A tragedy in our imperfect nation ... Abraham Cherrix Tragedy

*his parents have bought
into the lies that chemotherapy would kill him and the Hoxsey treatment
offers real hope for recovery.*

Sure glad you are not judging.




"Rich" wrote in message
...

"cathyb" wrote in message
ps.com...

Peter Moran wrote:
"Ilena Rose" wrote in message
...
Opinion
A tragedy in our imperfect nation
By Michael Simonson

http://www.diamondbackonline.com/vne.../44dc4ab133004

August 12, 2006

A tragedy is occurring right this instant in the United States, right
in Virginia, and it can be stopped. It involves a young man, by the
name of Abraham Cherrix, 16, of Chincoteague, Va., who is being taken
advantage of by the government and medical system of this country.
Unfortunately, Abraham has a deadly form of cancer. The tragedy that
has ensued since his diagnosis of Hodgkin's disease goes like this: He
voluntarily underwent chemotherapy, a physically punishing procedure
that can treat, but not cure, the cancer. After being physically
crushed, but temporarily relieved of the cancer, Abraham decided he
would not undergo the therapy again, with his parents' wishes, even if
it meant dying.

The cancer did come back, and he stuck with his choice of not going
through with the chemo. Instead, with the help of his parents and
others, he discovered a legitimate, well-researched organic process of
treating Hodgkin's. But the government and medical establishment of
the United States adamantly opposed his choice. The impersonal powers
that be are saying that, at age 16, Abraham is unduly influenced by
his "unknowledgeable" parents, and that the treatment plan he wants to
be on is "deadly," compared with the chemotherapy.

While it is not wrong that our government wants to protect minors that
are harmfully influenced by their parents, this case does not fall
under such circumstances. In fact, this case involving this boy has
nothing to do with bad parenting. This case is about our government
wielding its power in a dangerous and immoral way. This case is about
a boy being physically dominated and beaten by what many consider, and
rightfully so, the greatest country in world history. But our homeland
is not acting in a great way. It is acting in a way that better
conjures images of a totalitarian society such as the ones that exist
in stories such as 1984 by George Orwell, or the recent movie V for
Vendetta .

The chemotherapy the government is forcing on Abraham does not cure
the cancer, and it treats it for only a short period of time, if at
all, in many instances.

.
The overall results of the treatment of Hodgkin's disease in Canada can
be
seen here
http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmoran/Hodgkin'ssurvival.htm Even
in
the 1970s the *thirty year* survival was close to fifty per cent, and
with
improvements in treatment since then the results will be much better.
With
early disease the results are much better again --these figures include
the
most advanced and high grade cases.

The results of the treatment of cancer via the Hoxsey treatment have
been
looked at by the University of Texas and fail to show definite activity
against any kind of cancer. Their patients are poorly documented and
followed up and they seem to die at the same rate as they would without
the
treatment.
http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmo...ve_studies.htm.
This treatment has been about for over half a century. It is absurd to
think that it is an effective treatment of established cancer, yet has
been
unable to produce any body of cured cancer patients in that time.

So let's not confuse let the medical questions with the undoubted legal
and
ethical problems. Let's not obscure the fact that he has been lied to
when the Biomedical centre claims over 80% cure rates..

And let's not bother ascribing any importance to a piece of dishonest
puff that includes such ridiculous statements as "The chemotherapy the
government is forcing on Abraham does not cure the cancer, and it
treats it for only a short period of time, if at all", something that
only a cursory glance at Pubmed shows to be nonsense, and describes
Hoxsey treatment as a "well-researched organic process of treating
Hodgkin's." I suppose we should be grateful he didn't write "curing
Hodgkin's".

The ethical problems are something else again; my instinct is that the
boy should be saved from the ignorance of his duped parents, but it's a
tough one, given that he is 16, not 6. Not old enough to make this sort
of decision, but I can't imagine anyone wanting to physically force
therapy on him, either. The thought is repugnant, even though we do it
all the time with younger kids, at the dentist alone.

