The Abraham Cherrix cancer story the media won't print: Harry Hoxsey's cancer cures and the US government campaign to destroy them

Ya couldn't knock that in some people's heads with a sledgehammer.

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
t...
NOTHING--absolutely NOTHING beats talking with those who have been there
done--that!!

"Ilena Rose" wrote in message
...
Note from Ilena Rosenthal: "None are so blind as oncologists who are
closeminded about treatments other than their own."

EXCERPT:
Cherrix said his oncologist refused to monitor his condition while
taking the treatment


Battling cancer
At home and in court
BY SHAUN BISHOP
TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER
Sunday, August 6, 2006



Starchild Abraham Cherrix, 16, says a blessing over the vegetable
dinner that is part of the Hoxsey treatment he is using to fight
Hodgkin's disease. (ALEXA WELCH EDLUND/TIMES-DISPATCH)
A year ago, Starchild Abraham Cherrix was diagnosed with cancer.
Debilitating chemotherapy treatments failed to eradicate the disease,
and now he's fighting for the right to choose his next step.
CHINCOTEAGUE Starchild Abraham Cherrix, 16, is used to eating a lot of
vegetables, but this one tasted worse than most.

He cringed as he ate a white piece of squash and gave his mother,
Rose, a grimace.

RELATED
SLIDESHOW

THE HOXSEY TREATMENT

Cherrix's Diet

Cherrix case breaks ground

Kaine says politicians don't have a role in such cases as Cherrix's

Judge lifts orders in teen's case

McDonnell supports sick teen's request

Teen loses bid to pick treatment

She shot him a skeptical look, then dug in the veggie-filled
refrigerator on which a magnet reads "Never, never, never give up."

Soon, the juicer filled the kitchen with a roar and out came a puree
of fresh carrots and celery, which Cherrix quickly gulped down. Much
better.

The food is part of his treatment for Hodgkin's disease, a combination
of diet and herbal supplements overseen by the Bio-Medical Clinic in
Tijuana, Mexico.

Last week, he took a break from another struggle, one waged in court
with the Accomack County Department of Social Services. It believes he
should undergo conventional cancer treatment instead.

"It's nice to finally relax without being tensed up all the time, or
even having to talk about your situation," Cherrix said.

An Accomack circuit judge ordered a new trial for Aug. 16 to decide
whether Cherrix can choose his treatment. The judge threw out a
juvenile-court ruling that ordered Cherrix to show up for conventional
treatment at Children's Hospital of the Kings Daughters in Norfolk.

Local and national media have descended on the family's white,
two-story house, which sits next to the bright-yellow, family-run
kayak shop on a quiet inlet of the Chesapeake Bay.

When the TV show "Nightline" wanted to basically live with the family
for an in-depth story, Cherrix's father respectfully declined -- to
prevent disruption in the family's life.

"I needed some rest, and I knew Abraham did," said his father, Jay,
61. "Really, the important thing is that he gets better."

But Jay Cherrix also feels the media has helped expose how the family
was being treated by officials.

"I think it's a story that will help a lot of people," he said.

. . .

One recent day, during a lull between two kayak trips he leads at
sunset and dusk, Jay Cherrix stretched out on a lawn chair in the shop
amid blue and yellow life jackets and kayak paddles. Daughters Lilly,
14, and Bethlehem, 11, quietly watched a western on TV at the check-in
counter.

A mile away, at their other kayak shop, Rose Cherrix, 47, tended to a
few customers and watched the family's other two children, Ezekiel, 7,
and Gabriel, 9.

At home in his tidy upstairs bedroom, Abraham talked about his
academic interests, ranging from astronomy to American Indian culture.
His bookcase is packed with an encyclopedia, novels and books on
religion.

He likes classic comedy ("Bob Hope makes me laugh like crazy") and
science-fiction movies, especially "Star Wars."

He continues to pursue his other interests -- sketching, kayaking,
coin-collecting.

Cherrix, who is home-schooled with his siblings, prays before each
meal. "Without God, nothing is possible," said his mother.

Recently, he said, he has been laying low, "enjoying myself, relaxing
and concentrating on getting better."

