest of the world alternative is a mainstream medicine.”
A. That’s totally false. While more people in other nations may use homeopathic products, etc, it’s still considered alternative medicine & not part of the mainstream. And are you aware, that despite these amazing alt. med. products being more widely used in numerous other nations, those nations still have the same basic health problems as we find here. It’s almost like all those miracle claims are just hype. No, it can’t be that, right? It’s got to be that they’re just not using them right.
And regarding this unimpressive anecdote of yours, I believe Melissa has already responded adequately to it. But I’ll also add that nobody denies that chemo has risks, but to claim those potential risks outweigh the benefits is just flat-out dishonest.
You can’t present a single reputable study that closely analyzes many cases under proper scientifically controlled conditions to back up your claims and credulously accept any anecdotes that happen to confirm your beliefs while inconsistently rejecting any anecdotes that might go against your views. There’s a term for this. It’s called Confirmation Bias. You have no understanding of how real science works or the difference between high-grade evidence and low-grade evidence. And you insist on living in woeful paranoid ignorance. It’s great to have an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out.
Sam, you are a liar. Did the child with diabetes have type 1 or type 2? Type 2 diabetes can often be “cured” or prevented with diet and exercise, however, type 1 diabetes absolutely cannot be cured. I know, I happen to have it. And diabetes is treatable, that’s what insulin is for.
Religion is destructive.
How quick you people with labels, read the book dear Melissa. I thought they teach kids in pre-school not to call people names.
Sam, you said, “The mother did not kidnap her child. Nobody has business in this childs ordeal but his.” That’s factually not true. She was legally required to bring the child before the court and instead chose to go on the run. Children aren’t just property but human beings with rights that extend well beyond whatever their parents might choose for them. And I think you’d be hard pressed to find any human society on the planet where the community doesn’t also have responsibilities to protect those who can’t always protect themselves from human rights abuses, even when they’re the children of others. That’s not criminal; that’s basic human decency.
“Daniel should be left to his family to decide what to do. As an example read the book “Raw family” about a mother who refused to put her child on insulin when he was diagnosed with Diabetes.” Better yet, why not ask Daniel to read the book. Oh yeah, Daniel is completely illiterate. Apparently reading wasn’t deemed necessary by his home-schooling mother. Daniel has been brainwashed from the womb and his parents have done him a tremendous disservice. If he does survive, once his mother goes to jail, he’ll have a hard life. There aren’t many jobs out there for the illiterate. And if you think nutrition is a substitute for medicine, you’re living in a fantasy world. WAKE UP!
“Diabetes is known in medical world as “untreatable” ”
Um, no it isn’t. It’s treated with insulin, and new we’re fast reaching the point where even insulin shots are not longer necesssary.
Sam said, “What makes you a judge? Who are the experts? You know NOTHING about alternative medicine. Just because it doesn’t fit your narrow mind doesn’t make it “bogus”.”
Finally, you said one true thing. Indeed, I’m not the judge. Judge Rodenberg is. You just don’t like what he has to say on the matter and wish to continue to live far removed from reality with your fingers over your ears so nothing can penetrate your dogmatic ideology where if only everyone took magic beans, nobody would ever die, and then project that dogmatism onto everyone who disagrees with you because you have such arrogance in your ignorance that you can’t accept the idea that some people know more about medicine than you despite your having no medical background at all.
“Hunting every cancer cell with chemo and radiation is an absurd.”
No, your denial of basic medical reality is absurd. I recommend this article even though you’ll inevitably just write it off because you know better than all the experts:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/05/chemotherapy_versus_death_from_cancer.php
Melissa Dawn – check out The Raw Family…their son had type 1 diabetes and refused treatment.
Regarding the subject at hand…Hodgkins Lymphoma IS curable without chemo or radiation. My niece is living proof (without a single chemo/radiation treatment). God created our bodies to heal themselves…we just need to get rid of the junk we put into them to give the healing process a chance. Keep your pH balance at the correct level (read the pH Miracle) and the “bad” cells/bacteria/virus/etc. can no longer survive.
Special note…everyone keeps saying this is a highly curable cancer. Correct, but what isn’t stated is that the odds of suffering from another type of cancer later in life increases to somewhere around 85%. If this was your child, would you almost guarantee him a life of fighting cancer at every point in his life or do you give the natural cure a chance. Hmmm…no brainer for me.
Another note…why don’t we hear about the natural cures more often? Just follow the money trail would be my guess. My niece has spent less on detox and organic food then what I suspect one chemo treatment would have been.
This is a subject that each person has to research for themselves. Read everything you can, keep an open mind and don’t judge until you’ve walked in this family’s shoes.
1. Teri, I find properly conducted studies of many cases under scientifically controlled protocols far more compelling than mere anecdotes given the incredible fragility of the human mind and epically poor track record of anecdotal evidence. If anecdotal evidence was worth its salt, we’d all have to accept that millions of people have been abducted by space aliens.
“God created our bodies to heal themselves…we just need to get rid of the junk we put into them to give the healing process a chance.”
First, I’m going to need proof that such a being actually exists. Then please point me to an amputee whose body has healed itself. And if all this junk, as you call it, is so bad for us, how come we on average live almost 3 times longer than our ancestors who didn’t have this “junk” in their bodies?