Yes, I do it every day with younger kids at work, though nearly always
after a "consent for treatment" has been signed by a parent. The exception
is when a treatment is deemed necessary to save life or limb, and then a
court order is necessary. In Abraham's case, the ethical issues are
nowhere near clear. It's obvious that the real reason he is refusing the
chemotherapy is the unpleasant side effects. The discomfort of treatment
is the very thing we do not allow to prevent treatment when it becomes
necessary to give a child an injection, force an oral medication, start an
IV, suture a wound, or reduce a fracture. It's also obvious that both
Abraham and his parents have bought into the lies that chemotherapy would
kill him and the Hoxsey treatment offers real hope for recovery. Whether
Abraham should be protected by the court from both his own and his
parents' ignorance is a tough call. I'm glad I'm not the judge for this
case.
--


--Rich

"cathyb" wrote in message
ups.com...

Jan Drew wrote:
Alternative Cancer Protocols updated

http://opposingdigits.com/vlog/?p=106

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...ey&btnG=Google...

http://members.aol.com/publicoccurre...xide/ward.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It is noted--you did NOT reply to IIena.

It is noted that you have absolutely nothing to say on this topic, Jan,
so you're reduced to posting nonsense again. What are you whiffling
about?

That would be *another LIE*.






"cathyb" wrote in message
ps.com...

Peter Moran wrote:
"Ilena Rose" wrote in message
...
Opinion
A tragedy in our imperfect nation
By Michael Simonson

http://www.diamondbackonline.com/vne.../44dc4ab133004

August 12, 2006

A tragedy is occurring right this instant in the United States,
right
in Virginia, and it can be stopped. It involves a young man, by the
name of Abraham Cherrix, 16, of Chincoteague, Va., who is being
taken
advantage of by the government and medical system of this country.
Unfortunately, Abraham has a deadly form of cancer. The tragedy that
has ensued since his diagnosis of Hodgkin's disease goes like this:
He
voluntarily underwent chemotherapy, a physically punishing procedure
that can treat, but not cure, the cancer. After being physically
crushed, but temporarily relieved of the cancer, Abraham decided he
would not undergo the therapy again, with his parents' wishes, even
if
it meant dying.

The cancer did come back, and he stuck with his choice of not going
through with the chemo. Instead, with the help of his parents and
others, he discovered a legitimate, well-researched organic process
of
treating Hodgkin's. But the government and medical establishment of
the United States adamantly opposed his choice. The impersonal
powers
that be are saying that, at age 16, Abraham is unduly influenced by
his "unknowledgeable" parents, and that the treatment plan he wants
to
be on is "deadly," compared with the chemotherapy.

While it is not wrong that our government wants to protect minors
that
are harmfully influenced by their parents, this case does not fall
under such circumstances. In fact, this case involving this boy has
nothing to do with bad parenting. This case is about our government
wielding its power in a dangerous and immoral way. This case is
about
a boy being physically dominated and beaten by what many consider,
and
rightfully so, the greatest country in world history. But our
homeland
is not acting in a great way. It is acting in a way that better
conjures images of a totalitarian society such as the ones that
exist
in stories such as 1984 by George Orwell, or the recent movie V for
Vendetta .

The chemotherapy the government is forcing on Abraham does not cure
the cancer, and it treats it for only a short period of time, if at
all, in many instances.

.
The overall results of the treatment of Hodgkin's disease in Canada
can
be
seen here
http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmoran/Hodgkin'ssurvival.htm Even
in
the 1970s the *thirty year* survival was close to fifty per cent, and
with
improvements in treatment since then the results will be much better.
With
early disease the results are much better again --these figures
include
the
most advanced and high grade cases.

The results of the treatment of cancer via the Hoxsey treatment have
been
looked at by the University of Texas and fail to show definite
activity
against any kind of cancer. Their patients are poorly documented and
followed up and they seem to die at the same rate as they would
without
the
treatment.
http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmo...ve_studies.htm.
This treatment has been about for over half a century. It is absurd
to
think that it is an effective treatment of established cancer, yet
has
been
unable to produce any body of cured cancer patients in that time.

So let's not confuse let the medical questions with the undoubted
legal
and
ethical problems. Let's not obscure the fact that he has been lied
to
when the Biomedical centre claims over 80% cure rates..

And let's not bother ascribing any importance to a piece of dishonest
puff that includes such ridiculous statements as "The chemotherapy the
government is forcing on Abraham does not cure the cancer, and it
treats it for only a short period of time, if at all", something that
only a cursory glance at Pubmed shows to be nonsense, and describes
Hoxsey treatment as a "well-researched organic process of treating
Hodgkin's." I suppose we should be grateful he didn't write "curing
Hodgkin's".