Cherrix has said he has felt great since he started the Hoxsey
treatment. He said he never wants to go through chemotherapy again
because it made him so weak that he had to be carried into the house
after treatments.

But he also said the Mexican clinic sometimes uses very low-dose
chemotherapy, so he wouldn't rule out its use.

He discovered he had cancer about a year ago, he said, and found out
in February that the chemotherapy had not eradicated it. His mother
favors herbal remedies, and Cherrix began to research other options on
the Internet.

After reading an article on the Hoxsey treatment in Venture Inward
magazine, he contacted the author, Alan Chips, who says the treatment
cured his own Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Cherrix said he settled on the Hoxsey treatment after talking to other
patients who said it cured their cancer.

Cherrix said his oncologist refused to monitor his condition while
taking the treatment. A spokeswoman at the Norfolk hospital declined
to comment, citing federal privacy guidelines.

It would have been much easier to send Abraham back for chemotherapy,
Jay Cherrix said.

"I put him through the wringer on it because I wanted to see how
serious he was," he said of his son's decision.

"But if you really love somebody and you really, really try to be a
good parent, then you're going to try to do whatever is necessary to
find the best chance."

Cherrix and his father say the kindness and hospitality of the doctors
in Mexico, plus the urging from other patients, persuaded them to
stick with Hoxsey.

"It's an incredibly beautiful atmosphere," his mother said of the
clinic. "They hug you, they tell you their story."

Cherrix's father estimates the treatment has cost more than $3,000 so
far, not including travel and additional supplements bought on the
side. Plus, when they are away, the family kayak business sits idle.

The American Cancer Society says there is no evidence that Hoxsey is
effective in treating cancer. This doesn't bother Cherrix.

"It's understandable that some people would doubt this, but for Pete's
sake, you can at least say to them, 'Go and do some research, go and
do some studying on this' . . . like I did," he said.

On a trip to the clinic three weeks ago, tests found that the cancer
had not grown or receded, Jay Cherrix said.

But doctors said they were encouraged by high white and red blood cell
counts that showed the Hoxsey was working, he said. Another visit is
planned for next month.