“…but what isn’t stated is that the odds of suffering from another type of cancer later in life increases to somewhere around 85%.” Yeah, and even if he is cured of his cancer, his odds of one day dying anyway is 100%. So why bother treating him at all, right? I mean it’s just a little extra suffering and a few less decades of life. After all, it’s not your life, so who cares?
“Hmmm…no brainer for me.’ Truer words have never been spoken.
“Another note…why don’t we hear about the natural cures more often? Just follow the money trail would be my guess.”
You’re tellin’ me!! You’d think that with all these miracle cures that promise to solve every medical problem in world that those selling it would be all over the media, celebrated like gods and win the Nobel Prize. It’s almost like their products don’t live up to their hype. And yet, as you suggest, if you just follow the money, these magic bean salesmen are making a killing anyway despite their refusing to help the rest of the world by submitting their findings to scientific peer review to ensure that people around the world can gain access to their great healing products.
Sorry myr256, but you are just plain naive. All your numbers tell me nothing. It is all about money…There is no point in arguing with you as you are not listening… My nephew was diagnosed with sarcoma at the age of 8.He had no chemo or radiation, all treatment was alternative, mostly herbs. He is 27 now.
Thanks Tery
Sam
Quite frankly, I’m not at all concerned that some other countries may recognize alternative medicine. These methods of “healing” are just as worthless there as they are here, and some countries have been suckered into accepting this quackery with the smoke and mirrors mjr256 mentioned earlier. I’m simply grateful we haven’t quite reached that low point in the US yet.
To the excellent post by mjr256 where he told you he requires empirical evidence to support his belief in medicine, you replied with yet more anecdotal stories to use as so called “proof.” Don’t get us wrong, as we are all grateful your friend with cancer has survived four years past what the doctors expected. You need to realize this is the exception though. Chemo and radiation, along with surgery in some cases, are proven to work! It is absolutely absurd to suggest that these treatments do not treat the cause of the symptoms, as they do. Yes, they may cause harm as well, as they are toxins, but they certainly prolong life and have saved people on numerous occasions. Notice that no reputable scientist has claimed to have a foolproof cure for cancer, but still do the best they can to prolong lives with the knowledge and technology they have available now.
Rather than continuing in your way of thinking, look up the studies that have been completed that debunk alternative medicine. It is hypocritical of you to call us narrow minded and brain washed, when many (including myself) have looked up alternative medicine studies. There is not a single well done scientific study that supports alternative medicine’s efficacy over the placebo effect. Yes, positive thinking is good and being in a good mindset with hope certainly doesn’t hurt the healing process, but there is no denying the effectiveness of modern medicine.
In addition, no one has denied that the body can heal itself in many cases. Modern medicine knows this, and uses the body’s own healing in everything it does. Medicine is built around the body’s healing, and simply supports and encourages healing to make it easier for the body to heal itself in the many cases that the body cannot handle by itself. Vaccines for example, do not provide any protection by themselves. They rely on the immune response to the vaccine to protect the patient against future threats. Surgery always relies on the body to heal after the invasive procedure, and many experimental cancer therapies are working on targeting cancer cells for destruction by the immune system.
Find me a study that supports any alternative therapy, and I will be happy to look at it. Do some research, and don’t continue on your own comfortable path in believing the easiest, most “natural” way of healing is the best.
There is no money in the study of alternative therapy…By the way there is no such thing as epidemic of breast cancer in Russia- their women do not take birth control pills starting at the tender age of 14 or try to manipulate their periods to their convenience…and 20 years later wonder why did they get breast cancer..
Utter bullshit. To claim that so-called “alternative” “medicine” practitioners don’t profit off their labor is patently absurd and not only is breast cancer alive and well in Russia but the mortality rate of those who suffer from breast cancer in Russia is rising, suggesting you’re either deliberately being dishonest or are ignorant. You tell me. (http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/dym066v1)
Conspicuous that every agnostic or atheist site that’s handled this story has gone on in usual form about “evils or religion in bioethics” and whatnot, but none have bothered to name the Nemenhah Band or their leader (Philip Cloudpiler) – all effectively Native American, and all centered around the belief that sweat lodges and natural medicine are potential cures for cancer.
Political correctness, anyone? Or is overt distaste for belief only preferred when the targets/scapegoats are easy. I suppose it’s easier to yell from a soapbox (or from an anonymous blog site) about how “evil and deluded” American Christians are rather than how “evil and deluded” Native American shamans are. One is ok to say, of course; the other is off limits, because… well, Kevin Costner and Rage Against the Machine told me so.
Well if you bothered checking every objective news source, you’d find no coincidence because they’re all using this case as a jumping off point to discuss that particular controversial issue. It’s only natural that blogs critical of religion would also address the subject as well, no?
But in actuality, this story has little to do w/ religion because the Nemenhah Band is a faux-Native American religion & Colleen had no religious objection at all to giving her son chemo the first time.
Further, you confuse respect for science, reason, and evidence for ideological attacks. Show me solid empirical evidence that such alternative treatments actually work and most of us will happily sing their praises. But given that a young boy’s life literally hangs in the balance, I’m deeply troubled by your accusation that we’re attacking an easy target.
And I’m hardly anonymous. My name can be found in numerous blog entries and in some cases, I’ve reprinted whole articles here elsewhere under my full name. And I always source my information, so I fail to see why it matters to you whether I’m anonymous or not. You seem far more focused on the messenger than the message itself and in engaging in ad hominem attacks.