The ethical problems are something else again; my instinct is that the
boy should be saved from the ignorance of his duped parents, but it's a
tough one, given that he is 16, not 6. Not old enough to make this sort
of decision, but I can't imagine anyone wanting to physically force
therapy on him, either. The thought is repugnant, even though we do it
all the time with younger kids, at the dentist alone.

Cathy


Peter Moran

www.cancerwatcher.com

Rich wrote:
"cathyb" wrote in message
ps.com...
Peter Moran wrote:
"Ilena Rose" wrote in message
...
Opinion
A tragedy in our imperfect nation
By Michael Simonson

http://www.diamondbackonline.com/vne.../44dc4ab133004

August 12, 2006

A tragedy is occurring right this instant in the United States, right
in Virginia, and it can be stopped. It involves a young man, by the
name of Abraham Cherrix, 16, of Chincoteague, Va., who is being taken
advantage of by the government and medical system of this country.
Unfortunately, Abraham has a deadly form of cancer. The tragedy that
has ensued since his diagnosis of Hodgkin's disease goes like this: He
voluntarily underwent chemotherapy, a physically punishing procedure
that can treat, but not cure, the cancer. After being physically
crushed, but temporarily relieved of the cancer, Abraham decided he
would not undergo the therapy again, with his parents' wishes, even if
it meant dying.

The cancer did come back, and he stuck with his choice of not going
through with the chemo. Instead, with the help of his parents and
others, he discovered a legitimate, well-researched organic process of
treating Hodgkin's. But the government and medical establishment of
the United States adamantly opposed his choice. The impersonal powers
that be are saying that, at age 16, Abraham is unduly influenced by
his "unknowledgeable" parents, and that the treatment plan he wants to
be on is "deadly," compared with the chemotherapy.

While it is not wrong that our government wants to protect minors that
are harmfully influenced by their parents, this case does not fall
under such circumstances. In fact, this case involving this boy has
nothing to do with bad parenting. This case is about our government
wielding its power in a dangerous and immoral way. This case is about
a boy being physically dominated and beaten by what many consider, and
rightfully so, the greatest country in world history. But our homeland
is not acting in a great way. It is acting in a way that better
conjures images of a totalitarian society such as the ones that exist
in stories such as 1984 by George Orwell, or the recent movie V for
Vendetta .

The chemotherapy the government is forcing on Abraham does not cure
the cancer, and it treats it for only a short period of time, if at
all, in many instances.
.
The overall results of the treatment of Hodgkin's disease in Canada can
be
seen here
http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmoran/Hodgkin'ssurvival.htm Even in
the 1970s the *thirty year* survival was close to fifty per cent, and
with
improvements in treatment since then the results will be much better.
With
early disease the results are much better again --these figures include
the
most advanced and high grade cases.

The results of the treatment of cancer via the Hoxsey treatment have
been
looked at by the University of Texas and fail to show definite activity
against any kind of cancer. Their patients are poorly documented and
followed up and they seem to die at the same rate as they would without
the
treatment.
http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmo...ve_studies.htm.
This treatment has been about for over half a century. It is absurd to
think that it is an effective treatment of established cancer, yet has
been
unable to produce any body of cured cancer patients in that time.

So let's not confuse let the medical questions with the undoubted legal
and
ethical problems. Let's not obscure the fact that he has been lied to
when the Biomedical centre claims over 80% cure rates..
And let's not bother ascribing any importance to a piece of dishonest
puff that includes such ridiculous statements as "The chemotherapy the
government is forcing on Abraham does not cure the cancer, and it
treats it for only a short period of time, if at all", something that
only a cursory glance at Pubmed shows to be nonsense, and describes
Hoxsey treatment as a "well-researched organic process of treating
Hodgkin's." I suppose we should be grateful he didn't write "curing
Hodgkin's".

The ethical problems are something else again; my instinct is that the
boy should be saved from the ignorance of his duped parents, but it's a
tough one, given that he is 16, not 6. Not old enough to make this sort
of decision, but I can't imagine anyone wanting to physically force
therapy on him, either. The thought is repugnant, even though we do it
all the time with younger kids, at the dentist alone.