http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet...04 5855934842

~~~~~

www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/blog.htm#Abraham

"vakker" wrote in message news:jouBg.331347$IK3.136216@pd7tw1no...

"Peter Moran" wrote in message ...
Vakker, I explain what alternative practitioners need to do on my web site. I describe in detail what makes for a good case and why. I even indicate how many cases would be needed to spark medical interest.

So don't you dare accuse me of applying a double standard until you have read, and hopefully understood, that. All I ask is the claimants they apply the same standards to their assessment of cases that oncologists do in their phase 1 and Phase ll studies, and apply a bit of system to the gathering of evidence.

Also try and understand what I am trying to get across in an as yet unfinished piece on anecdotal evidence. This is also on my web site at ---.

http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmo...eranecdote.htm

In the meantime try me out with some of these cures that you say I am unjustly rejecting. You seem to think that alternative practitioners are regularly curing patients. I have never seen any evidence of that. All I see is testimonial that is mostly crap, with a few better quality ones that can usually be explained by other influences or mistakes in diagnosis or staging. Spontaneous remissions will certainly explain some, since even on the most conservative estimates there will be half a dozen or more of those occurring every year in the USA alone and some are bound to be in the 50% of cancer patients using alternatives.
Peter Moran www.cancerwatcher.com

vakker~So if 300 people showed up before you claiming they were all cured of some specific disease by an alternative treatment you still claim that it's purely anecdotal {explained away by placebo effect and in your words directly above....All I see is testimonial that is mostly crap, with a few better quality ones that can usually be explained by other influences or mistakes in diagnosis or staging.}. You will resolutely maintain in the face of these 300 people that the big pharmaceutical corporations and those they pay to do research have done studies and research showing such treatments to be utterly useless, a money fraud, shysterism, quackery etc and that fools that they are they've never ever had such a disease or got cured by "spontaneous remission" or are just liars for alternative scammers?????
Moran.........if you haven't seen any evidence of people being cured of diseases by alternative treatments then you're obviously looking in the wrong places and trusting to the wrong sources!!! The question is....are you doing it on purpose or are you really that gullible???

PM You still completely misrepresent my position. NOWHERE have I said that placebo effects would explain patients being cured of any objective illness such as cancer.

PM You are also being grossly unfair. Unlike some sceptics I allow that anecdotal information can be useful, and that is through anecdotal data that any truly useful alternative cancer treatment would initialy declare itself. . I am trying to get across thatit is the QUALITY of the anecdotal information that is constantly letting the alternative side down (if any of its cancer methods truly do work). I have gone to great lengths on my web site to try and explain what good quality anecdotal information looks like. If you are not prepared to look at that then dialogue is paralysed.

PM Far from hundreds of cases, I have issued a simple challenge to any alternative practitioner to produce even two or three well-documented cases of cancer remission with certain types of cancer. The virtue of quality cases is that you would only need a few.

PM But never mind. I don't expect to change the minds of those who are deeply committed to certain beliefs. You should ask yourself why you and those you presumably support are unable to produce good quality anecdotal material.

Peter Moran


"vakker" wrote in message news:2uhBg.324573$Mn5.94843@pd7tw3no...

"Peter Moran" wrote in message ...

"vakker" wrote in message news:Cv9Bg.321512$Mn5.162461@pd7tw3no...

"Peter Moran" wrote in message u...

"Vernon" there@atthere wrote in message
m...

"Peter Moran" wrote in message
u...
What use is freedom of choice when it is based upon lies? I think
hardly anyone wants this lad to be forced to have treatment he doesn't
want. They would like him not to be lied to by frauds and ignorant
people.

Peter Moran


You mean the typical medical professional?

I challenge you too, Vernon, to find any evidence that the Hoxsey treatment
works. I also challenge you to look at the clear evidence showing it
doesn't work.

Peter Moran


vakker~Hey Pete....if you think Vernon should get off his ass to find evidence that the Hoxsey treatments work don't you think oncologists such as yourself should get off your own asses to find out how it is that supposedly terminal cancer patients were cured when they later show up in your, or some other oncologist's office in robust good health when according to yourselves they were supposed to be dead long ago???

PM~Genuine cases like that are far too rare to sustain the claims that are being made for alternative treatments. Cancer is predictable, but not 100% predictable. That is why such isoloated cases are never wholly convincing. If we were seeing cases like that more reguarly we might think again.

