Liam Holloway Dies
Steve Wrathall
died. Poor Kid. Wonder where all the people who defended his being
denied modern medical technology and being fed carrot juice instead, are
now?
--
----------------
Support the petition on Shared Parenting:
http://www.xoasis.com/~sharedparents/
---------------
Bob Howard
From: "Steve Wrathall" <wrat...@ISEEYOUBABYhotmail.com>
Subject: Liam Holloway Dies
Date: Friday, 27 October 2000 12:31 p.m.
Just heard on the radio that Cancer Sufferer Liam Williams Holloway has
died. Poor Kid. Wonder where all the people who defended his being
denied modern medical technology and being fed carrot juice instead, are
now?
One of my strongest hates next to child abusers are those bastards who
batten on to vulnerable people with their alternative medicines.
Bob Howard.
Steve Ballantyne
<wrat...@ISEEYOUBABYhotmail.com> wrote:
> Just heard on the radio that Cancer Sufferer Liam Williams Holloway has
> died. Poor Kid. Wonder where all the people who defended his being
> denied modern medical technology and being fed carrot juice instead, are
> now?
>
They will be here shortly, full of condolences and easy expressions of
sympathy for the child. Some of them may tell us how they admire the
Holloways for sticking by their principles, whatever they are; tomorrow
or the day after someone will suggest that it's somehow the fault of
conventional medicine, for not having something that both cures cancer
and has a nice orange flavour.
Then there'll be some nutty stuff about how Raef Royal Therapy (or
whatever it's called) really works 100% of the time, and how shocking it
was that the Holloways were chased out of the country before they had a
chance to properly cure Liam; then there'll be more tut-tutting about
nasty Western medicine; and there'll probably be somebody telling us how
the Hoxey clinic in Mexico really would have worked, too, if only Liam
had got there sooner. Just like Bruno Lawrence.
Then it'll all be forgotten -- especially at the 'alternative therapy'
clinics.
Meanwhile Liam's dead; and as for his stupid, stupid parents... they've
probably had enough misery in their lives by now.
--
Steve Ballantyne
...Tom
>died. Poor Kid. Wonder where all the people who defended his being
>denied modern medical technology and being fed carrot juice instead, are
>now?
Damn. Another life sacrificed on the altar of wishful thinking. I
wonder if the quack is offering refunds or will includes Liams case
study in his advertising.
*sigh*
...Tom
E. Scrooge
Bob Howard <n...@spam.none.com> wrote in article
<8taib9$2q2$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>...
You poor bugger. You had to wait a long time for this day, so that you
could finally get a chance to gloat over the course of treatment that was
chosen for him.
The fact is there are people dying from cancer no matter what they do, and
a lot of of them haven't lasted as long as the little fellow has.
It must be quite a relief for a Vulture like you, to finally be able to
land and start to feed on it's prey.
If you want to jump on your soap box, Bob, then that's fine. Just don't
dance around on that poor kids grave while you'll doing it.
I see that others have also joined your little bandwagon. Must be quite
pleasing for them to have another go at the parents, and put the boot into
them one last time, while knowing for a fact that the kid had a well known
disease, that a lot a Hell of a lot of people have died from anyway.
Blaming child abusers is one thing, but if you're trying to suggest that
any parent would give their kid cancer, then you're one very sad prick.
If you choose to reply, then you might as well also prove that everyone who
has died from cancer, was because they also had alternative medicine, and
if it wasn't for that they would still be alive today.
E. Scrooge
Brian Sandle
: in reply to Steve Wrathall <wrat...@ISEEYOUBABYhotmail.com>
: *sigh*
: ...Tom
It boggles teh mind to think of the amount of money which would be
refunded if every `trad' cancer treatment that failed was refunded. But
remember that trad `cure' is only five years of life post diagnosis.
Does anyone remember what was being predicted by `trad' medicine at the
time Liam was spirited away? I think he was given 50% chance by trad
treatment, maybe less. Would that mean that whoever would have been paying
would only have received a 50% refund if he had not survived?
Hoxsey claims good success for similar cancers which `trad' claims some
success for - melanoma, with perhaps less disfigurement, and lymphoma.
My feeling is that the rise in cancer is partly related to reduced
vitamin D with the reduced sun exposure - sunscreens.
I did feel over this whole affair that prestige of the `trad' system was
part of the issue.
Liam's adventure may have been shorter under the `trad' system.
Bob Howard
"E. Scrooge" <e.sc...@zfree.co.nx (z replaces x)> wrote in message
news:01c03fb6$db467740$> >
> > One of my strongest hates next to child abusers are those bastards who
> > batten on to vulnerable people with their alternative medicines.
Funny how much you read into my post. I did not attack the parents. I
attacked those who take money off desperate people knowing full well their
treatments are useless. The Hoxhey clinic in Mexico certainly fits into that
category. That fraud in Rotorua who claims mild RF currents run through the
body can have some effect on cancer should be put out of business. He
justifies himself by claiming the medical profession is hidebound and
refuses to recognise his "treatment", about par for the course.
Bob Howard.
Ashley Campbell
"Brian Sandle" <bsa...@southern.co.nz> wrote in message
news:97261148...@mnementh.southern.co.nz...
> ...Tom <to...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> : in reply to Steve Wrathall <wrat...@ISEEYOUBABYhotmail.com>
> :>Just heard on the radio that Cancer Sufferer Liam Williams Holloway has
> :>died. Poor Kid. Wonder where all the people who defended his being
> :>denied modern medical technology and being fed carrot juice instead, are
> :>now?
>
> : Damn. Another life sacrificed on the altar of wishful thinking. I
> : wonder if the quack is offering refunds or will includes Liams case
> : study in his advertising.
>
> : *sigh*
>
> : ...Tom
>
> It boggles teh mind to think of the amount of money which would be
> refunded if every `trad' cancer treatment that failed was refunded. But
> remember that trad `cure' is only five years of life post diagnosis.
>
> Does anyone remember what was being predicted by `trad' medicine at the
> time Liam was spirited away? I think he was given 50% chance by trad
> treatment, maybe less.
Don't know what was being predicted, but I know of a 3-year-old boy who was
diagnosed with neuroblastoma after Liam, and who died just a couple of weeks
ago - despite having all the conventional therapy on offer, and all the love
and support his parents could possibly give.
Neuroblastoma has a nasty habit of doing that.
I am sure Liam's parents hurt every bit as much as my friend and his wife
do. My heart goes out to them all.
Peter
That is what I read into the original post as well. The ethics of State
intervention in child rearing in such situations is a very tricky matter. In
this case it could remain a tricky matter if the Police or other authorities
chose to investigate the matter with a view to laying charges when (or if) the
parents return to NZ.
My view on this matter (although I am not fully convinced that I am correct) is
that the authorities should have let go of this one at an early stage even
though the child was at a greater risk by not receiving conventional treatment.
For a host of reasons this may have resulted in a better outcome for the
community.
>
>
Steve Wrathall
"E. Scrooge" wrote:
> You poor bugger. You had to wait a long time for this day, so that you
> could finally get a chance to gloat over the course of treatment that was
> chosen for him.
When a child has a 50% chance of surviving through a conventional tratment
that needs to be applied rapidly, methodically and will cause pain - it should
nonetheless be done. This chance at life should not be jeopardised by a
parent's natural anguish at seeing their most loved one suffer and new age
beliefs.
>
> The fact is there are people dying from cancer no matter what they do, and
> a lot of of them haven't lasted as long as the little fellow has.
> It must be quite a relief for a Vulture like you, to finally be able to
> land and start to feed on it's prey.
..and their are "some" people who don't put their kids in child carseats, and
they survive, whilre others in carseats die anyway. You can always pick out
examples that go against the odds. In the case of medical treatment, an
objective assessment of what will maximise someones chances has to be done in a
very hard-headed way. The Holloway parents regrettably did not do that.
I doubt that looking at nz.politics is high on their prioroty list at the
moment, so comments about my "insensitivity" don't really bother me.
I only hope that anyone reading this who ever finds themself in such an awful
position as the Holloways will step back and let the medical professionals do
their job.
John Holley
<mr_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Probably at the funeral mourning his passing! Regardless of what *we* may
> think, the parents did what they believed to be right under the
> circumstances. They have to live with their decision. Hounding them and
> somehow saying they were wrong because the child died is missing the point.
The question is that children aren't the property of the parents. We have
numerous laws in this country that overide the "rights" or "beliefs" of
parents. Do you have the same view, for instance on female (and male)
circumcision?
What about cults e.g. Potter and co, who believe it is right to have sex with
minors?
John
--
John Holley
Adept Systems Ltd.
+64 21 952 625 (ICQ) 22267030
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." Dr. M. L. King, Jr.
...Tom
>refunded if every `trad' cancer treatment that failed was refunded. But
>remember that trad `cure' is only five years of life post diagnosis.
Brian you know damn well that trad medicine does not make the claims
that quakery does, which is exactly why the frauds prosper. Don't let
Liam die in vain, at least maybe someone will remember him next time a
quack tries to prey on human frailties.
...Tom
...Tom
>I am surprised that the people in this ng who are so in favour of individual
>rights have such an aversion to the application of the same when it
>conflicts with their own beliefs. Personally i don't think that this
>unfortunate death should become a political football.
I doubt many of us have any objection to an adult choosing to be as
stupid as they wish, it is the protection of children from adult
stupidity that is the issue. While I have no major desire to see Liams
death become a political football either, if another childs life can
be saved by publicity about the consequences of falling for quackery,
then at least he won't have been sacrificed in vain.
...Tom
E. Scrooge
Steve Wrathall <wrat...@ISEEYOUBABYhotmail.com> wrote in article
<39F8EAB0...@ISEEYOUBABYhotmail.com>...
>
>
> "E. Scrooge" wrote:
>
> > You poor bugger. You had to wait a long time for this day, so that
you
> > could finally get a chance to gloat over the course of treatment that
was
> > chosen for him.
>
> When a child has a 50% chance of surviving through a conventional
tratment
> that needs to be applied rapidly, methodically and will cause pain - it
should
> nonetheless be done. This chance at life should not be jeopardised by a
> parent's natural anguish at seeing their most loved one suffer and new
age
> beliefs.
No one gave him 50% chance at all. Doctors can only do their best, they
don't give out gambling odds. PR people might like to though, and the
media might like to add their bit into it as well.
> >
> > The fact is there are people dying from cancer no matter what they do,
and
> > a lot of of them haven't lasted as long as the little fellow has.