Further, I’m an equal opportunity opponent of religion, whether Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Zoroastrian, or Wiccan. I adamently oppose faith-based beliefs of all kinds. But this is a typical gambit, particularly of Christians. They often say, sure, you pick on Christianity but you’re too afraid to attack Islam. Well, I’ve condemned Islam countless times on this blog and I’ll happily do so again here because I’m unafraid of offending them. So fuck Jesus and fuck Mohammed too!
Now as a lover of pop culture, I’m saddened that I didn’t get your Costner and Rage Against the Machine references.
Parent A: The voices told me to kill my child with this knife.
Parent B: My religion says I should not treat my child for this highly curable cancer.
The law should treat Parent A and B equally.
I agree. In situations like this one, negligence can be tantamount to killing. Though in terms of charging and sentencing, I think Parent B should be treated more like a case of manslaughter than say, murder one.
I was diagosed with Hodgkins at 18 years and 2 months (26 years ago) and I had lunatic, religious nuts for parents – that’s probably why I’m so passionate about this issue.
If I had a different background, my opinion would be the same but I probably wouldn’t be so eager to prosecute the parents. If these people are ever tried, the defense wouldn’t want me on the jury.
If “in actuality, this story has little to do w/ religion” then why call Daniel a “victim of religion?” Is it because you’re confusing fallacious arguments for scientific, reasoned and substantiated arguments against religion? It is true, this case has nothing to do with religion so to use it as a weapon with which to attack religion invalidates whatever anti-religion argument one has.
It has little to do with what is traditionally considered religion but has everything to do with faith-based belief systems, which I often define in this blog as a kind of religion. Colleen Hauser is rejecting proven science because of her own superstitions and putting her son’s life in the hands of her faith-based beliefs. But I stand behind my complete statement, which you chose to omit from your response: “But in actuality, this story has little to do w/ religion because the Nemenhah Band is a faux-Native American religion & Colleen had no religious objection at all to giving her son chemo the first time.” The Nemenhah Band element of this story was nothing but an excuse, unlike when Christian Science followers try to use their religious beliefs to opt out of medical treatment. However, because she IS using that excuse, the media and myself have legitimate cause to use this story as a jumping off point to discuss the ethics of just religious exceptions.
ignorance is bliss
Great video: zeitgeist Goggle video
and for Cancer… check out “world without cancer” G. Edward Griffin.
I personally know 3 survivors using this method.
That’s great. Just present a study to the scientific community for peer review so they have more than just your word on it.
I wonder why people need to have an excuse if they decide not to take a treatment. This boy is only 13 but he and his parents have decided not to take anymore chemo.Why is it okay to say that a female of the same age is mature enough to undergo an abortion(surgery) without the consent of her parents but this boy is to young to decide what is best for his own body with the help of his parents? It does not matter how effective or ineffective chemo is. We should have the right to choose.
Really? You don’t see any difference? Daniel Hauser WILL DIE. He’s got a 5% chance of surviving cancer w/o chemo. Chemo ups his chances of survival from 5% to 90-95%. An abortion is an elective procedure. There are very few instances in which not undergoing an abortion will result in certain death. The 2 procedures couldn’t be more dissimilar. Further, the specifics of the Hauser cause illustrate why the Hausers are unfit parents quite well. Daniel is home schooled, illiterate, and totally brainwashed to follow whatever his mother says. Parents do not own their kids. Children are entitled to basic human rights, chief among them the right to life. Now a judge has ruled that he does not believe 13-year-old Daniel has been allowed to make an informed decision. And instead of trying to challenge that decision legally, Colleen Hauser has chosen to violate the law and kidnap Daniel. This is unacceptable. But if I understand your argument correctly, does that mean you don’t believe there should even be a child protection services to step in when parents act abusively ever? And if that is not your position, where do you draw that line where it is acceptable to overrule the will of the parents?
If Daniel will die, that will be not from cancer. Right now this boys need positive and nurturing environment. Thanks to the state he is going thru emotional hell right now that is not going to help him to fight cancer. Did you read reply from the nurse from children’s oncology center? Very short and wise reply. 5 year survival rate, that is what you call cure. As long as he doesn’t die before 5 year, the cancer is beaten, according to you. What this boy will have to go thru if chemo is forced, doesn’t bother you. Ask people who had chemo. And please don’t mention your scientific peer review anymore.
LOL.
Where do you come up with your crap? Now that Colleen Hauser has taken REAL medicine off the table, you know the “alternative” “treatments” won’t work, so now you’re already building the excuses for after he dies. You’ll just say, don’t blame the herbs; it was the “emotional hell” he was put through that killed him. So even if he dies, you’ll still cling to your nonsensical beliefs. Your claims are unfalsifiable and nothing, even his death, will convince you that you just might possibly be wrong.
“As long as he doesn’t die before 5 year, the cancer is beaten, according to you.” When did I say that? Oh, that’s right. Never.
“What this boy will have to go thru if chemo is forced, doesn’t bother you.”
Nobody says chemo is a picnic, but neither is cancer. Cancer is a horrible, painful way to die. The chemo might be rough but he’ll survive it, not because of lunatics like yourself but because of the science you so take for granted. No, you don’t want to hear about how real science works. You’d rather believe in voodoo. That’s why fortunately nobody looks to you for medical advice.