Yes, I do it every day with younger kids at work, though nearly always after
a "consent for treatment" has been signed by a parent. The exception is when
a treatment is deemed necessary to save life or limb, and then a court order
is necessary. In Abraham's case, the ethical issues are nowhere near clear.
It's obvious that the real reason he is refusing the chemotherapy is the
unpleasant side effects. The discomfort of treatment is the very thing we do
not allow to prevent treatment when it becomes necessary to give a child an
injection, force an oral medication, start an IV, suture a wound, or reduce
a fracture. It's also obvious that both Abraham and his parents have bought
into the lies that chemotherapy would kill him and the Hoxsey treatment
offers real hope for recovery. Whether Abraham should be protected by the
court from both his own and his parents' ignorance is a tough call. I'm glad
I'm not the judge for this case.

Sadly, someone has convinced Abraham that when he dies of the lymphoma,
he will not be sick, it will be benign and peaceful and he will die at
home.

He may have one out of the three correctly.

Those who lied to him have committed murder just assuredly the same as
anyone who picks up a gun and puts a 9 mm into the base of a skull. They
should be prosecuted for homicide.

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
...
*his parents have bought
into the lies that chemotherapy would kill him and the Hoxsey treatment
offers real hope for recovery.*

Sure glad you are not judging.




Jan, where is *your* evidence that chemotherapy would kill him? How do YOU
know that he was not even being primed up by his parents to be intolerant of
temporary effects that many other cancer patients have gone many times and
found tolerable for the short time that they last?

This time his treatment would not even be the same. It would include
radiotherapy, and this being a very radiosensitive cancer, that alone
should eliminate the glands around his wind pipe that threaten to choke him
if allowed to progress. Any chemotherapy will be directed mainly to deal
with any disease outside the irradiated area.

Peter Moran

www.cancerwatcher.com.

Peter Moran wrote:

where is *your* evidence that chemotherapy would kill him?

Good question. PeteyB and others have made the claim, but, no proof that
this is so.

How do YOU
know that he was not even being primed up by his parents to be intolerant of
temporary effects that many other cancer patients have gone many times and
found tolerable for the short time that they last?

This time his treatment would not even be the same. It would include
radiotherapy, and this being a very radiosensitive cancer, that alone
should eliminate the glands around his wind pipe that threaten to choke him
if allowed to progress. Any chemotherapy will be directed mainly to deal
with any disease outside the irradiated area.

IOW, past experience is not a predictor of future experience. A point I
made, but the pro-death lobby ignored it.

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
...
Rich wrote:
"cathyb" wrote in message
ps.com...
Peter Moran wrote:
"Ilena Rose" wrote in message
...
Opinion
A tragedy in our imperfect nation
By Michael Simonson

http://www.diamondbackonline.com/vne.../44dc4ab133004

August 12, 2006

A tragedy is occurring right this instant in the United States, right
in Virginia, and it can be stopped. It involves a young man, by the
name of Abraham Cherrix, 16, of Chincoteague, Va., who is being taken
advantage of by the government and medical system of this country.
Unfortunately, Abraham has a deadly form of cancer. The tragedy that
has ensued since his diagnosis of Hodgkin's disease goes like this: He
voluntarily underwent chemotherapy, a physically punishing procedure
that can treat, but not cure, the cancer. After being physically
crushed, but temporarily relieved of the cancer, Abraham decided he
would not undergo the therapy again, with his parents' wishes, even if
it meant dying.

The cancer did come back, and he stuck with his choice of not going
through with the chemo. Instead, with the help of his parents and
others, he discovered a legitimate, well-researched organic process of
treating Hodgkin's. But the government and medical establishment of
the United States adamantly opposed his choice. The impersonal powers
that be are saying that, at age 16, Abraham is unduly influenced by
his "unknowledgeable" parents, and that the treatment plan he wants to
be on is "deadly," compared with the chemotherapy.

While it is not wrong that our government wants to protect minors that
are harmfully influenced by their parents, this case does not fall
under such circumstances. In fact, this case involving this boy has
nothing to do with bad parenting. This case is about our government
wielding its power in a dangerous and immoral way. This case is about
a boy being physically dominated and beaten by what many consider, and
rightfully so, the greatest country in world history. But our homeland
is not acting in a great way. It is acting in a way that better
conjures images of a totalitarian society such as the ones that exist
in stories such as 1984 by George Orwell, or the recent movie V for
Vendetta .

The chemotherapy the government is forcing on Abraham does not cure
the cancer, and it treats it for only a short period of time, if at
all, in many instances.
.
The overall results of the treatment of Hodgkin's disease in Canada can
be
seen here
http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmoran/Hodgkin'ssurvival.htm Even
in
the 1970s the *thirty year* survival was close to fifty per cent, and
with
improvements in treatment since then the results will be much better.
With
early disease the results are much better again --these figures include
the
most advanced and high grade cases.