> > It must be quite a relief for a Vulture like you, to finally be able to
> > land and start to feed on it's prey.
>
> ..and their are "some" people who don't put their kids in child carseats,
and
> they survive, whilre others in carseats die anyway. You can always pick
out
> examples that go against the odds. In the case of medical treatment, an
> objective assessment of what will maximise someones chances has to be
done in a
> very hard-headed way. The Holloway parents regrettably did not do that.
Eh??? You trying to say that the kid in the car seat is going to have the
accident before it's happened.
No doubt if people knew that someone was going to get cancer then they'd
start treating them now.
So to take your carseat nonsense. Are you on cancer treament now, in case
you should get it?
After all that's what the carseat does, it's there to prevent injury should
it happen.
> I doubt that looking at nz.politics is high on their prioroty list at the
> moment, so comments about my "insensitivity" don't really bother me.
>
> I only hope that anyone reading this who ever finds themself in such an
awful
> position as the Holloways will step back and let the medical
professionals do
> their job.
And if that doesn't seem to be helping, lets not forget that a lot of
medical cases end in death? So as hopeless as it might seem wouldn't you
try anything that you could?
Just as there are now, wouldn't you take a chance on a new drug, even
though it hasn't be released yet, if you could? Since by the time it's
released you could be dead anyway.
The professionals might be doing their best in some cases, but are they
using every means that are available to them, or even give the patient
every possible option, even if some haven't been fully proven yet? After
all if you're going to die anyway, then trying a new drug is hardly going
to make things any worse, is it?
E. Scrooge
...Tom
>though it hasn't be released yet, if you could? Since by the time it's
>released you could be dead anyway.
There is a big difference between a new drug in early testing stages
where a clear assessment of your chances is given and being sucked
into fraudulent quackery that has no chance of success yet is touted
as a great cure.
The human capacity for wilful ignorance and self deception never
ceases to amaze me.
...Tom
T A R T
news:01c03fc2$6535bdc0$79ecadcb@oemcomputer...
> And if that doesn't seem to be helping, lets not forget that a lot of
> medical cases end in death? So as hopeless as it might seem wouldn't you
> try anything that you could?
Did LH's parents give conventional medicine a real chance?
--
"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent"
-- Eleanor Roosevelt
E. Scrooge
T A R T <ta...@DELETETHISTOREPLYihug.co.nz>
> > medical cases end in death? So as hopeless as it might seem wouldn't
you
> > try anything that you could?
>
> Did LH's parents give conventional medicine a real chance?
They're the only ones that can truly answer that question, as it would be
foolish for anyone else to try to. Also while conventional medicine said
that he wouldn't last very long at all, quite some time ago now, it looks
like he did. Not that it means much now.
E. Scrooge
T A R T
> Not that it means much now.
No, it doesn't mean much now.
DeadClintons
even that Liam died. Not the other way around.
How sad.
Bob Howard
"...Tom" <to...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:vdshvs8o2v5guhkbc...@4ax.com...
I most certainly agree with you. Unfortunately distraught parents with a
sick child do not necessarily think logically. When a treatment itself
results in pain and discomfort I can see the anguish of a mother not wanting
to subject her child to it. On top of that not everybody thinks logically
and clearly and might be persuaded some pleasant but useless alternative
treatment might work. It is only wishful thinking.
In the case of Liam I don't think he had a chance even with conventional
treatment. The chances are never good with bone cancer which I believe it
was. But what happens when conventional treatment has a good chance of
working but is withheld? What do we then think of the parents?
Bob Howard.
Bob Howard
"E. Scrooge" <e.sc...@zfree.co.nx (z replaces x)> wrote in message
>
> They're the only ones that can truly answer that question, as it would be
> foolish for anyone else to try to. Also while conventional medicine said
> that he wouldn't last very long at all, quite some time ago now, it looks
> like he did. Not that it means much now.
An estimate of survival by doctor can only be a guesstimate. Nobody knows
exactly what path a cancer will take through a body or how fast it will
progress.
Cancer has a habit of moving in fits and starts. To their shame alternative
cancer treaters use that to convince their victims they have helped them.
Samples of "medicines" from the Hoxhy clinic were brought back to New
Zealand and analysed. The chemist involved said it was useless as a
treatment being little more than vitamins and vegetable juices.
Bob Howard.
Peter Metcalfe
ta...@DELETETHISTOREPLYihug.co.nz says...
> Did LH's parents give conventional medicine a real chance?
No.
--Peter Metcalfe
E. Scrooge
Peter Metcalfe <metc...@voyager.co.nz> wrote in article
<MPG.1463f0102...@news.voyager.co.nz>...
Did Liam have a deadly type of cancer?
YES.
E. Scrooge
Owen McShane
complete with a picture of his luxurious house, He must be real – he's
so rich.
The guy is a fraud and should be in gaol.
> ...Tom
--
Owen McShane
Kaiwaka, Northland, New Zealand.
Publisher of Straight Thinking Magazine
T A R T
All cancers are deadly if left untreated. Some treatments have a better success
rate than others.
Brian Sandle
: in reply to Brian Sandle <bsa...@southern.co.nz>
:>refunded if every `trad' cancer treatment that failed was refunded. But
:>remember that trad `cure' is only five years of life post diagnosis.
: Brian you know damn well that trad medicine does not make the claims
: that quakery does, which is exactly why the frauds prosper.
I feel that trad medicine was trying to claim they would do better than
the quacks. Whoever has been putting the message across has been trying
to give the impression that taking away Liam from chemotherapy was
was robbing him of his cure. But neuroblastoma has a high recurrence rate
and the chemotherapy is pretty tough. Families who have put their
children through it to no avail have regretted it.
Don't let
: Liam die in vain, at least maybe someone will remember him next time a
: quack tries to prey on human frailties.
Cancers produce tumour necrosis factor themselves. When the cancers are
removed it is common to find several metastases soon occurring, because
the tumour necrosis factor is no longer available from the tumour since it
is gone, correcting what was causing the cancer. New trad treatment may
relate to administering TNF.
But as with so much in our market system, what brings in someone money is
what is _sold_. Vitamin D is so cheap, and if it prevents some cancer what
would all the trad therapists do?
It takes about three days for our bodies to complete synthesis and
absorbtion of vitamin D from sunlight. When I was younger it was normal
to bath once a week. Bathing would wash off the oil on the skin, both
what the sun is going to turn into vitamin D, and the product.
Melanoma is also found on skin not exposed to sunlight. It may have a
connection to sunlight even in that case, but I feel it is irregular
sunlight exposure that is causing the melanoma.
Vitamin D is implicated as a factor in protection from rickets, tooth decay,
multiple sclerosis.
Kerry
wrote:
No it was a tumour of neural origin that is very responsive to
chemotherapy and radiotherapy in most cases. Many more young children
live than die if treated.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Indecision is the key to flexibility
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kerry
<ta...@DELETETHISTOREPLYihug.co.nz> wrote:
>E. Scrooge <e.sc...@zfree.co.nx (z replaces x)> wrote in message
>news:01c03fc2$6535bdc0$79ecadcb@oemcomputer...
>> And if that doesn't seem to be helping, lets not forget that a lot of
>> medical cases end in death? So as hopeless as it might seem wouldn't you
>> try anything that you could?
>
>Did LH's parents give conventional medicine a real chance?
A month of chemo? two cycles I believe
Kerry
Not in the majority of cases if treated early
Unfortunately he didnt get that chance
Sad
E. Scrooge
T A R T <ta...@DELETETHISTOREPLYihug.co.nz> wrote in article
<8tbnkc$uu$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz>...
> E. Scrooge <e.sc...@zfree.co.nx (z replaces x)> wrote in message
> news:01c03ff5$81a9cc20$79ecadcb@oemcomputer...
> >
> > Peter Metcalfe <metc...@voyager.co.nz> wrote in article
> > <MPG.1463f0102...@news.voyager.co.nz>...
> > > In article <8tastj$kn9$1...@news.ihug.co.nz>,
> > > ta...@DELETETHISTOREPLYihug.co.nz says...
> > >
> > > > Did LH's parents give conventional medicine a real chance?
> > >
> > > No.
> > >
> > > --Peter Metcalfe
> >
> > Did Liam have a deadly type of cancer?
> >
> > YES.
> >
>
> All cancers are deadly if left untreated. Some treatments have a better
success
> rate than others.
There are some cancers that just can't be treated. There aren't many
survivors of having a brain tumour still getting around, for example.
E. Scrooge
E. Scrooge
Kerry <ker...@remove.this.bit.ihug.co.nz> wrote in article
<39f96723...@news.wlg.ihug.co.nz>...
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 09:09:15 +0000 (UTC), "E. Scrooge"
> <e.sc...@zfree.co.nx (z replaces x)> wrote:
>
> >
> >Peter Metcalfe <metc...@voyager.co.nz> wrote in article
> ><MPG.1463f0102...@news.voyager.co.nz>...
> >> In article <8tastj$kn9$1...@news.ihug.co.nz>,
> >> ta...@DELETETHISTOREPLYihug.co.nz says...
> >>
> >> > Did LH's parents give conventional medicine a real chance?
> >>
> >> No.
> >>
> >> --Peter Metcalfe
> >
> >Did Liam have a deadly type of cancer?
> >
> >YES.
>
> Not in the majority of cases if treated early
>
> Unfortunately he didnt get that chance
>
> Sad
As you said youself he did receive two cycles of treatment early on, about
a year and a half ago. The results couldn't have been very good or the
parents wouldn't have stopped the treatment. Without being there to see
any test results no one can say much about his case. Whether there was
much hope or not. No one here was with Liam day and night to see if his
early treatments were making any difference.
E. Scrooge
Final Justyce
"Kerry" <ker...@remove.this.bit.ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:39f966f5...@news.wlg.ihug.co.nz...
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 16:38:23 +1300, "T A R T"
> <ta...@DELETETHISTOREPLYihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >E. Scrooge <e.sc...@zfree.co.nx (z replaces x)> wrote in message
> >news:01c03fc2$6535bdc0$79ecadcb@oemcomputer...
> >> And if that doesn't seem to be helping, lets not forget that a lot of
> >> medical cases end in death? So as hopeless as it might seem wouldn't
you
> >> try anything that you could?
> >
> >Did LH's parents give conventional medicine a real chance?
>
> A month of chemo? two cycles I believe
>
>
Kerry, two cycles--does that mean that basically they went in twice to under
go the radiation/chemo, and left it at that?