Sam said, “Sorry myr256, but you are just plain naive. All your numbers tell me nothing. It is all about money…There is no point in arguing with you as you are not listening… My nephew was diagnosed with sarcoma at the age of 8.He had no chemo or radiation, all treatment was alternative, mostly herbs. He is 27 now.”
And you sir, are a biased, dogmatic ideologue who understands nothing about the scientific process or medicine and yet still arrogantly asserts to know better than those who have spent decades training, researching, and working in this field to become experts. You are anti-science and anti-intellectual. You cannot present any high-quality empirical evidence for your claims thinking you can substitute all that with mere anecdotes.
And because there’s a part of you that isn’t self-delusional and knows you’re talking out of your ass, you design your claims to be utterly unfalsifiable and critic-proof so that literally no evidence can ever be presented that could possibly convince you that you’re wrong. You’re simply right by fiat, and everyone else who disagrees with your special knowledge therefore must be wrong by default. Well I’m sorry but that’s neither rational nor logical. And then despite not presenting any empirical evidence at all, you have the audacity to project your own dogmatism onto me. It’s not me or the scientific community that just won’t listen; it’s you who have no interest in facts that disagree with your beliefs.
The conspiracy theory is the favorite tactic of the true believers. It is a convenient answer when the numbers just don’t add up. It takes no real proof, and often the absence of proof is just proof it exists! They all just KNOW they have “The Truth” and are uninterested in anything that might challenge that belief. Science doesn’t matter. Evidence doesn’t matter. Reason itself doesn’t matter. None of that matters, other than how they can be twisted to reach the desired conclusions, and any scientific evidence conflicting with that belief system must to them be the result of a coverup. This is all just like a cult, where, the more evidence is presented to members that they are in a cult, the more tightly they cling to their cultish beliefs.
Your anecdote about your nephew might actually mean something if the scientific position was that chemotherapy was the single only mechanism that can overcome cancer…but that’s not their position. And as far as I can tell, nobody of any consequence at all does hold that position, making your anecdote utterly meaningless. You have no idea if your nephew’s getting better was a result of herbs or if he was simply one of the lucky ones that simply got better on his own (something that has been shown in the medical literature to happen from time to time) shortly after he happened to take an herb. Therefore, you’re falling victim to the logical fallacy known as post hoc ergo promter hoc, literally meaning “after this therefore because of this,” aka association doesn’t equal correlation or causation. Just because B follows A doesn’t mean B was caused by A. Unless you can show through a controlled study of many people that takes into account human error and placebo effect, this is just superstition no more plausible than when ancient people’s trepanned one another to release the evil spirits. Sure, sometimes it seemed to work. But most of the time, it just left people with holes in their head.
If you had any interest in truth, you’d encourage more well-designed scientific testing of these products under proper controlled conditions, not less, because if you’re right, what we’d find is thousands of people revealed to have been cured by those products. But you don’t want scientists to test these products. This speaks volumes about your intellectual dishonesty. You’d rather make baseless accusations than conclusively prove your claims in a way that would be convincing.
For over 100 years, the American population has been the unwitting lab rat in a huge uncontrolled biological experiment. Everything from Preservatives and MSG to Food Dyes to Irradiation has degraded our nutritional state and contributed to a break down in health. Saccharine to Aspartame, DDT to PCB’s to Pthalates to BSA and on and on and on. The FDA says they are all at safe levels, but when you add them all up, you have been “eaten to death termites”. We are literally drowning in an ocean of sub-lethal doses of substances you were not designed to eat. Now lets use chemo to cure us from cancer that was cased by FDA approved nutrition, it was well designed and scientifically tested under proper conditions…. And according to you good food, in it’s whole raw state doesn’t aid in healing, and supporting good health?
So that’s why the average life of human beings has risen so dramatically in the last 100 years, because we’re all being poisoned. Give me a break. The rising life expectancy is the direct result of the advent of sewage systems, antibiotics, vaccines, and many other every day tools of science-based medicine, whereas things like acupuncture and herbs were around a lot longer. There’s a reason why people live on average 31.99 years in Swaziland & on average 81 years in Japan. I suggest you look at the chart reprinted in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy). In the 20th century alone, the average lifespan in the U.S. increased by more than 30 years.
Don’t pretend this is all just happening in the U.S. or it’s all just what the FDA says. Every reputable medical institution in the world recognizes the overwhelming benefits of modern science-based medicine. Sure, as any doctor will tell you, good nutrition is helpful to the healing process, but to claim not only that nutrition alone is responsible for good health but also that proper science-based medicine is more harmful than beneficial is flat-out absurd.
And if you’re just going to harp on this whole evil conspiracy nonsense again w/o presenting evidence, I’m just going to repeat what I said before:
The conspiracy theory is the favorite tactic of the true believers. It is a convenient answer when the numbers just don’t add up. It takes no real proof, and often the absence of proof is just proof it exists! They all just KNOW they have “The Truth” and are uninterested in anything that might challenge that belief. Science doesn’t matter. Evidence doesn’t matter. Reason itself doesn’t matter. None of that matters, other than how they can be twisted to reach the desired conclusions, and any scientific evidence conflicting with that belief system must to them be the result of a coverup. This is all just like a cult, where, the more evidence is presented to members that they are in a cult, the more tightly they cling to their cultish beliefs.
AMEN Sam!!! I agree wholeheartedly!
What’s astonishing to me is how many people believe the kind of nonsense Sam is going on about.