The results of the treatment of cancer via the Hoxsey treatment have
been
looked at by the University of Texas and fail to show definite activity
against any kind of cancer. Their patients are poorly documented and
followed up and they seem to die at the same rate as they would without
the
treatment.
http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmo...ve_studies.htm.
This treatment has been about for over half a century. It is absurd
to
think that it is an effective treatment of established cancer, yet has
been
unable to produce any body of cured cancer patients in that time.

So let's not confuse let the medical questions with the undoubted legal
and
ethical problems. Let's not obscure the fact that he has been lied
to
when the Biomedical centre claims over 80% cure rates..
And let's not bother ascribing any importance to a piece of dishonest
puff that includes such ridiculous statements as "The chemotherapy the
government is forcing on Abraham does not cure the cancer, and it
treats it for only a short period of time, if at all", something that
only a cursory glance at Pubmed shows to be nonsense, and describes
Hoxsey treatment as a "well-researched organic process of treating
Hodgkin's." I suppose we should be grateful he didn't write "curing
Hodgkin's".

The ethical problems are something else again; my instinct is that the
boy should be saved from the ignorance of his duped parents, but it's a
tough one, given that he is 16, not 6. Not old enough to make this sort
of decision, but I can't imagine anyone wanting to physically force
therapy on him, either. The thought is repugnant, even though we do it
all the time with younger kids, at the dentist alone.

Yes, I do it every day with younger kids at work, though nearly always
after a "consent for treatment" has been signed by a parent. The
exception is when a treatment is deemed necessary to save life or limb,
and then a court order is necessary. In Abraham's case, the ethical
issues are nowhere near clear. It's obvious that the real reason he is
refusing the chemotherapy is the unpleasant side effects. The discomfort
of treatment is the very thing we do not allow to prevent treatment when
it becomes necessary to give a child an injection, force an oral
medication, start an IV, suture a wound, or reduce a fracture. It's also
obvious that both Abraham and his parents have bought into the lies that
chemotherapy would kill him and the Hoxsey treatment offers real hope for
recovery. Whether Abraham should be protected by the court from both his
own and his parents' ignorance is a tough call. I'm glad I'm not the
judge for this case.

Sadly, someone has convinced Abraham that when he dies of the lymphoma, he
will not be sick, it will be benign and peaceful and he will die at home.

He may have one out of the three correctly.

Nope, not even that one. Unless he has first-rate hospice care, I predict
that when his airway starts to close and breathing becomes excruciatingly
painful, he and his parents will panic and call 911. In most states, the
medics are not authorized to honor DNR documents, so they will intubate him,
and he will spend his last days on a ventilator in an ICU. If they give him
enough propofol, though, he may succeed in dying "benign and
eaceful." --Rich



Those who lied to him have committed murder just assuredly the same as
anyone who picks up a gun and puts a 9 mm into the base of a skull. They
should be prosecuted for homicide.

Mark Probert wrote:
IOW, past experience is not a predictor
of future experience. A point I
made, but the pro-death lobby ignored it.

Which leads to WHAT conclusion?
That nothing proven will work?

In article ,
Peter Moran pmoranATbodernet.com.au wrote:

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
m...
*his parents have bought
into the lies that chemotherapy would kill him and the Hoxsey treatment
offers real hope for recovery.*

Sure glad you are not judging.

Jan, where is *your* evidence that chemotherapy would kill him? How do YOU
know that he was not even being primed up by his parents to be intolerant of
temporary effects that many other cancer patients have gone many times and
found tolerable for the short time that they last?

This time his treatment would not even be the same. It would include
radiotherapy, and this being a very radiosensitive cancer, that alone
should eliminate the glands around his wind pipe that threaten to choke him
if allowed to progress. Any chemotherapy will be directed mainly to deal
with any disease outside the irradiated area.

The news story I saw said they *might* use radiotherapy.

If they do, though, and he gets better, we can be assured that the
Hoxsey treatment will be given 100% of the credit by the alties,
even though his disease has progressed while he's been on Hoxsey
alone.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth

Greegor wrote:
Mark Probert wrote:
IOW, past experience is not a predictor
of future experience. A point I
made, but the pro-death lobby ignored it.

Which leads to WHAT conclusion?
That nothing proven will work?


try to read in context.