Diane
Bob Howard
> >
> >In the case of Liam I don't think he had a chance even with conventional
> >treatment. The chances are never good with bone cancer which I believe
it
> >was. But what happens when conventional treatment has a good chance of
> >working but is withheld? What do we then think of the parents?
>
> No it was a tumour of neural origin that is very responsive to
> chemotherapy and radiotherapy in most cases. Many more young children
> live than die if treated.
If you are right he might have been cured by conventional treatment. I don't
believe in the principle that parents have a right to decide for their
children because too many are ignorant and not capable of giving a
considered opinion.
Bob Howard.
Bob Howard
"Kerry" <ker...@remove.this.bit.ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:39f966ba...@news.wlg.ihug.co.nz...
> >
> chemotherapy and radiotherapy in most cases. Many more young children
> live than die if treated.
Liam was described as having neuroblastoma. I looked that up in the
dictionary.
Neuroblastoma: a malignant cancer of the sympathetic nervous system which
attacks the neuroblasts of the embryo and is found usually in children.
I looked it up on a medical site. To control it requires constant treatment
by radiation or chemothereapy. It can spread around the body even getting
into bone which causes great pain. If caught early the survival rate is 80%
but it is usually fairly advanced before diagnosis and the survival rate is
a lot lower.
It is not hard to see the parent's dilemma. To increase the child's life
constant painful and uncomfortable treatment has to be endured. If it isn't
the child will die more quickly.
Unfortunately they let wishful thinking take over by going to unprincipled
quacks.
Bob Howard.
Bob Howard
"Ashley Campbell" <ashle...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:Yv5K5.285$O7Kd.8...@news.xtra.co.nz...
>
> Don't know what was being predicted, but I know of a 3-year-old boy who
was
> diagnosed with neuroblastoma after Liam, and who died just a couple of
weeks
> ago - despite having all the conventional therapy on offer, and all the
love
> and support his parents could possibly give.
Even if tretament can't cure extending life for another year or two can be
counted as success. Adults say it certainly is, another year with their
family.
Bob Howard.
Bob Howard
I am in favour of individual rights. Did Liam express his rights? He was in
fact 10 years too young to express an individual opinion.
What about the couple who let their son develop a painful cancer on his knee
and did nothing? They just watched him suffer pain and die all for misguided
religious principles. Was that an individual right? A court did not think so
even though the parents were treated very leniently.
Bob Howard.
...Tom
>survivors of having a brain tumour still getting around, for example.
That's funny an ex girlfriend of mine is doing just fine after surgery
chemo and radiotherapy for a brain tumour about 20 years ago. I'm damn
glad she didn't have Liams Parents. She'd be dead now.
The list of other people who would be dead now if they had Liams
parents making decsions for them include my uncle, my father in law,
several friends and a couple of my wifes friends. On reflection I know
about a dozen people who have had cancer of one sort or another. If
they had done what Liams parents did, 95% of them would be dead now
If I type slowly maybe you will understand.
Liams cancer was treatable.
He had a very good chance of survival
Liams parents did not have the strength to choose life for their child
so they let a quack convince them to let their child die.
Is that simple enough for you?
We may have sympathy for Liams parents. The medical profession needs
to take a good look at how they can provide more support for people
like Liams parents (judging by this newsgroup they are far from alone
in their ignorance) as they obviously could not handle the situation,
but I am FUCKED if I will stand by and watch people defend the
murdering quack who convinced them to let their son die.
...Tom
madknoxie
that little toddler from Central Otago that passed away in a foreign
country on Wednesday morning. I hope you find solace in the knowledge that
Liam no longer has to suffer.
Ok all you wankers and arseholes out there. Who out of you would prosecute
Liams parents for neglect? Firstly explain to me how they neglected Liam
and then explain to me how Liam would definately be alive had he taken the
"conventional method"? Best estimates of his survival that I had heard of
were 50% if that. He sure managed to outlive the time the doctors said he
would survive had he not had any treatment at all.
Rest in peace Liam
--
madknoxie
(Debian 2.2/potato)
The brighter the picture, the darker the negative.
Ashley Campbell
"Bob Howard" <n...@spam.none.com> wrote in message
news:8tckci$lij$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
I think that's a very personal judgement, which depends on all sorts of
things, such as pain, quality of life, etc. And it must be extraordinarily
hard to be a parent making that decision for a child.
Personally, I think, where life-saving treatment is concerned, there should
be a point where parents *don't* have a say, where the treatment is given
despite their wishes. I don't know what that point should be.
I know with my friend's son, the neuroblastoma was diagnosed when the boy's
chances were much less than the figures being quoted for Liam - yet they
still took everything conventional treatment had to offer. Was it worth it?
Only they can say, really. I suspect I'd do exactly the same as them if I
were ever in those shoes.
John Cawston
>
> First I would like to express my condolences to the family and friends of
> that little toddler from Central Otago that passed away in a foreign
> country on Wednesday morning. I hope you find solace in the knowledge that
> Liam no longer has to suffer.
>
> Ok all you wankers and arseholes out there. Who out of you would prosecute
> Liams parents for neglect?
Me.
We had no hesitation in prosecuting a Pacific Island
family for "neglect" when they were accused of denying
conventional care for their son who died of his cancer.
In court, it was shown that the family was a loving one
who followed the wishes of their child. Natural justice to
this family demands that we treat this Pakeha family no
differently.
Firstly explain to me how they neglected Liam
By sending him to known quacks with known dodgy
treatments. There are cases in the USA where such
"practitioners" have been successfully sued
for their treatments. Why do you think that so called
clinic is located in Mexico?
> and then explain to me how Liam would definately be alive had he taken the
> "conventional method"? Best estimates of his survival that I had heard of
> were 50% if that.
You haven't been reading the newspapers, watching TV or
reading this newsgroup too well, have you? The chances for
treating this form of the disease successfully are very
good.
He sure managed to outlive the time the doctors said he
> would survive had he not had any treatment at all.
But the doctors were 100% right.. in the end.
Somehow, a Pacific Island family's treatment of their son
is seen as criminal, whilst Liam's parents, being white,
have loved their son more, knew better how to treat their
son than the medical profession, and engender more
sympathy, deserve it and the have the right to not be
prosecuted.
In a word, bullshit!
Now watch the authorities scramble to distinguish between
the two cases and show why this family should not be
prosecuted.
JC
Ashley Campbell
"John Cawston" <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:39F9F718...@ihug.co.nz...
> madknoxie wrote:
> >
> Somehow, a Pacific Island family's treatment of their son
> is seen as criminal, whilst Liam's parents, being white,
> have loved their son more, knew better how to treat their
> son than the medical profession, and engender more
> sympathy, deserve it and the have the right to not be
> prosecuted.
>
> In a word, bullshit!
Actually, logically, Liam's parents should be more likely to be prosecuted.
In the case the Pacific Island family, the boy was 13 and had reportedly
made his wishes known - that he did not want treatment. Liam was 10 years
younger, and had no way of working out whether he wanted treatment or not.
Dave Joll
news:39F9F718...@ihug.co.nz...
> Somehow, a Pacific Island family's treatment of their son
> is seen as criminal, whilst Liam's parents, being white,
> have loved their son more, knew better how to treat their
> son than the medical profession, and engender more
> sympathy, deserve it and the have the right to not be
> prosecuted.
> In a word, bullshit!
Exactly.
T A R T
madknoxie <lewj...@student.otago.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:39F9EC75...@student.otago.ac.nz...
Best estimates of his survival that I had heard of
> were 50% if that. He sure managed to outlive the time the doctors said he
> would survive had he not had any treatment at all.
50% odds are NOT negligible when you're talking about life and death. In Liam's
case, the odds were better.
E. Scrooge
...Tom <to...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in article
<3gnjvsgl7tm9qd17u...@4ax.com>...
> in reply to "E. Scrooge" <e.sc...@zfree.co.nx (z replaces x)>
> >There are some cancers that just can't be treated. There aren't many
> >survivors of having a brain tumour still getting around, for example.
>
> That's funny an ex girlfriend of mine is doing just fine after surgery
> chemo and radiotherapy for a brain tumour about 20 years ago.
>
> ...Tom
There's nothing funny about it at all, and I'm sure that your friend didn't
think so either.
I didn't say that all people die from having a brain tumour, just like some
kids don't die from a similar type of cancer to young Liam's. The fact is
that each case is different and has it's own problems, and each case needs
to be judged on itself and not a bunch of statistics. Why do you think
that they do so many tests on people before treating for any type of
ailment first? Because each case is different.
E. Scrooge
E. Scrooge
DPF <nos...@dpf.ac.nz> wrote in article
<ehtjvskq8tmjlrtdn...@4ax.com>...
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 12:24:08 +0000 (UTC) in nz.politics "E. Scrooge"
> <e.sc...@zfree.co.nx (z replaces x)> wrote: in
> <01c04010$bb0698c0$79ecadcb@oemcomputer>:
>
> >As you said youself he did receive two cycles of treatment early on,
about
> >a year and a half ago. The results couldn't have been very good or the
> >parents wouldn't have stopped the treatment.
>
> transplant operation the patient didn't feel any better so he stopped
> it because it obviously wasn't very good.
>
> DPF
I never knew that a heart transplant took several weeks to complete.
Does the theatre staff work in shifts around the clock then?
Whom am I to argue, it was you that made the amazing comparison.
E. Scrooge
Owen McShane
coverage of the initial Liam story. But when Paul got the big C himself
he focused on mainstream scientific medicine and never went near the
alternative set.
I guess he knows what gets the ratings.
Pip
"Ashley Campbell" <ashle...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in > In the case the Pacific
Island family, the boy was 13 and had reportedly
> made his wishes known - that he did not want treatment. Liam was 10 years
> younger, and had no way of working out whether he wanted treatment or not.
>
their years..so much so that it can be frightening when you talk to
them....adults are in denial...kids arent'...they see things how they really
are..
Pip
David McLoughlin
He started out with a 90pc chance of surviving. Neuroblastoma is a
well-known and highly treatable childhood cancer.
He lived for so long because he had several cycles of chemotherapy at
the beginning, before his parents took him to the quacks and stopped the
proven treatment. The initial bursts of chemo shrank the blastoma on his
jaw, not the radio waves from the quack in Rotorua or the bullshit
"treatment" from the frauds in Tijuana.
I am now waiting for his death to be blamed on the original life-saving
chemo rather than his parents' disgraceful decision to turn to quacks
and stop the well-proven scientific treatment. Or has someone already
blamed the chemo?