When I was diagnosed with early stage breast cancer, a business contact asked me if I wanted him to introduce me to a “healer” that he knew — INSTEAD OF DOING THE REAL TREATMENT.
I am still stunned that I personally know someone (later, come to find out three such people) that believes this nonsense.
I don’t know that many people and it’s just wrong that I am aware of three that believe this crap.
What.The.Hell. ?
I listen to Dr. Dean Edell on the radio sometimes. He talks about this stuff pretty often and he can not explain why people are willing to believe complete nonsense when it comes to their health.
I think it was Dr. Dean who said that people would probably be pretty skeptical if you told them you had an airplane that flys on orange juice — so why do so many people go stupid when it come to their bodies?
I don’t know.
I wish someone did.
Glad the law is, at least in Daniel’s case, on the side of protecting an innocent minor.
– and why haven’t they found those two yet?
Never mind.
She’s back. CNN says:
Colleen Hauser is prepared to allow her son Daniel to undergo chemotherapy, defense attorney Jennifer Keller said.
My mom had exactly the same – Hodgkin lymphoma, she died beeing 54 y.o. from heart problem in result of intensive chemo, not fom the lymphoma. She might live another couple of years if they would not torture her with chemo.
My wife is passed away from cancer in 45. She would probably live some months more if she would not take those awful chemo pills (they told us it will “control” the desease and slow it down, all I saw is she start deterioraing right away). Thanks to hospis people though, they know a bit more in this life then those butchers.
Who are you, people, who desides what is good for my kid? Gods? You are criminals, making money on someones grif. Why wouldn’t you spend all your brain to stop fake drugs sales instead of trying to defend your rotten society? You are criminals, who is making money on yellow papers exposing most intimate time of people’s life like Patrick Swayze. It is all disgusting and offensive for everyone who lost their loved ones. I don’t want to be notified of comments, thanks, I don’t care of your opinion. Just hope some right people read this and think again.
I’m sorry to hear about your mom, but again, that’s the exception, not the rule. Studies have proven that most people have an excellent chance of surviving chemo therapy. It’s like surgery. It’s not 100% safe. You have to realize that doctors aren’t either 100% effective or 0% effective but somewhere in between, and for every 1 person who dies after the chemo, there’s about 9 more whose lives have been saved because of it.
“My wife is passed away from cancer in 45. She would probably live some months more if she would not take those awful chemo pills (they told us it will “control” the desease and slow it down, all I saw is she start deterioraing right away).”
The deterioration you describe would be the cancer, not the pills. I assure you, cancer’s no picnic.
“Who are you, people, who desides what is good for my kid? Gods?”
No, gods don’t exist. Doctors are people who apply the same methods of science to treat people that you rely on every day of your life, from turning on a lightbulb, watching television, to writing this very message so people around the world can read it. But nobody’s perfect and sometimes the television doesn’t work and the best method of medicine is still not enough to save a life. But I can assure you that chemotherapy remains the very best proven method to fight cancer, so your wife was given her best chance.
“ou are criminals, making money on someones grif. Why wouldn’t you spend all your brain to stop fake drugs sales instead of trying to defend your rotten society?” No, that would be the “alternative” “medicine” practitioners who sell unproven quackery to people for profit. And it’s one of the main subjects frequently addressed in this very blog. When a treatment works most of the time, we call that medicine. Then it doesn’t, we call that alternative medicine.
I am sorry but you are a psyciopath, just shut up and stop insulting people who lost their loved ones to chemo. Just like all other “american idiots”
Sorry about about your mom and wife. That sucks.
People should also know that “old person Hodgkins” and “young person Hodgkins” are practically two separate diseases and that “young person Hodgkins” has a better prognosis.
Yes, it is the law’s place to protect children from parents who harm them.
I am with you Vlad,no point to argue with MYR he appears to be a phsyciopath.
Still can’t muster the slightest bit of a rational argument, can you? Nope, anyone who disagrees with your ideology is just a phychopath. Should I assume then that you also believe that virtually every medical doctor in the world is a psychopath too because they disagree with you?
Hello, I am a Teen who has Leukemia with the Philadelphia Chromosome, which means that even with Chemo my cancer will keep coming back. I had Total Body Radiation and a Bone Marrow Transplant, as will as Chemo. I just had my 1 year anniversary and a glad to say i am doing well.
Just so you know i am qualified to know what i am talking about.
It makes me sad that, even if it is for religious reasons, a family wouldn’t utilize all modern science has to offer. God gave man Medicine, and if He didn’t intent for it to be used for the benefit of LIFE, then what for??
Thank you for your time.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Jordan. Of course, as an atheist, I’d argue that man created medicine and not god. But in any event, I’m glad to hear you’re doing well.
If a judge in Minnesota can rule against a parents right to decide how they want to raise their child; this includes medically, then that judge has just contridicted a Jehovah’s Witness’ right not to have a blood transfusion based on their religious rights! Next thing you know they will be telling us when to sit on the pot and when to wipe!! Whatever happened to the land of the FREE and the home of the BRAVE!! There are too many ‘authorities’ out there that have UNJUST ‘control’ over our individual lives. I pray to God and wish the best for Daniel and his family.
No, you’re confusing the rights of an adult with the rights of a child. Children are not property. They are entitled to basic human rights, even if it goes against their parent’s religion. Once they turn 18, they can choose for themselves whether to receive medical treatment or not. Your toilet example would therefore constitute as a false analogy.