vakker~But you yourself say that cures have to be proved to you by the claimant(s) and when they are you then say the evidence is doctored or that it was just a rare case of "spontaneous remission" (or chemo or radiation kicking in later) and therefore you wouldn't so much as lift your finger to pick up a phone to learn more about the treatment somebody claims cured them or who else was cured by it. You say they have to prove it to you but how when all you will countenance are studies and reports by conventional meds and big pharma????


Apparently you said you wouldn't so much as lift a finger to find out how it is they got well(it wasn't your job to look for evidence you said) yet here you are asking Vernon to do what you never will and even when good evidence is presented to you (by awthruster as in the Revici case he spoke about) you only deny it.

You should also look at the clear evidence showing chemo and radiation don't work very well at all and can be really debilitating and destructive to a human body. Hey.....how about it good buddy? What's good for the goose is good for the gander too.........or is it????

PM I am a doctor and know full well what these can do for (or against) the human body and where they are curative and where they are not.

PM I also been looking at everything that alternative medicine can produce for over ten years. I have listened to all the testimonials. I have looked at all the published evidence, and there is a great deal of that. If you have anything extra to show me, please do so. I am always willing to have my opinions challenged.

vakker~ and you still maintain that nobody at all was cured by ANY alternative treatment AT ALL????? Not a SINGLE one???? Don't you have just one???? How hard are you looking anyways when you claim all those cured by alternative medicine were just imagining it or didn't really have cancer to begin with????






Peter Moran

www.cancerwatcher.com

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
t...

"Peter Moran" wrote in message
...

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
...



What clear evidence?

Read it and see. Mr. *organized medicine liar*.

Jan, repeatedly calling someone a liar is no way to advance debate.

I HAVE debated. Sorry, the FACT that you are an *organized medicine
liar--
HAS been PROVEN.


No such thing at all has been "proven." Proof, Jan, is an element of Logic,
a discipline of which you obviously know nothing. Do you know what a
syllogism is? Look it up. Learn how a proof is constructed. Especially,
learn that your messy kilobytes of cut-and-paste gobbledygook do NOT add up
to a proof, and thus you cannot construct one or more of these and then
later claim to have "PROVEN" someone to be a liar.

Now here's a REAL proof in the proper form of a syllogism:

To KNOWINGLY make a false statement (as opposed to an error), with the
intent to decieve, is to lie.

Jan stated that, "I posted it with the permission of the author," when she
KNEW that the author of "Stupid Skeptic Tricks" had not given her any such
permission.

Therefore Jan lied.

See, Jan? There is a PROOF in just three sentences. No fifteen Kb of
cut-and-paste was necessary, and the LOGIC structure holds up. Until you can
do that, you have NOT "proven" anyone else to be a liar.

YOU are the proven liar here. Stop falsely accusing others of your sins.
--


--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/

wrote in message
oups.com...

Peter Moran wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Peter Moran wrote:
What use is freedom of choice when it is based upon lies? I think
hardly
anyone wants this lad to be forced to have treatment he doesn't want.
They
would like him not to be lied to by frauds and ignorant people.

Peter Moran

Peter's ****ed because he can't take a chunk out. That's what he does
(or did), you know...he'd take chunks of a person's body out. Imagine
that...treating a metabolic disorder with a knife!

They get honor points for seeing who can take out the largest chunk
without killing the victim. They even pass around a photo of the
handiwork of a Sloan-Kettering monster.
That chunkster left the guy on a flat board with wheels to push with
his hands 'cuz everything below the waist was thrown away...cut
off...no asshole, no buttocks, no penis.

In Peter's circle, that's considered a miracle. But when a former lung
cancer patient with mets to the bones walk in under his own power with
NO CANCER, that makes the likes of Peter suspicious.

No kudos for that work...oh no... 'cuz the man still had his buttocks,
his penis and his lungs.

What kind of gall does it take for a moron like that to speak of frauds
and ignorance...his picture should be next to the word in Webster's
dictionary.


http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmo...eranecdote.htm

Thanks for proving my point...you're suspicious when a former
metastatic lung cancer patient shows up completely free of
cancer...shows up in the office of a board certified radiation
oncologist with the largest private radiation oncology practice in the
US...this physician with 30-40 years experience had never seen a
turn-around like that...ever.

So Peter "Chunkster" Moran does what any self respecting crackpot would
do...he gets suspicious.

I have challenged you to show that such a case exists and you never have.
Brenner did not mention that one in 1990 and surely he would have if such
existed. Or was he in doubt about that case? Not everything that looks
like a metastasis on x-ray or clinically is one. Also what was the
time-line? Did the cancer remit at the right time to be due to the Revici
treatment was given, or might the remission be unrelated? Most cancer
patients use multiple treatments.

What I am trying to get across here is that when a cancer treatment is to be
tested out in conventional oncology, the testing is done in such a way that