Liam was a pre-school child. There was no way he could have given
informed consent to the death-resulting quackery his parents chose for
him over well-proven medical treatment for his illness.
E. Scrooge
David McLoughlin <davemc...@iprolink.co.nz> wrote in article
<39FA6C...@iprolink.co.nz>...
> T A R T wrote:
> >
> > madknoxie <lewj...@student.otago.ac.nz> wrote in message
> > news:39F9EC75...@student.otago.ac.nz...
> > Best estimates of his survival that I had heard of
> > > were 50% if that. He sure managed to outlive the time the doctors
said he
> > > would survive had he not had any treatment at all.
> >
> > 50% odds are NOT negligible when you're talking about life and death.
In Liam's
> > case, the odds were better.
>
> He started out with a 90pc chance of surviving. Neuroblastoma is a
> well-known and highly treatable childhood cancer.
He never had a 90 % chance at all, it was never said anywhere that he did.
E. Scrooge
madknoxie
> >Firstly explain to me how they neglected Liam
>
> They kidnapped him and refused him treatment. It is the same as if he
> was hit by a car and they refused him blood transfusions.
Tell me how taking your own child away to protect him from a mob of authority
saying "we know whats best for your child" is kidnapping. Liam's parents did
not want to delay death with conventional methods, they wanted to promote or
assist Liam's quality of life with alternative treatments. HealthCare Otago
gave Liam 2 months to live without further treatment. That was back in January
of 1999. 21 months later Liam passed away.
> >and then explain to me how Liam would definately be alive had he taken the
> >"conventional method"? Best estimates of his survival that I had heard of
> >were 50% if that. He sure managed to outlive the time the doctors said he
> >would survive had he not had any treatment at all.
>
> Actually it was 90% which is a hell of a lot better than 0%.
Actually, we were both wrong, little is known about neuroblastoma tumours,
other than they are resistant or unresponsive to treatment and have a high
recurrence rate. Survival odds for Liam were not strong. Liam's parents did
not want him to suffer, I don't see how many people in this NG believe
differently. I commend Liam and his parents for their courage, for never
giving up, not even at the end, and for daring to stand against the
authorities for their own beliefs. It doesn't show stupidity or arogance, its
shows how much love they had for Liam.
E. Scrooge
madknoxie <lewj...@student.otago.ac.nz> wrote in article
<39FAB765...@student.otago.ac.nz>...
Very true, and well said.
E. Scrooge
Brian Sandle
: DPF wrote:
:> >and then explain to me how Liam would definately be alive had he taken the
:> >"conventional method"? Best estimates of his survival that I had heard of
:> >were 50% if that. He sure managed to outlive the time the doctors said he
:> >would survive had he not had any treatment at all.
:>
:> Actually it was 90% which is a hell of a lot better than 0%.
: Actually, we were both wrong, little is known about neuroblastoma tumours,
: other than they are resistant or unresponsive to treatment and have a high
: recurrence rate. Survival odds for Liam were not strong. Liam's parents did
: not want him to suffer, I don't see how many people in this NG believe
: differently. I commend Liam and his parents for their courage, for never
: giving up, not even at the end, and for daring to stand against the
: authorities for their own beliefs. It doesn't show stupidity or arogance, its
: shows how much love they had for Liam.
When looking for survival rates I search Medline for `actuarial'.
(Maybe access through public library web page.)
perhaps http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/ may work, and there is an old
version which I used with a text browser: actuarial years neuroblastoma.
Quite high survival rates are claimed for very young children - a few
months of age if I read correctly. But over a year it begins to be
rather a bleak picture.
Cancer 1997 May 15;79(10):2028-35
Neuroblastoma in adults and adolescents: an indolent course with poor
survival.
Franks LM, Bollen A, Seeger RC, Stram DO, Matthay KK
Department of Pediatrics, University of California, San Francisco
94143-0106, USA.
BACKGROUND: Neuroblastoma rarely occurs in adults, and less than 10%
of cases occur in patients older than 10 years. It has been suggested
that the behavior of this disease may be different in older patients
than in young children. The purpose of this study was to investigate
the presentation, biologic features, and outcome of adolescent and
adult patients with neuroblastoma to define differences from childhood
neuroblastoma. METHODS: Medical record and pathology reviews were
conducted for 16 patients age 13 years or older (13-33 years) at
diagnosis who presented with neuroblastoma at the University of
California-San Francisco (UCSF) during the period 1968-1995 (patients
with intracerebral tumors, esthesioneuroblastoma, or ganglioneuroma
were excluded). Six of these patients received their original
diagnosis at UCSF, and the others were referred after diagnosis. The
survival for the same period for all neuroblastoma patients ages 13-18
years (n = 38) registered in the Children's Cancer Group (CCG) was
compared with the survival for those ages 1-13 years (n = 1912). Three
of the UCSF patients were enrolled in CCG studies. RESULTS: Biologic
characteristics observed in adolescents and adults differed from those
observed in younger patients. In the UCSF population, only 6 of 15
tested patients age 13 or older had elevated urinary catecholamines,
and 0 of 6 tested patients had MYCN amplification. There were two
patients with Stage I disease, three with Stage II, two with Stage
III, and nine with Stage IV. Primary sites were adrenal, pelvic, and
retroperitoneal in four cases each; mediastinal in two cases; and
paraspinal in two cases. Metastases in nine patients at diagnosis were
observed in bone in five; in bone marrow in four; in lymph nodes in
three; in the liver in two; and in the pleura, breast, and dura in one
patient each. 131I-metaiodobenzylguanidine uptake was observed in 9 of
11 patients. Initial treatment included surgery for 13 of 16 patients,
chemotherapy for 10 of 16, radiation therapy for 7 of 16, and
autologous bone marrow transplantation for 1 of 16. Relapses occurred
in 15 of 16 patients and death in 13 of 16, with overall survival 30%
5 years after diagnosis. Only 1 patient currently remains free of
clinical disease 24 months after diagnosis. Several of these patients
had long courses from diagnosis to death, with multiple recurrences
and/or chronic, persistent disease. In the CCG data base, 76% of
patients ages 13-18 years had metastatic disease at diagnosis. In this
group, only 1 of 32 had MYCN amplification. The actuarial survival of
all CCG patients ages 13-18 years was 7% at 5 years and 4% at 10
years, whereas that for patients ages 1-13 years was 30% at 5 years
and 23% at 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: Neuroblastoma in adolescents and
adults has different biologic characteristics and a longer course than
in children; nevertheless, ultimately the outcome is poor regardless
of stage. A much more aggressive or innovative therapeutic approach is
needed for these patients.
PMID: 9149032, UI: 97292979
...Tom
>not want to delay death with conventional methods
The sad thing is these LIES, that's right LIES being propagated so
people can feel safe and comfortable in their ignorance. Liam had a
very good chance at a long and full life thrown away and people excuse
and cover it with lies.
...Tom
Brian Sandle
: "E. Scrooge" <e.sc...@zfree.co.nx (z replaces x)> wrote in message
: news:01c03fc9$2e64aca0$79ecadcb@oemcomputer...
:>
:> They're the only ones that can truly answer that question, as it would be
:> foolish for anyone else to try to. Also while conventional medicine said
:> that he wouldn't last very long at all, quite some time ago now, it looks
:> like he did. Not that it means much now.
: An estimate of survival by doctor can only be a guesstimate. Nobody knows
: exactly what path a cancer will take through a body or how fast it will
: progress.
: Cancer has a habit of moving in fits and starts. To their shame alternative
: cancer treaters use that to convince their victims they have helped them.
: Samples of "medicines" from the Hoxhy clinic were brought back to New
: Zealand and analysed. The chemist involved said it was useless as a
: treatment being little more than vitamins and vegetable juices.
Here are some bits I have previously posted, please ask if they do not
make sense to you:
************************
Though it is very hard to know whom to trust in this game. Several years
ago there was a program about the Hoxsey treatment method. Thinking of
the public is normally anecdotal and that Bruno Lawrence went to Mexico
for such treatment and did still die is probably a big factor in their
feelings, though one case is statistically insignificant. The Hoxsey film
described how a vet had noticed animals getting cured from cancer by
eating certain herbs. He produced results for humans especially in terms
of skin cancers. When approached by the editor of an important medical
journal who was wanting to purchase the rights to the treatment he
refused to sell it, the story was, unless it would be provided free of
charge to people who could not afford to pay. The editor was unable to
give this assurance. It was also shown later that this editor did not
have a proper medical qualification or registration, too.
I introduce that partly because I am a little suspicious as to why
treatments rates for lymphoma are so good compared to other cancers.
Conventional medicine regards itself at quite good at treating skin
cancers the very same which the Hoxsey treatment claims to be able to burn
away with herbs with a much less disfiguring results than conventional
treatment. So I ask whether there are easier ways of treating lymphoma,
too, herbally, which would not interfere with religious belief, and may be
just as effective, without the breast cancer risk, if radiation is used.
: : >The Hoxsey film
: : > described how a vet had noticed animals getting cured from cancer
by
: : > eating certain herbs.
: :
: : Which herbs? Which animals? Which cancer?
Horses of John Hoxsey in 1840.
:
: There's some on the www about this, though no recipe about the erosive
: treatment, as far as I could see.
I've had a quick look at the film which was a Monday Night Documentary on
TV. The film was a Realidad, 1987 production, `Quacks Who Cure Cancer.'
There were two erosive pastes, a yellow one which would eat only cancer
and so had the extra benefit of being able to test for recurrence rather
than wait till it is surgically verifiable, and a red paste which would
eat through all tissue to get at cancer under the skin. That second paste
contained blood root.
Blood root and all the Hoxsey herbs have been discussed in the National
Cancer Institute publication `Plants Used Against Cancer' by Jonathan
Hartwell.
: Interestingly there _was_ a claim that Hoxsey has good success with
lymphoma.
:
: There was a warning that the treatment might increase cancer. I also
: understand that Hoxsey died of prostate cancer.
Though the film commented on that.
:
: The recipe on the www contains red clover. The name clover is genista.
: Legumes, of which clover is one, contain genista, a phytoestrogen. It
: will cause sheep to suffer abnormalities of the external genitalia if
: they are fed on it. It also reduces fertility of sheep. So would it be
: safe for persons with swollen prostates? Note that small amounts of
: estrogen is a synergist for testosterone.
:
: Bewarned, but also remember that conventional medicine makes mistakes.
:
:
: I'll probably be able to get to the film.