So let me ask you, does government have the right to stop you from beating your child to death? Why or why not? And if so, where do you draw that line between one form of life-saving intervention and another?
First I am speaking of the rights of the child and adult. Are you aware that as a patient (From the Patients Bill of Rights) if you refuse a medication (including chemo) that you have the RIGHT to do that AND that if it is FORCED upon you to take it against your will it is BY LAW considered assault and battery??? I know what I am talking about! As far as your ‘false analogy’ claim on my toilet example, what I am referring to is the rights of individuals taken away from them. Look at the news, we are headed that direction where we will be told what to drive, what to eat, how much we can rashion in a months time, etc, etc. There are persons like myself who are allergic to what is on the grocers’ shelves. Am I expected because someone else decides for me what I should eat to eat what I am allergic to and just live with the symptoms of that???
I think your question to me about the gov’t not being able to intervene on behalf of an abused/beaten child is CRUEL and HURTFUL. It also in NO way parallels what the topic is all about. If you cannot see that ALL of our systems in this country are FAILING big time, then I suggest it is time to open your eyes and look at what is going on before you yourself has to live with the consequences of what THEY decide for you whether it is YOUR will or not. I wish you the best. Thank you for your opinion.
Doesn’t apply to minors.
It does apply to the minors. Their parents are their voice. If you had a child with chronic resp problems and part of his/her care was physical therapy and as that child’s parent, your child had a rough night and couldn’t sleep but your physical therapist persists, would you not be offended if you told the therapist he/she is not doing that today and they make him/her get up anyway. You come around the corner to find your child guided down the hall and struggling to breathe. Would you not be angry as a parent that YOUR wishes for your child was ignored and some OTHER AUTHORITY decided what they were going to do because THEY thought it was best for him/her????
Michelle is correct and that law does not in fact apply to minors. Also, my questions involved an entirely valid analogy in that both scenarios address government intervention when childrens’ lives are in danger. You just don’t like the inevitable implications of your own philosophy of non-government intervention when kids are at risk, so you dodge the questions by protesting that the questions are “cruel and hurtful”, and then moving into a complete non sequiter that has nothing to do with anything we’re talking about. Answer the questions. Does government have the right to stop you from beating your child to death? Yes or no? And if so, where do you draw that line between one form of life-saving intervention and another?
God Bless Daniel, and all the people who suffer from cancer. On top of all the s**t their family has to go through the government sticks their dirty little hands on personal rights and freedoms. This is forced medication, and if Daniel does not want chemo in his body then no judge or jury should have the right to decide for him. Our bodies our rights.
Supposedly its not the mom, but Daniel himself who does not want this kind of treatment. Yes, Chemo helps some, but in actuality it kills more people than it heals, it prolongs suffering. Modern medicine doesn’t understand Cancer at all, after all these years of research we have nothing but Chemo and radiation?? it’s really sad and when you don’t understand why things are they way the are the answer is usually money and greed. People like Daniel and his family are brave for sticking up for their rights. I pray that things go well for them,
whatever medicine they decide to use.
Once again, what about parents who stick their dirty little hands on the personal rights and freedoms of their children? Daniel is 13 and a minor. Minors do not have the same personal rights as adults. They do, however, have unalienable human rights that supersede the wishes of their parents.
Do you think if a 5-year-old is shot that he or she should have the right to refuse surgery, keeping in mind that you just said “Our bodies our rights?” Yes or no? Does government have the right to stop you from beating your child to death? Why or why not? And if so, where do you draw that line between one form of life-saving intervention and another?
“Yes, Chemo helps some, but in actuality it kills more people than it heals, it prolongs suffering.”
Care to cite your sources on that one?
“Modern medicine doesn’t understand Cancer at all, after all these years of research we have nothing but Chemo and radiation??”
And you know better? How much research have you done? This is like saying car manufacturers don’t understand anything about cars because we’re not all using riding around in flying cars. We’ve got the scientific knowledge that we have. If you’ve got better medical treatments, then present your findings to the scientific community for peer review. If not, then I doubt your sincerity.
“it’s really sad and when you don’t understand why things are they way the are the answer is usually money and greed.”
Once again, the conspiracy theory is the favorite tactic of the true believers. It is a convenient answer when the numbers just don’t add up. It takes no real proof, and often the absence of proof is just proof it exists! They all just KNOW they have “The Truth” and are uninterested in anything that might challenge that belief. Science doesn’t matter. Evidence doesn’t matter. Reason itself doesn’t matter. None of that matters, other than how they can be twisted to reach the desired conclusions, and any scientific evidence conflicting with that belief system must to them be the result of a coverup. This is all just like a cult, where, the more evidence is presented to members that they are in a cult, the more tightly they cling to their cultish beliefs.
“People like Daniel and his family are brave for sticking up for their rights.”
Daniel’s father publicly asked Colleen to bring Daniel home on television. Colleen has since brought Daniel back home and turned herself in. Authorities have agreed that they probably won’t prosecute her. And Daniel is currently being examined by medical experts who will determine if chemotherapy is still the best option.
“I pray that things go well for them, whatever medicine they decide to use.”
Who are you going to pray to, the same god that you believe gave Daniel the cancer in the first place, a leprechaun, possibly a genie? How about The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Anything but the science you so take for granted every day, right?