such questions don't arise. The state of the cancer is documented
carefully. If that is uncertain the case is not used and another is
selected. The cancer is then followed up as it is treated.

If the first cancer patient went into remission everyone would be excited,
but even that would not regarded as the required level of proof. Funny
things happen in conventional oncology, too. So other similar cases would
be treated. If they treated a hundred other cases with definite
established cancer and none of them remitted (as *certainly happens within
alternative cancer experience*) the researchers would probably regard that
case as a fluke for some unknown reason and decide to test something else,
unless there was some obvious treatment modification they thought was worth
trying..

This is the critical difference between the mainstream and the alternative.
Even if another thousand patients were treated without response that one
case could sustain alternative belief and effectively market an alternative
treatment, because it would soon be accompanied by all the second and third
rate testimonials that accrete to even the most ridiculous and most
obviously fraudulent methods.. And desperate patients would be grateful
(for a while) for the "hope" that one case offers them

Peter Moran .

www.cancerwatcher.com

Peter Moran wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Peter Moran wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Peter Moran wrote:
What use is freedom of choice when it is based upon lies? I think
hardly
anyone wants this lad to be forced to have treatment he doesn't want.
They
would like him not to be lied to by frauds and ignorant people.

Peter Moran

Peter's ****ed because he can't take a chunk out. That's what he does
(or did), you know...he'd take chunks of a person's body out. Imagine
that...treating a metabolic disorder with a knife!

They get honor points for seeing who can take out the largest chunk
without killing the victim. They even pass around a photo of the
handiwork of a Sloan-Kettering monster.
That chunkster left the guy on a flat board with wheels to push with
his hands 'cuz everything below the waist was thrown away...cut
off...no asshole, no buttocks, no penis.

In Peter's circle, that's considered a miracle. But when a former lung
cancer patient with mets to the bones walk in under his own power with
NO CANCER, that makes the likes of Peter suspicious.

No kudos for that work...oh no... 'cuz the man still had his buttocks,
his penis and his lungs.

What kind of gall does it take for a moron like that to speak of frauds
and ignorance...his picture should be next to the word in Webster's
dictionary.


http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmo...eranecdote.htm

Thanks for proving my point...you're suspicious when a former
metastatic lung cancer patient shows up completely free of
cancer...shows up in the office of a board certified radiation
oncologist with the largest private radiation oncology practice in the
US...this physician with 30-40 years experience had never seen a
turn-around like that...ever.

So Peter "Chunkster" Moran does what any self respecting crackpot would
do...he gets suspicious.

I have challenged you to show that such a case exists and you never have.

Dr. Brenner wrote about the case in the foreword to my book, and that
is was the impetus to his further researching Revici's results. So that
means you're calling Dr. Brenner a liar...which once again demonstrates
your SUSPICIOUS attitude in spades.

Brenner did not mention that one in 1990 and surely he would have if such
existed.

That 'conclusion' of yours is just plain stupid.

Or was he in doubt about that case? Not everything that looks
like a metastasis on x-ray or clinically is one. Also what was the
time-line? Did the cancer remit at the right time to be due to the Revici
treatment was given, or might the remission be unrelated?

You're truly a moron, Mr. Take-a-Chunk. Dr. Brenner treated the man
palliatively for bone mets. Brenner was impressed enough to look
further. But mr. take-a-chunk., you've already said you wouldn't have.
You've decided, instead to become suspicious.

Most cancer
patients use multiple treatments.

Not so with Revici's patients. He was not in favor of it.

What I am trying to get across here is that when a cancer treatment is to be
tested out in conventional oncology, the testing is done in such a way that
such questions don't arise. The state of the cancer is documented
carefully. If that is uncertain the case is not used and another is
selected. The cancer is then followed up as it is treated.

If the first cancer patient went into remission everyone would be excited,
but even that would not regarded as the required level of proof. Funny
things happen in conventional oncology, too.

Do they now? So tell us mr. take-a-chunk, when was the last time a lung
mets patient of yours became cancer free without
surgery/chemo/radiation?

So other similar cases would
be treated. If they treated a hundred other cases with definite
established cancer and none of them remitted (as *certainly happens within
alternative cancer experience*) the researchers would probably regard that
case as a fluke for some unknown reason and decide to test something else,
unless there was some obvious treatment modification they thought was worth
trying..

This is the critical difference between the mainstream and the alternative.
Even if another thousand patients were treated without response that one
case could sustain alternative belief and effectively market an alternative
treatment, because it would soon be accompanied by all the second and third
rate testimonials that accrete to even the most ridiculous and most