:
: :
: : >He produced results for humans especially in terms
: : > of skin cancers.
: :
: : This implies human experimentation in patients with a variety of
: : malignancies. Probably done in the days before ethic committees and
: : international conventions on human experimentation so I'll let it
pass for
: : now.
Also only 1 in 3 of cancer patients survive surgery and radiotherapy for
any time, and that is called acceptible. I am hoping to get to a
Scientific American article 1985, vol 253:51-59 (John Cairns) discussing
poor results from traditional therapy.
: Yes, but vincristine, which is possily being used to treat the girl,
: comes from periwinkle. Without the herbal experiments of old lots of
: `conventional' cancer treatment would not have started. Taxol from the
: yew tree bark &c.
The tonic herbs for internal cancer might have benefits for the lymphoma?
Hoxsey claims 80 % success over all.
:
: : : >When approached by the editor of an important medical
: : > journal who was wanting to purchase the rights to the treatment
Hoxsey
: : > refused to sell it, the story was, unless it would be provided free
of
: : > charge to people who could not afford to pay.
: :
: : Name of journal? Name of editor? Name of vet for that matter?
JAMA Journal of the American Medical Association. Editor Dr Morris
Fishbein, later found to have failed anatomy. He had to resign.
In 1987 the AMA were found to have criminally conspired to suppress
homeopathic medicine, I remember, but tha wasn't their first crime. As
with Hoxsey, when the Krebiozen cancer treatment was not made available
Krebiozen was suppressed. I can't vouch for any of these treatments and I
have posted about Krebiozen in an article on placebo.
: : In the film. : : : : >The editor was unable to
: : > give this assurance. It was also shown later that this editor did
not
: : > have a proper medical qualification or registration, too.
: :
: : I think I know the background to this story. Did the famous-
: : but-unnamed-editor of the important-but-unnamed journal pass him or
: : herself off as being medically registered or qualified?
He was publishing judgements in his journal abou the medical effects of
the Hoxsey treatment. He said how it was erosive to tissue and criticised
it for such as part of his suppression attempt. Later he was forced to
admit in court hat it did have cancer treating effect.
The Hoxsey treatment might cost $1,000 or so but that is little compared
to the very high figures for conventional treament. People who go to the
Centro Bio-Med in Mexico do not have to pay and are not sent accounts, it
was said in he 1987 film. Though most give what they can after they have
spent their savings on conventional therapy.
It seems that the cure rate claim of Hoxsey is better than that for
Starship.
The film dealt with the financial reasons for things being as they are.
If it costs $90 million to prove a treatment is safe then who can unless
they will have a large sales for it? And herbs are not dear enough to
make the profit. Current research is towards changing them a little for
patenting.
**********************
Kerry
wrote:
>Quite high survival rates are claimed for very young children - a few
>months of age if I read correctly. But over a year it begins to be
>rather a bleak picture.
>
> Cancer 1997 May 15;79(10):2028-35
>
>Neuroblastoma in adults and adolescents: an indolent course with poor
>survival.
> BACKGROUND: Neuroblastoma rarely occurs in adults, and less than 10%
> of cases occur in patients older than 10 years.
Adults and adolescents. This child was a 3 year old toddler when
diagnosed, in almost the best possible group, with the best survival
rates and best responses to chemotherapy
Read for meaning Brian
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Indecision is the key to flexibility
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kerry
>
>"Ashley Campbell" <ashle...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in > In the case the Pacific
>Island family, the boy was 13 and had reportedly
>> made his wishes known - that he did not want treatment. Liam was 10 years
>> younger, and had no way of working out whether he wanted treatment or not.
>>
>Actually, these children with terminal illness have a maturity WAY beyond
>their years.
Oh right and that makes them at three the best judge of what is the
most effective treatments for cancer
In a word
Poppycock
Owen McShane
>
> E. Scrooge <e.sc...@zfree.co.nx (z replaces x)> wrote in message
> >
> > Peter Metcalfe <metc...@voyager.co.nz> wrote in article
> > <MPG.1463f0102...@news.voyager.co.nz>...
> > > In article <8tastj$kn9$1...@news.ihug.co.nz>,
> > > ta...@DELETETHISTOREPLYihug.co.nz says...
> > >
> > > > Did LH's parents give conventional medicine a real chance?
> > >
> > >
> > > --Peter Metcalfe
> >
> > Did Liam have a deadly type of cancer?
> >
> > YES.
> >
>
> All cancers are deadly if left untreated. Some treatments have a better success
> rate than others.
Basel cell carcinoma is the probably exception - carefully phrased as
you may note.
> --
> "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent"
>
> -- Eleanor Roosevelt
Brian Sandle
: On 29 Oct 2000 02:39:57 +1200, Brian Sandle <bsa...@southern.co.nz>
: wrote:
:>Quite high survival rates are claimed for very young children - a few
:>months of age if I read correctly. But over a year it begins to be
:>rather a bleak picture.
:>
:> Cancer 1997 May 15;79(10):2028-35
:>
:>Neuroblastoma in adults and adolescents: an indolent course with poor
:>survival.
:> BACKGROUND: Neuroblastoma rarely occurs in adults, and less than 10%
:> of cases occur in patients older than 10 years.
: Adults and adolescents. This child was a 3 year old toddler when
: diagnosed, in almost the best possible group, with the best survival
: rates and best responses to chemotherapy
: Read for meaning Brian
I left all the abstract in for meaning, but was thinking of just posting
the end bit and leaving you all to get it yourself, here it is again:
The actuarial survival of
all CCG patients ages 13-18 years was 7% at 5 years and 4% at 10
years, whereas that for patients ages 1-13 years was 30% at 5 years
and 23% at 10 years.
Indeed the article is about the older patients, and to compare they gave
the figures for 1 to 13 year olds, which I repeat a second time:
whereas that for patients ages 1-13 years was 30% at 5 years
and 23% at 10 years.
3 is between 1 and 13. I presume the maths were correcting for frequency
with age - greater at lower age. So maybe it is 50% at age 3, depending
on stage, but I am just guessing.
I said the ones of a few months old were given good survival chances by
trad treatment, and gave the means to look it up.
Maybe the Hoxsey treatment would do as well or better for the young ones.
Here is a ref to more on it:
Linkname: Hoxsey
URL: http://www.herbal-alternatives.com/hoxsey.htm
Last Mod: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 19:09:20 GMT
size: 471 lines
And I wonder if you really didn't notice the figures for 1 to 13 year
olds, or whether you were trying to suppress, as the AMA is accused of.
Kerry
<e.sc...@zfree.co.nx (z replaces x)> wrote:
>>
>> All cancers are deadly if left untreated. Some treatments have a better
>success
>> rate than others.
>
>There are some cancers that just can't be treated. There aren't many
>survivors of having a brain tumour still getting around, for example.
That's not true.
Ashley Campbell
"Kerry" <ker...@remove.this.bit.ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:39fbfcf3...@news.wlg.ihug.co.nz...
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 12:13:57 +0000 (UTC), "E. Scrooge"
> <e.sc...@zfree.co.nx (z replaces x)> wrote:
>
>
> >>
> >> All cancers are deadly if left untreated. Some treatments have a better
> >success
> >> rate than others.
> >
> >There are some cancers that just can't be treated. There aren't many
> >survivors of having a brain tumour still getting around, for example.
>
> That's not true.
>
He's obviously been watching too much Ally McBeal.
Kerry
<e.sc...@zfree.co.nx (z replaces x)> wrote:
>I didn't say that all people die from having a brain tumour, just like some
>kids don't die from a similar type of cancer to young Liam's. The fact is
>that each case is different and has it's own problems, and each case needs
>to be judged on itself and not a bunch of statistics.
Liams prognosis WAS based on its merits. It was based on the type of
cancer, the location, the stage and grade of the tumour, the spread,
his age, the therapies available, and his initially great response to
chemotherapy.
The prognosis was Liam's, no other child's. It was better than 70%
chance of cure.
Kerry
<e.sc...@zfree.co.nx (z replaces x)> wrote:
>
>Kerry <ker...@remove.this.bit.ihug.co.nz> wrote in article
><39f96723...@news.wlg.ihug.co.nz>...
>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 09:09:15 +0000 (UTC), "E. Scrooge"
>> <e.sc...@zfree.co.nx (z replaces x)> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Peter Metcalfe <metc...@voyager.co.nz> wrote in article
>> ><MPG.1463f0102...@news.voyager.co.nz>...
>> >> In article <8tastj$kn9$1...@news.ihug.co.nz>,
>> >> ta...@DELETETHISTOREPLYihug.co.nz says...
>> >>
>> >> > Did LH's parents give conventional medicine a real chance?
>> >>
>> >> No.
>> >>
>> >> --Peter Metcalfe
>> >
>> >Did Liam have a deadly type of cancer?
>> >
>> >YES.
>>
>> Not in the majority of cases if treated early
>>
>> Unfortunately he didnt get that chance
>>
>> Sad
>
>As you said youself he did receive two cycles of treatment early on, about
>a year and a half ago. The results couldn't have been very good or the
>parents wouldn't have stopped the treatment.
The results were excellent. The tumour responded rapidly, it
decreased in size. Of course the quacks claimed that they shrunk the
tumours, but in fact the response was documented by his doctors in
Dunedin before any quack treatments were undertaken.
> Without being there to see
>any test results no one can say much about his case. Whether there was
>much hope or not.
You keep saying that. What you say is incorrect.
> No one here was with Liam day and night to see if his
>early treatments were making any difference.
His doctors and nurses were.
Brian Sandle
: T A R T wrote:
:> All cancers are deadly if left untreated. Some treatments have a better success
:> rate than others.
It could be the other way - many deadly when treated by trad medicine.
Cancers can be quite self limiting. They may press on something and
cause trouble, I suppose.
: Basel cell carcinoma is the probably exception - carefully phrased as
: you may note.
Get that from sunlight, would that be irregular exposure or just
excessive exposure? But the sunlight will help provide vitamin D and
protect from the fatal type of cancer.
The business of the ozone layer - there must be more difference in UV
between Dunedin and Auckland, than between one city before and after
ozone reduction.
With reduced sunlight exposure, accidental heavy exposure, sunscreens,
milk not vitamin D supplemented (unlike USA) and very frequent removal of
oil from the skin by soapy washing, and possibly the promotion of the
margarines with their tumour-promoting polyunsaturated fatty acids, I
think the New Zealand cancer treaters are going to get very rich in the
coming years.