In the conventional health paradigm, chemotherapy is the go-to treatment for cancer. People are paying up to $10,000 a month and sometimes more for these drugs, with the expectation that they will heal them from the disease.
Yet, these expensive and, by their very nature, highly toxic medications often give patients just a few more months of life, or worse end up killing them prematurely or even causing cancer down the line.
The biggest drawback to a conventional treatment like chemotherapy is it destroys healthy cells throughout your body right along with cancer cells. A typical and deadly side effect of chemo is the destruction of the rapidly multiplying and dividing cells found in your:
• Bone marrow, which produces blood
• Digestive system
• Reproductive system
• Hair follicles
In this most recent study, The National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death (NCEPOD) found that more than four in 10 patients who received chemotherapy toward the end of life experienced potentially fatal effects! And after reviewing data from over 600 cancer patients who died within 30 days of receiving treatment, it was found that chemotherapy hastened or caused death in 27 percent of cases.
“The majority of the cancer patients in this country die because of chemotherapy, which does not cure breast, colon or lung cancer. This has been documented for over a decade and nevertheless doctors still utilize chemotherapy to fight these tumors.
Despite its reputation as the gold-standard cancer treatment, chemotherapy has an average 5-year survival success rate of just over 2 percent for all cancers, according to a study published in the journal Clinical Oncology in December 2004.
If you or someone you love has been diagnosed with cancer, I urge you to do the research for yourself, and make an educated decision about which course of treatment to take. A decision like this is simply too important to leave solely in the hands of your doctor.
“conventional health paradigm”–also known as “REALITY”
Michelle already listed some of the most relevant statistics but it’s also worth pointing out that doctors review every patients’ condition carefully and make a judgment regarding chemo on a case to case basis as to whether it chemo would be the most appropriate treatment. When doctors do decide to use chemo, they’ve weighed the risks vs. benefits and have ruled that the benefits outweigh the risks.
You’re also operating under the false assumption that a better treatment method exists. As I’ve repeatedly stated already, no such alternative has ever proven effective. But this is typical denial behavior. You can’t present high-quality positive evidence for your claims, so you just try to take shots at the proven methods. As I’ve said before, it’s very clear that you have no interest in the truth at all. All you care about is seemingly confirming evidence of your beliefs and you’ll happily dismiss any facts that disagree with you. That’s not rational and is one of the sure fire signs of a cult mentality.
Again, I am very thankful that our laws are protecting children like Daniel from people like Sam.
Statistics on Hodgkins from the American Cancer Society:
* The 1-year survival rate is 92%
* The 5-year survival rate is 85%
* The 10-year survival rate is 80%
* The 20-year survival rate is 63%.
This is for ALL PATIENTS. Including stage IV (the most advanced.) Survival for early stage (I and II) is even better.
Prior to 1960, Hodgkins was “uniformly fatal”.
Mighty impressive!
Sam said, “I am sorry but you are a psyciopath, just shut up and stop insulting people who lost their loved ones to chemo. Just like all other “american idiots””
Sam, I didn’t insult anyone. I presented facts that disagree with some people’s ideologies. You on the other hand, clearly prefer insults to rational discussion. Quit projecting your own negative behaviors onto others.
NY Times News Service by Gina Kolata “In long drive to cure cancer, advances have been elusive”. May 31, 2009.
Read the article. For all the money pored into cancer research,there has never been enough for innovative studies, the kind that can fundamentally change the way scientists understand cancer or doctors treat it.Newer drugs can keep caner at bay but there are not a cure.
Once again, stop pretending you’re interested in truth. You’ve already illustrated time and time again on this blog that you have zero interest in any facts that might challenge yours beliefs. Science doesn’t matter to you. Evidence doesn’t matter to you. Reason itself doesn’t matter to you. None of that matters, other than how they can be twisted to reach the desired conclusions, and any scientific evidence conflicting with that belief system you simply write off as the result of a cover-up.
Now I’ve put up with your crap for a hell of a lot longer than just about any other blogger would have. You’ve had plenty of chances now to present a reasonable case for your position and have yet to do so. All you do is spout out unfalsifiable, anecdotal accounts, unfalsifiable conspiracy theories, and insults at whoever disagrees with you. You have no controlled studies to support you. You have no empirical evidence to support you.
So I’m giving you fair warning now. Unless you present something with actual substance to it, your future comments are going in the spam bin.
As Other Death Rates Fall, Cancer’s Scarcely Moves
Article Tools Sponsored By
By GINA KOLATA
Published: April 24, 2009
Data from the National Center for Health Statistics show that death rates over the past 60 years — the number of deaths adjusted for the age and size of the population — plummeted for heart disease, stroke, and influenza and pneumonia. But for cancer, they barely budged.
Skip to next paragraph
Multimedia
A Stubborn DiseaseInteractive Graphic
A Stubborn Disease
Related
Forty Years’ War: Advances Elusive in the Drive to Cure Cancer (April 24, 2009)
The cancer death rate, now about 200 deaths a year per 100,000 people of all ages and 1,000 deaths per 100,000 people over age 65 — is nearly the same now as it was in 1950, dropping only 5 percent. But the death rate from heart disease is only a third of what it was in 1950. Even though more people die of heart disease than from cancer, cancer deaths have been edging closer to heart disease deaths each year.
Are the statistics lying, hiding major advances because of the way the data are analyzed?