obviously fraudulent methods.. And desperate patients would be grateful
(for a while) for the "hope" that one case offers them

Peter Moran .

You reek with suspicion...convincing yourself of your unsupported
fantasy. Notice how many times you use the words "could" and "would" in
your last paragraph. And then tie those woulds and coulds with catch
phrases like 'third rate testimonials' and 'obviously fraudulent
methods.' Then toss in "desparate patients" and voila, it makes for a
typical substitute for anything with any semblance of reality..

wrote:
Peter Moran wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Peter Moran wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Peter Moran wrote:
What use is freedom of choice when it is based upon lies? I think
hardly
anyone wants this lad to be forced to have treatment he doesn't want.
They
would like him not to be lied to by frauds and ignorant people.

Peter Moran

Peter's ****ed because he can't take a chunk out. That's what he does
(or did), you know...he'd take chunks of a person's body out. Imagine
that...treating a metabolic disorder with a knife!

They get honor points for seeing who can take out the largest chunk
without killing the victim. They even pass around a photo of the
handiwork of a Sloan-Kettering monster.
That chunkster left the guy on a flat board with wheels to push with
his hands 'cuz everything below the waist was thrown away...cut
off...no asshole, no buttocks, no penis.

In Peter's circle, that's considered a miracle. But when a former lung
cancer patient with mets to the bones walk in under his own power with
NO CANCER, that makes the likes of Peter suspicious.

No kudos for that work...oh no... 'cuz the man still had his buttocks,
his penis and his lungs.

What kind of gall does it take for a moron like that to speak of frauds
and ignorance...his picture should be next to the word in Webster's
dictionary.


http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmo...eranecdote.htm

Thanks for proving my point...you're suspicious when a former
metastatic lung cancer patient shows up completely free of
cancer...shows up in the office of a board certified radiation
oncologist with the largest private radiation oncology practice in the
US...this physician with 30-40 years experience had never seen a
turn-around like that...ever.

So Peter "Chunkster" Moran does what any self respecting crackpot would
do...he gets suspicious.

I have challenged you to show that such a case exists and you never have.

Dr. Brenner wrote about the case in the foreword to my book, and that
is was the impetus to his further researching Revici's results. So that
means you're calling Dr. Brenner a liar...which once again demonstrates
your SUSPICIOUS attitude in spades.

Brenner did not mention that one in 1990 and surely he would have if such
existed.

That 'conclusion' of yours is just plain stupid.

Or was he in doubt about that case? Not everything that looks
like a metastasis on x-ray or clinically is one. Also what was the
time-line? Did the cancer remit at the right time to be due to the Revici
treatment was given, or might the remission be unrelated?

You're truly a moron, Mr. Take-a-Chunk. Dr. Brenner treated the man
palliatively for bone mets. Brenner was impressed enough to look
further. But mr. take-a-chunk., you've already said you wouldn't have.
You've decided, instead to become suspicious.

Most cancer
patients use multiple treatments.

Not so with Revici's patients. He was not in favor of it.

What I am trying to get across here is that when a cancer treatment is to be
tested out in conventional oncology, the testing is done in such a way that
such questions don't arise. The state of the cancer is documented
carefully. If that is uncertain the case is not used and another is
selected. The cancer is then followed up as it is treated.

If the first cancer patient went into remission everyone would be excited,
but even that would not regarded as the required level of proof. Funny
things happen in conventional oncology, too.

Do they now? So tell us mr. take-a-chunk, when was the last time a lung
mets patient of yours became cancer free without
surgery/chemo/radiation?

So other similar cases would
be treated. If they treated a hundred other cases with definite
established cancer and none of them remitted (as *certainly happens within
alternative cancer experience*) the researchers would probably regard that
case as a fluke for some unknown reason and decide to test something else,
unless there was some obvious treatment modification they thought was worth
trying..

This is the critical difference between the mainstream and the alternative.
Even if another thousand patients were treated without response that one
case could sustain alternative belief and effectively market an alternative
treatment, because it would soon be accompanied by all the second and third
rate testimonials that accrete to even the most ridiculous and most
obviously fraudulent methods.. And desperate patients would be grateful
(for a while) for the "hope" that one case offers them

Peter Moran .

You reek with suspicion...convincing yourself of your unsupported
fantasy. Notice how many times you use the words "could" and "would" in
your last paragraph. And then tie those woulds and coulds with catch
phrases like 'third rate testimonials' and 'obviously fraudulent
methods.' Then toss in "desparate patients" and voila, it makes for a
typical substitute for anything with any semblance of reality..

I wouldn't call it suspicion, but rather a clear bias on behalf of the
drug makers. Fuzzy logic is a trademark of PR grunts like Moran.