E. Scrooge
Brian Sandle <bsa...@southern.co.nz> wrote in article
<97281525...@mnementh.southern.co.nz>...
Apparently because Kerry doesn't believe in using misinformation about the
case, hopefully she'll soon share with us all of the copies of Liam's
medical records that she has.
E. Scrooge
Brian Dooley
On Sat, 28 Oct 2000 12:43:54 +1100, "Mr Scebe"
<mr_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Steve Wrathall" <wrat...@ISEEYOUBABYhotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:39F8BEDD...@ISEEYOUBABYhotmail.com...
>> Just heard on the radio that Cancer Sufferer Liam Williams Holloway has
>> died. Poor Kid. Wonder where all the people who defended his being
>> denied modern medical technology and being fed carrot juice instead, are
>> now?
>>
>
>Probably at the funeral mourning his passing! Regardless of what *we* may
>think, the parents did what they believed to be right under the
>circumstances. They have to live with their decision. Hounding them and
>somehow saying they were wrong because the child died is missing the point.
>
>I am surprised that the people in this ng who are so in favour of individual
>rights have such an aversion to the application of the same when it
>conflicts with their own beliefs. Personally i don't think that this
>unfortunate death should become a political football.
By what right does a parent sentence a child to death?
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
Owen McShane
>
> Owen McShane <omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote:
> : T A R T wrote:
> :> All cancers are deadly if left untreated. Some treatments have a better success
> :> rate than others.
>
> It could be the other way - many deadly when treated by trad medicine.
> Cancers can be quite self limiting. They may press on something and
> cause trouble, I suppose.
>
> : Basel cell carcinoma is the probably exception - carefully phrased as
> : you may note.
>
> Get that from sunlight, would that be irregular exposure or just
> excessive exposure? But the sunlight will help provide vitamin D and
> protect from the fatal type of cancer.
the sea body surfing. I have had three surgical prodedures to remove
basal call c from forehead, legs and back, and god knows how many shots
of liquid nitrogen on my face and hands.
Excessive exposure.
> The business of the ozone layer - there must be more difference in UV
> between Dunedin and Auckland, than between one city before and after
> ozone reduction.
Um there has been no detectable increase in UV in populated areas
anywhere in the world. There is a recorded slight increase at the bottom
of the south island during the time the ozone hole migrates north.
But if you are worried about say a 10% increase in UV (which has not
been found) then simply migrate south to Dunedin because you will
receieve 10% less or to Invercargill where you will probably receive a
bit less again.
Lattitude is the main determinant of UV which is why people near the
equator have dark skins and people who live near the poles have light
skins. This swamps any effect from ozone holes or depletions.
> With reduced sunlight exposure, accidental heavy exposure, sunscreens,
> milk not vitamin D supplemented (unlike USA) and very frequent removal of
> oil from the skin by soapy washing, and possibly the promotion of the
> margarines with their tumour-promoting polyunsaturated fatty acids, I
> think the New Zealand cancer treaters are going to get very rich in the
> coming years.
--
Owen McShane
over.
They don't keep proper records and never mention that the cures they
claim are almost always patients who were or are on regular treatment.
There is no secret - the chemicals he uses are well known and have been
tested time and time and again.
It works to extract people out of desperate people who will clutch at
anything. I can think of no more despicable group than quack cancer
therapists.
Brian Sandle
: Brian Sandle wrote:
:> Maybe the Hoxsey treatment would do as well or better for the young ones.
:>
:> Here is a ref to more on it:
:>
:> Linkname: Hoxsey
:> URL: http://www.herbal-alternatives.com/hoxsey.htm
:> Last Mod: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 19:09:20 GMT
:> size: 471 lines
:>
:> And I wonder if you really didn't notice the figures for 1 to 13 year
:> olds, or whether you were trying to suppress, as the AMA is accused of.
: Give us a break. Hoxsey is a fraud and has shown to be about ten times
: over.
: They don't keep proper records and never mention that the cures they
: claim are almost always patients who were or are on regular treatment.
: There is no secret - the chemicals he uses are well known and have been
: tested time and time and again.
: It works to extract people out of desperate people who will clutch at
: anything. I can think of no more despicable group than quack cancer
: therapists.
[...]
Finally, in 1954, an independent team of ten physicians from around
the United States made a two-day inspection of Hoxsey's Dallas clinic
and issued a remarkable statement. After examining hundreds of case
histories and interviewing patients and ex-patients, the doctors
released a signed report declaring that the clinic......."is
successfully treating pathologically proven cases of cancer, both
internal and external, without the use of surgery, radium or x-ray.
Accepting the standard yardstick of cases that have remained
symptom-free in excess of five to six years after treatment,
established by medical authorities, we have seen sufficient cases to
warrant such a conclusion. Some of those presented before us have
been free of symptoms as long as twenty-four years, and the physical
evidence indicates that they are all enjoying exceptional health at
this time.
We as a Committee feel that the Hoxsey treatment is superior to such
conventional methods of treatment as x-ray, radium or surgery. We are
willing to assist this Clinic in any way possible in bringing this
treatment to the American public."
But the treatment was denied to the American public. In 1924,
according to Hoxsey's autobiography, Dr. Malcolm Harris, an eminent
Chicago surgeon and later president of the AMA, had offered to buy
out the Hoxsey anticancer tonic after watching Hoxsey successfully
treat a terminal cancer patient. Hoxsey would get 10 percent of the
profits, according to the offer, but only after ten years. The AMA
would set the fees, keep all the profits for the first nine years,
the reap 90 percent of the profits from the tenth year on. The
alleged offer would have given all control to a group of doctors
including AMA boss Dr. Morris Fishbein.
Hoxsey refused the offer, or so he claims. The AMA denies that any
such incident ever occurred. In any event, two things are certain:
The "terminal" cancer patient, police sergeant Thomas Mannix, fully
recovered and lived another decade. And Morris Fishbein became a
powerful, relentless enemy of Harry Hoxsey.
Another opponent was assistant District Attorney Al Templeton, who
arrested Hoxsey more than 100 times in Dallas over a two year period.
Then, in 1939, Templeton's younger brother Mike, developed cancer. He
had a colostomy, but the cancer continued to spread; his doctors told
him nothing more could be done for him. When Mike secretly went to
Hoxsey and was cured, Al Templeton had a change of heart. The
once-hostile prosecutor became Hoxsey's lawyer.
Esquire magazine sent reporter James Burke to Texas in 1939 with the
aim of doing an expose that would discredit Hoxsey as a worthless,
dangerous quack. Burke stayed six weeks, became a strong supporter of
Hoxsey and later his publicist, and filed a story entitled "The Quack
Who Cures Cancer." Esquire never published it.
In 1949, Morris Fishbein, long time editor of the Journal of the
American Medical Association (JAMA), wrote an attack on Hoxsey that
was published in the Hearst papers' Sunday magazine supplement, read
by 20 million people. In the piece, entitled "Blood Money," Fishbein,
the influential "voice of American medicine," portrayed Hoxsey as a
malevolent charlatan and repeated many of the unsubstantiated charges
that he had been printing for years in JAMA.
Hoxsey sued Fishbein and the Hearst newspaper empire for libel and
slander. It seemed a hopeless David-versus-Goliath contest, but
Hoxsey won. Although his monetary award was just $2.00, he achieved a
stunning moral victory. Fifty of his patients testified on his
behalf. The judge found Fishbein's statements to be "false,
slanderous and libelous." And Fishbein made astonishing admissions
during the trial, such as that he had failed anatomy in medical
school and had never treated a patient or practiced a day of medicine
in his entire career. Even more shocking, Dr. Fishbein admitted in
court that Hoxsey's supposedly "brutal" pastes actually did cure
external cancer.
The leader of America's "quack attack" was now on the defensive.
Critics charged the AMA with being a doctor's trade union, setting
national medical policy to further its own selfish interests. The
U.S. Supreme Court agreed: the AMA had conspired in restraint of
trade. Dr Fishbein was forced to resign.
[...]
jason_m...@my-deja.com
"Dave Joll" <jol...@es.co.nz> wrote:
> John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:39F9F718...@ihug.co.nz...
>
> > Somehow, a Pacific Island family's treatment of their son
> > is seen as criminal, whilst Liam's parents, being white,
> > have loved their son more, knew better how to treat their
> > son than the medical profession, and engender more
> > sympathy, deserve it and the have the right to not be
> > prosecuted.
>
> > In a word, bullshit!
>
> Exactly.
Hmmm, no. Liams family tried to help him by alternative methods, The
PI family did nothing.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Pete
<jason_m...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8tig3c$cq7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
They prayed. To them that was doing something. Their god was "up in
heaven" - the Holloways god was in mexico.
...Tom
>PI family did nothing.
They prayed over him, which is no more or less valid than the quackery
Liams parents went to.
...Tom
Pip
"...Tom" <to...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:5kspvsosn8em5n3mj...@4ax.com...
>
> They prayed over him, which is no more or less valid than the quackery
> Liams parents went to.
I thought in this country you were required to seek medical attention for
minors.....
These poor misguided folk didnt, whereas Liams parents did...rightly or
wrongly, the did do something...
JMHO
Pip
Dave Joll
news:8tig3c$cq7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> "Dave Joll" <jol...@es.co.nz> wrote:
> > John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> > > Somehow, a Pacific Island family's treatment of their son
> > > is seen as criminal, whilst Liam's parents, being white,
> > > have loved their son more, knew better how to treat their
> > > son than the medical profession, and engender more
> > > sympathy, deserve it and the have the right to not be
> > > prosecuted.
> > > In a word, bullshit!
> > Exactly.
> Hmmm, no. Liams family tried to help him by alternative methods, The
> PI family did nothing.
They tried prayer. About as effective as carrot juice and
new age technobabble machines.
...Tom
>minors.....
>These poor misguided folk didnt, whereas Liams parents did...rightly or
>wrongly, the did do something...
>JMHO
>Pip
A rife generator isn't medical attention. The Holloways went into
hiding to avoid medical attention
...Tom
John Cawston
>
> "...Tom" <to...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:5kspvsosn8em5n3mj...@4ax.com...
> >
> > They prayed over him, which is no more or less valid than the quackery
> > Liams parents went to.
>
> I thought in this country you were required to seek medical attention for
> minors.....
> These poor misguided folk didnt,
They did. The boy tried to throw himself out of the moving
car when they took him to hospital. He begged, pleaded and
tried self mutilation or death (the car thing) to not go
to the hospital. He was well over the age of reason and
had some right to be heard as to his wishes.