No, researchers say.
Death rates are not perfect — no measure is. But they are considered the purest measure. That is one reason groups like the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute use death rates rather than something else, like the number of people living with cancer, to assess progress in fighting the disease.
With heart disease, says Dr. Michael S. Lauer, director of the division of prevention and population sciences at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, there were transforming discoveries in prevention and treatment. They led to effective drugs to lower cholesterol and blood pressure, to the use of aspirin, and to smoking cessation programs, all of which reduced the number of heart attacks. And they led to treatments during and after a heart attack, like medical therapies, stents and bypass surgery, as well as powerful drugs to prevent and break down blood clots.
All these strategies contributed to the falling death rates. “Fifty years ago, these either didn’t exist or were in their infancy,” Dr. Lauer said
But with cancer, equivalent transforming advances have not emerged.
Could there be other explanations for the stagnant cancer death rates? Not really, researchers say.
For example, there is the competing cause-of-death hypothesis. In the past, you died of a heart attack. Now, spared that, many live long enough to die of cancer. Wouldn’t that mean cancer death rates look worse than they really are?
“No,” says Dr. H. Gilbert Welch, a cancer epidemiologist at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice. He explains that the population of the United States is older than it was in 1950, but statisticians correct for that. They divide the population into discrete age groups, like 50 to 54, 55 to 59, and so on, and calculate death rates within each group.
So, suppose, for example, that in 1950, among 1,000 people aged 60 to 65, 10 died of cancer; that age group’s cancer mortality rate, then, would be 10 per 1,000. Now, suppose that in 2009, because fewer people die of heart disease, twice as many live to be 60 to 65. If there had been no progress in combating cancer, you would expect that, with twice as many people in that age group, twice as many would die of cancer.
And that is pretty much what has happened.
But cancer is diagnosed in more people these days. If nearly the same number are dying from cancer — adjusted for the age and size of the population — wouldn’t that mean that more are being cured, so the cancer death rate is lower?
Not really, says Donald A. Berry, head of the division of quantitative sciences at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. Death rates reflect deaths from cancer, not diagnoses. People living with cancer are part of the general population.
The additional diagnoses mostly result from more screening, Dr. Berry adds. While finding some cancers earlier may save lives, many would never have caused problems if they had been left alone. Others are deadly whether they are treated or not. Since there usually is no good way to decide whether a cancer will be deadly, doctors usually treat all as if they are life-threatening.
A result is an increase in diagnoses and survivors but, if treatment does not improve for deadly cancers, little change in the death rate.
Advocacy groups have lobbied and directed research in ways that have not always advanced science.
And for all the money poured into cancer research, there has never been enough for innovative studies, the kind that can fundamentally change the way scientists understand cancer or doctors treat it. Such studies are risky, less likely to work than ones that are more incremental. The result is that, with limited money, innovative projects often lose out to more reliably successful projects that aim to tweak treatments, perhaps extending life by only weeks.
mjr256,
Sorry for putting this here; I didn’t see an email link.
I found you because of your blog on Daniel. Thank you for two years of great writing. I have a lot to catch up on.
-Michelle
Sam, I fail to understand why you think the article you presented supports your case that chemotherapy only treats symptoms and not cancer or that so-called “alternative” treatments are effective in curing cancer. Nowhere in the article comes anywhere near arguing anything of the kind. In fact, the article indirectly refutes your position, explaining that thanks to the practices of modern medicine, we’re better at diagnosing cancer and better at treating cancer so that even in cases of uncurable cancers, we’re able to make it manageable enough for cancer victims to still live long, full lives. And obviously the population has more than doubled since the early part of the 20th century and there may be more environmental factors today that are causing more people to develop cancers.
One statistic I’d like you to look into is what percentage of cancer victims today have survived cancer vs. those in the 1950s. The fact is that cancer is no longer the death sentence it once was. I also invite you to read this short blog from a doctor that discusses chemotherapy vs. death from cancer:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/05/chemotherapy_versus_death_from_cancer.php
And of course, I still await information on a controlled medical study that shows positive evidence that any alleged “alternative” treatment is effective in fighting cancer, because after all, anyone can just fling mud at the current method of treatment; but the burden of proof is still on those claiming to have a better method to prove it with hard empirical evidence.
Did anybody ever care to think that choosing to have life-saving therapy is just that, a choice? As grim as it may be, some people might actually think that perhaps when they are diagnosed with cancer, nature is choosing this as their moment to die and fighting against such a natural population control would be, just that, unnatural.
Nobody should be able to decide whether or not he receives treatment other than he and his family. It is their right to choose.
Daniel Hauser is a minor and not legally permitted to make those kinds of choices. Nor is he mature enough to understand what’s best for him. Typically medical matters are put in the hands of their caregivers but in cases where the caregivers are being negligent, such as Jeff and Marci Beagley (http://skepacabra.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/parents-of-faith-healing-victim-sentenced-to-prison/), the court has every legal right to take that choice away from them to do what is viewed in the best interest of the child.
They did that and because of those efforts, Daniel is now living a health, cancer-free life. Denying him that care would have been tantamount to murder.
Children are not the property of their parents. They have fundamental human rights that supersede the desires of their parents. That’s why child protection services exist in the first place. Are you opposed to child protection services because it’s government interfering with parents’ rights? If so, when were do you draw the line between one form of government intervention and another?