JC
Pip
> hiding to avoid medical attention
>
sense to me....
Pip
Pip
> They did. The boy tried to throw himself out of the moving
> car when they took him to hospital. He begged, pleaded and
> tried self mutilation or death (the car thing) to not go
> to the hospital. He was well over the age of reason and
> had some right to be heard as to his wishes.
>
Really none of us can say till we 'there'...oh we can say what we THINK we
would do...but the old saying...walk a mile in a persons shoe before you
judge...
JMHO
Pip
Pip
"Dave Joll" <jol...@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:97288389...@inv.ihug.co.nz...
> >
> They tried prayer. About as effective as carrot juice and
> new age technobabble machines.
Yes amybe you are right, but again, were they not doing whet THEy thought
was right...rightly or wrongly.
Was a court order taken out on this boy??? I just dont remember...But I am
curious to know all the same.
Pip
...Tom
>> A rife generator isn't medical attention. The Holloways went into
>> hiding to avoid medical attention
>>
>What about the chemo on Germany??? Sorry this does not seem to be making
>sense to me....
The chemo in germany came after the quack treatments had failed
(surprise surprise) and it was too late for Liam.
...Tom
E. Scrooge
Pip <pip...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in article
<wl8L5.1275$O7Kd.2...@news.xtra.co.nz>...
He also had surgery while over there as well. Though Tom would say, that
it was probably done by the local witch doctor.
E. Scrooge
Pip
> > The chemo in germany came after the quack treatments had failed
> (surprise surprise) and it was too late for Liam.
>
as far as you are concerned....
JMHO
Pip
E. Scrooge
Perhaps Tom has also seem Liam's full medical records, as Kerry must have
done.
While he's picking away at Liam, other kids are still dying from cancer,
but Tom couldn't give a stuff about them. Because they were never in the
news media. In Liam's case choices were made and that's all there is to
it. It's about time that he left the poor boy to rest in peace.
E. Scrooge
Pip
"E. Scrooge" <e.sc...@zfree.co.nx (z replaces x)> wrote in message
news:01c0423c$dd2a9400> Perhaps Tom has also seem Liam's full medical
records,
No I dont think he has
as Kerry must have
> done.
And according to Kerry all the doctors the length and breadth of the
country, as they all seemed to know what was best for him....Think the
Privacy Act comes in to play here..
> Because they were never in the
> news media.
Exactly....there are cases like this going on all the time in this country,
but the news media just pick up on one now and again and causes complete and
utter havoc to the families and the rest of the country..there is no damn
consistancy..
In Liam's case choices were made and that's all there is to
> it. It's about time that he left the poor boy to rest in peace.
And his parents will live till the end of their days with the nagging doubt
of could they have done more....same as those who accept conventional
treatment....the thought is there always in the back of their mind....could
they have done more...
JMHO
PIp
John Cawston
I have no doubt that the right decision would be
agonizing, but that is what parents are required to do.
Make right decisions for those unable to do so
(effectively) in their best interests.
How often do you hear adults say, "I hated mum/dad when
she did that, but now, I'm so glad she did".
Loving a child is no absolution for informed, but bad
decisions.
JC
E. Scrooge
DPF <da...@farrar.com> wrote in article
<d8dqvsshc10qidk79...@4ax.com>...
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2000 00:41:17 GMT in nz.general
> jason_m...@my-deja.com wrote: in <8tig3c$cq7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
> gave him a space invaders game. Is it my fault he can't read for I
> tried to help him by alternative methods?
>
> DPF
More fool you then, did someone tell you that space invaders would've
helped, or like the Holloways did you find out as much as you could first
before giving it a try, in their case it was hardly a stab in the dark,
even though it may seem like it now in hindsight. But we still don't know
if the true results would've been any better for any certainty.
If we go back to your space invaders game, it sounds like you took it upon
yourself, without having anything to go by at all if it would be any good.
While you can say that you were doing your best, there's no one else to
backup your idea of using space invaders. It's not a fit comparison.
Here's a good one for you, and in some cases it's a very true one that some
people I know have experienced. Your child as you said before, is having
educational problems. But is the real learning problem with the child, or
for some reason the school that he's at? In a case I know of it was the
school, once the child, was taken to another school, things started to
improve for that child, and he's a lot happier. It's getting off the
topic a bit, but in that case, one must try to find just where the real
problem is.
E. Scrooge
Owen McShane
>
> In nz.politics Owen McShane <omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote:
> : Brian Sandle wrote:
> :> Maybe the Hoxsey treatment would do as well or better for the young ones.
> :>
> :> Here is a ref to more on it:
> :>
> :> Linkname: Hoxsey
> :> URL: http://www.herbal-alternatives.com/hoxsey.htm
> :> Last Mod: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 19:09:20 GMT
> :> size: 471 lines
> :>
> :> And I wonder if you really didn't notice the figures for 1 to 13 year
> :> olds, or whether you were trying to suppress, as the AMA is accused of.
> : Give us a break. Hoxsey is a fraud and has shown to be about ten times
> : over.
> : They don't keep proper records and never mention that the cures they
> : claim are almost always patients who were or are on regular treatment.
> : There is no secret - the chemicals he uses are well known and have been
> : tested time and time and again.
> : It works to extract people out of desperate people who will clutch at
> : anything. I can think of no more despicable group than quack cancer
> : therapists.
>
Hoxsey fraud.
It's well documented. Why do academics insist on supporting such
nonsense. next thing they'll be believing Astrology.
--
Brian Sandle
: On 30 Oct 2000 10:16:44 +1200 in nz.general Brian Sandle wrote: in
: <97285420...@mnementh.southern.co.nz>:
:>[...]
:> Finally, in 1954, an independent team of ten physicians from around
:> the United States made a two-day inspection of Hoxsey's Dallas clinic
:> and issued a remarkable statement. After examining hundreds of case
:> histories and interviewing patients and ex-patients, the doctors
:> released a signed report declaring that the clinic......."is
:> successfully treating pathologically proven cases of cancer, both
:> internal and external, without the use of surgery, radium or x-ray.
: Can you provide a reference for this article please.
The http which I gave said it was a reprint from
Options : the alternative cancer therapy book / Ri 616.994 WALc.
available in Wellington Public Library. But maybe it contains nothing
more on the Hoxsey topic than what the http gave. I presume you read that.
Brian Sandle
:> : Brian Sandle wrote:
:> :> Maybe the Hoxsey treatment would do as well or better for the young ones.
:> :>
:> :> Here is a ref to more on it:
:> :>
:> :> Linkname: Hoxsey
:> :> URL: http://www.herbal-alternatives.com/hoxsey.htm
:> :> Last Mod: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 19:09:20 GMT
:> :> size: 471 lines
:> :>
:> :> And I wonder if you really didn't notice the figures for 1 to 13 year
:> :> olds, or whether you were trying to suppress, as the AMA is accused of.
:> : Give us a break. Hoxsey is a fraud and has shown to be about ten times
:> : over.
:> : They don't keep proper records and never mention that the cures they
:> : claim are almost always patients who were or are on regular treatment.
:> : There is no secret - the chemicals he uses are well known and have been
:> : tested time and time and again.
:> : It works to extract people out of desperate people who will clutch at
:> : anything. I can think of no more despicable group than quack cancer
:> : therapists.
:>
: JUNK. Write to Denis Dutton and ask for the SKeptics review of the
: Hoxsey fraud.
: It's well documented.
If the Skeptics (American spelling?) are public spirited I guess they will
have it on a website.
Why do academics insist on supporting such
: nonsense. next thing they'll be believing Astrology.
I haven't said I supported it, I have just given enough to indicate that
some people could be led to believe it offers something.
The body has to be constantly repairing damaged DNA - excising and repairing.
There will be several protections, but when they are all exhausted then
cancer may be a result. It is obviously better not to allow that stage to
be reached. But when it is, note that the tunours themselves produce
tumour necrosis factor and may be self limiting as well as limiting of
growth of other tumours, the metastases which can quickly eventuate when
a primary tumour is removed.
Radiation therapy can destroy residual tumours but does damage. With
whole body irradiation and bone marrow replacement later breast cancer
may be more probable.
Trad medicine employs substances from plants. Taxol is used against
cancer, it comes from Yew tree bark. It is not the most pleasant medicine.
Vincristine comes from the periwinkle, it is another anti-cancer agent.
Perhaps some of the Hoxsey herbs have already been employed in extract
form by trad medicine. Remember, however that trad medicine has to put
treatment second to patents as it works from profit.
Trad medicine accepts that the TB vaccine BCG can be used against cancer.
Also persons who have had TB may be less likely to get cancer, I think.
Did the electrical treatment given to Liam (not Hoxsey) stimulate the
immune system?
Some of this thread has been only on nz.politics
Pete
"Owen McShane" <omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote in message
news:39FD47...@wk.planet.gen.nz...
Well, I went here http://pubsearch.ama-assn.org/search and did an archive
search on "hoxsey" and got this
Qualified Search
Journals Selected: JAMA, Dermatology, Facial Plastic Surgery, Family
Medicine, General Psychiatry, Internal Medicine, Neurology, Ophthalmology,
Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery, Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine,
Surgery
Full Text: hoxsey
0 of 10810 documents matched query (0 - 0 shown)
0 of 10810 documents matched query (0 - 0 shown)
Janice
DPF wrote in message ...
:My child was having educational problems so instead of doing nothing I
:gave him a space invaders game. Is it my fault he can't read for I
What a strange alternative? Why not get one of the educational
games online? There are several reading and adding games.
which give the impression of space invaders except the kids have to
add numbers, or spell a word rather than shoot. I can't think why
you think space invaders is any substitute for reading !!
Honestly you men!
Janice
E. Scrooge
Janice <Jani...@free.net.nz> wrote in article <972950243.873530@news>...
Credit where it's due, that was a good post of reply, Janice.
E. Scrooge
Pete
"E. Scrooge" <e.sc...@zfree.co.nx (z replaces x)> wrote in message
DPFs post was tongue-in-cheek, ironical, a parody, sarcasm, theres a
thousand words to describe it. But not serious. Jeez, if you think he meant
it....
Kerry
No they did not go to the court because of the bad publicity and media
reporting created in the Liam Williams-Holloway case
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Indecision is the key to flexibility
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Kerry
wrote:
>
>"Owen McShane" <omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote in message
>news:39FD47...@wk.planet.gen.nz...
>> JUNK. Write to Denis Dutton and ask for the SKeptics review of the
>> Hoxsey fraud.
>> It's well documented. Why do academics insist on supporting such
>> nonsense. next thing they'll be believing Astrology.
>
>Well, I went here http://pubsearch.ama-assn.org/search and did an archive
>search on "hoxsey" and got this
>0 of 10810 documents matched query (0 - 0 shown)
MEDLINE has 2 articles on Hoxsey and cancer
1: CA Cancer J Clin 1993 Sep-Oct;43(5):309-19 Related Articles, Books,
LinkOut
Questionable methods of cancer management: 'nutritional' therapies.
Although dietary measures may be helpful in preventing certain
cancers, there is no scientific evidence that any nutritionally
related regimen is appropriate as a primary treatment for cancer. This
paper focuses on seven questionable modalities: vitamin C, pau d'arco
tea, the Gerson diet, Hoxsey herbal therapy, the macrobiotic diet,
Manner metabolic therapy, and Kelley metabolic therapy. Some of these
approaches involve a diet that is nutritionally inadequate. Some
involve potentially toxic doses of vitamins and/or other substances.
Some are quite expensive. All pose the risk that patients who use them
will abandon effective treatment. The American Cancer Society
therefore recommends that "nutritional cancer cures" be avoided.
Publication Types:
Review
Review, tutorial
PMID: 8364770, UI: 93373120
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2: CA Cancer J Clin 1990 Jan-Feb;40(1):51-5 Related Articles, Books,
LinkOut
Hoxsey Method/Bio-Medical Center.
PMID: 2104568, UI: 90090199
Janice
DPF wrote in message ...
:<972950243.873530@news>::
:>DPF wrote in message ...
:
:Thank you Janice - you have proved my point 100% - could not be better
:if I has paid you to say that.
Aware as I am that you do pay people to say things,
I am pleased to have been of service voluntarily. :-)
Janice
:
Brian Sandle
: MEDLINE has 2 articles on Hoxsey and cancer
: 1: CA Cancer J Clin 1993 Sep-Oct;43(5):309-19 Related Articles, Books,
: LinkOut
: Questionable methods of cancer management: 'nutritional' therapies.
This is about the nutrtional side of Hoxsey, which of course is not teh
only side of it.
: Although dietary measures may be helpful in preventing certain
: cancers, there is no scientific evidence that any nutritionally
: related regimen is appropriate as a primary treatment for cancer.
But it is silly to ignore nutritional factors.
I am not pushing for Hoxsey when I say that vitamin E, and vitamin C,
though as antioxidants may prevent initiation of cancer, they may be used
by cancers themselves to stop factors intended to destroy them.
Polyunsaturated fatty acids can be tumour promoters.
This
: paper focuses on seven questionable modalities: vitamin C, pau d'arco
: tea, the Gerson diet, Hoxsey herbal therapy,
I guess that would be the tonic. I heard a month or so ago of a person
having been to Centro Medico and having to continue with dietary control.
The http ref I gave
http://www.herbal-alternatives.com/hoxsey.htm
refers to the sort of thing, the necessity to continue or the condition
may reoccur.
the macrobiotic diet,
: Manner metabolic therapy, and Kelley metabolic therapy. Some of these
: approaches involve a diet that is nutritionally inadequate. Some
: involve potentially toxic doses of vitamins and/or other substances.
: Some are quite expensive. All pose the risk that patients who use them
: will abandon effective treatment. The American Cancer Society
: therefore recommends that "nutritional cancer cures" be avoided.
Hoxsey also has two pastes, one which will eat only cancer, and one which
will eat through flesh to get to a cancer.
I wonder whether the majority of Hoxsey patients have failed trad treatment
already, and therefore what the Hoxsey success rate would be if it were
used as the treatment without radiotherapy &c.
: Publication Types:
: Review
: Review, tutorial
: PMID: 8364770, UI: 93373120
: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: 2: CA Cancer J Clin 1990 Jan-Feb;40(1):51-5 Related Articles, Books,
: LinkOut
: Hoxsey Method/Bio-Medical Center.
: PMID: 2104568, UI: 90090199
I'd be interested to see that.
Bruce Hamilton
>Brian Sandle wrote:
>> In nz.politics Owen McShane <omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote:
>> : Brian Sandle wrote:
>> :> Maybe the Hoxsey treatment would do as well or better
>> :> for the young ones.
>> : Give us a break. Hoxsey is a fraud and has shown to be about ten
>> : times over.
>> : They don't keep proper records and never mention that the cures they
>> : claim are almost always patients who were or are on regular treatment.
>> : There is no secret - the chemicals he uses are well known and have been
>> : tested time and time and again.
>
> JUNK. Write to Denis Dutton and ask for the SKeptics review of the
> Hoxsey fraud. It's well documented. Why do academics insist on
> supporting such nonsense. next thing they'll be believing Astrology.
I'm sorry for my late entry into this thread, but I've just located
the article I was reading on a new book about Hoxsey. The book is
called " When Healing Becomes a Crime " by Kenny Ausubel. There is
a very interesting article about the book in the latest issue of
HerbalGram ( v49, p32-42.) HerbalGram is one of the best
peer-reviewed periodicals on herbal medicines, and it offers
the article in an attempt to stimulate discussion on the
potential role of herbs in treating serious illness. The
article notes the pro-Hoxsey bias of the book, but points
out the pervasive McCarthy persecution of that era..
The article reprints Chapter 11 of the book along with
peer-reviewers comments. One of the interesting aspects, aside
from the history of Hoxsey v American Medical Association, is
that the many of the known herbal components of the Hoxsey
treatment are now considered to have meaningful anti-cancer
activity - contrary to earlier NCI petri-dish tests, which
are now arguably considered as poor predictors of clinical
sucess.
Hoxsey's remedy was apparently based on an earlier Eclectic
red-clover treatment. You may be aware that many scientists
are hopping on the herbal medicine bandwagon, and red-clover
is one of the subjects, with it's high levels of phytoestrogens
that are believed to affect cancer susceptibility.
I'd not place too much credence on any skeptics report, they
are miserable killjoys, smug in their complacency of scientific
truth. Not too different to the AMA treatment of herbal
medicine, mockingly called " veritable vegetable soups ", and
apparently not worth investigating...
From an AMA Journal 1954 editorial entitled " Cough Medicine for
Cancer ". "It is fair to observe that the American Medical
Association or any other assocation or individual has no need
to go beyond the Hoxsey label to be convinced. Any such person
who would seriously content that scientific medicine is under any
obligation to investigate such a mixture or its promotor is
either stupid or dishonest ".
It's interesting that the same edition of HerbalGram acknowledges
that countries like Germany are well ahead of the USA in evaluation
and quality-control of herbal medicines, and that the large
multi-national drug companies are leaping on board the herbal
bandwagon.
Bruce Hamilton
rdoe...@my-deja.com
article Brian is quoting is typical of "alternative medicine" (which is
neither medicine nor a rational alternative).
In the absence of any convincing evidence of effect, the main argument
is the building up of a story of a conspiracy induced by the greed of
the medical profession.
While I do not deny that there are unscrupulous doctors, it is palpably
ridiculous to pretend that the profession as a whole is capable of
systematic malevolence against the humanity of which it is a part.
Often, the motivation which drives researchers is personal tragedy. I
know several physicians who have chosen a particular disease as their
field of research or practice because of the loss of a close relative
or friend. Is such a person going to reject out of hand anything which
shows promise, however faint?
That many of the components of the Hoxley treatment have "anti-cancer"
properties is not surprising. So do almost all plant products,
including most common or garden vegetables. Eating cabbage will reduce
chances of getting cancer (orthodox medicine throws its weight behind
the five-a-day advice, ten-a-day in Canada!). It won't cure an
established cancer.
The only villains in the story of Liam Holloway are the unscrupulous,
smooth-talking confidence tricksters who so cruelly misled his parents.
Richard
In article <97298633...@mnementh.southern.co.nz>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Bruce Hoult
Campbell" <ashl...@xxxtra.co.nz> wrote:
> "Kerry" <ker...@remove.this.bit.ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:39fbfcf3...@news.wlg.ihug.co.nz...
> > On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 12:13:57 +0000 (UTC), "E. Scrooge"
> > <e.sc...@zfree.co.nx (z replaces x)> wrote:
> >
> > >There are some cancers that just can't be treated. There aren't many
> > >survivors of having a brain tumour still getting around, for example.
> >
> > That's not true.
>
> He's obviously been watching too much Ally McBeal.
How can you watch too much Ally McBeal?
-- Bruce
Brian Sandle
> Joining this thread rather late, but would like to comment that the
> article Brian is quoting is typical of "alternative medicine"
> (which is neither medicine nor a rational alternative).
from alternative to ACC approved.
>
> In the absence of any convincing evidence of effect,
together to get him out of jail wsere actually only under the spell of
some sort of hypnotic spell, the sort that advertising can bring about,
or whether they were going by results.
the main
> argument is the building up of a story of a conspiracy induced by
> the greed of the medical profession.
>
> While I do not deny that there are unscrupulous doctors, it is
> palpably ridiculous to pretend that the profession as a whole is
> capable of systematic malevolence against the humanity of which it
> is a part.
>
> Often, the motivation which drives researchers is personal tragedy.
> I know several physicians who have chosen a particular disease as
> their field of research or practice because of the loss of a close
> relative or friend. Is such a person going to reject out of hand
> anything which shows promise, however faint?
>
> That many of the components of the Hoxley treatment have
> "anti-cancer" properties is not surprising. So do almost all plant
> products, including most common or garden vegetables. Eating
> cabbage will reduce chances of getting cancer (orthodox medicine
> throws its weight behind the five-a-day advice, ten-a-day in
> Canada!). It won't cure an established cancer.
not allow a return to the wrong diet.
>
> The only villains in the story of Liam Holloway are the
> unscrupulous, smooth-talking confidence tricksters who so cruelly
> misled his parents.
chemotherpay.
I presume the parents went to a practitioner using electricity to try to
goad the immune sytem to react, instead of the nausea from chemo. They
went as a last resort to Hoxsey didn't they?
As for the Hoxsey treatment I do wonder whether the plant estrogens may
be a trouble to persons with enlarged prostate. Estrogens at low level
can synergise the production of testosterone.
I believe that the two pronged-approach of trad treatment - radiaiton
plus chemo may be being tested against BCG, various herb extracts - some
of which are chemo, vitamin D, changed levels of various fatty acids,
and other things, and that it is very backward of trad medicine to stay
with their decades old two-pronged stuff.