PDA

View Full Version : The Judge Was Wrong About the Kid With Cancer




dannno
05-26-2009, 11:15 AM
This is too important of an issue to ignore. I am sick and tired of people who claim to be freedom oriented individuals preaching for the Medical Industrial Complex. This is one of my pet issues. YOU DO NOT TELL ME HOW TO HEAL ME. PERIOD.

Get the word out to Napolitano. Again, I like EVERYTHING I have ever heard him say on his show.. but this is NOT A MINOR DISAGREEMENT. It is NOT OK THAT ANYBODY, let alone The Judge, think that it is OK for the state to tell us what medical treatments we need. You have the right to think it or say it, but that doesn't mean it is OK, and I have the right to expose you for being a statist.

It is important to educate the leaders of the freedom movement, because they should not be flubbing issues like this.

So Napolitano, I'd love to hear a segment on your show where you reverse your position on this important issue and explain why you were WRONG.



The Survival of Billy Best Proves Cancer Doctors Wrong about Daniel Hauser

http://www.naturalnews.com/026329.html

Tuesday, May 26, 2009 by: Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

(NaturalNews) If there's one thing that cancer doctors and health authorities can't stand, it's being wrong. And in the case of 13-year-old Daniel Hauser, the cancer doctors insist that unless the boy submits to chemotherapy as a "treatment" for Hodgkin's Lymphoma, he will almost certainly die.

But there's a problem with that claim. The problem is a man named Billy Best, now 31 years old, who was diagnosed with Hodgkin's Lymphoma at the age of 16. Like Daniel Hauser, Billy Best was told he would die if he didn't submit to chemotherapy. But with remarkable courage and wisdom about his own body's healing capabilities, Billy Best fled the health authorities, ran away from his family and began eating roots, superfoods and medicinal herbs. He regularly drank an alternative cancer liquid formula (made from plants) and before long his cancer was cured.

Billy, of course, is alive and well today... fifteen years after his cancer doctors said he should be dead.

Billy's recovery proves cancer doctors wrong. The fact that Billy Best is living and breathing today is a huge embarrassment to the arrogant cancer doctors who insist on pushing poison onto children. His very existence proves them wrong. They might have actually preferred that Billy Best died 15 years ago just to prove them right, because with each breath he takes, and with each heartbeat that carries his body into the next moment, Billy Best screams out the obvious truth to the world: Natural medicine allows the body to CURE ITSELF of cancer.

Billy Best is alive and well today, living on superfoods and looking quite healthy. He was recently willing to speak out against the tyrannical cancer authorities on an ABC News video interview you can watch here: http://www.abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=7661834&page=1

In that interview, when Billy Best was asked if he would help the Hauser family if contacted by them, he says, "I would because it's something that's so close to me." The journalist interviewing him seems astonished that someone would dare help the "fugitive" Hauser family. But Billy Best continues, "It's been, almost, 15 years and to see today someone fighting for those same -- freedoms. ...I'd fight. I'd fight for that freedom."

And with those words, Billy Best cements his position as one of the true American heroes of our time. Taking a stand against the poisoning of children, against the tyranny of modern medicine and even against the idiocy of the mainstream media, Billy Best affirms his basic human right to choose his preferred healing modality.

And yet, it wasn't too long ago that Mr. Best was a fugitive from justice... the subject of an intense manhunt to find a child and, it was claimed, "save his life with chemotherapy."

Who are the real fugitives from the law?
When it comes to cancer and medicine, I say the wrong people are running from the law. The real criminals in medicine today are the egomaniacal oncologists who seek to thrust their toxic chemicals onto families and children. These criminal-minded physicians routinely call for the arrest and imprisonment of parents who dare to disagree with their distorted medical opinions -- and even those opinions are based on nothing but fraudulent science, engineered and paid for by the criminally-operated drug companies selling the chemotherapy chemicals in the first place.

The cancer industry is, in every way, an organized crime operation that intimidates opponents, imprisons those who question its authority and exploits children for profit.

If the U.S. Dept. of Justice had any backbone, it would have prosecuted cancer doctors, cancer non-profits and cancer drug companies under the RICO Act (the law used to prosecute members of the mob), as the operations of cancer industry groups are a near-perfect reflection of the tactics used by the mob to extort money from people and intimidate (or eliminate) those who resist.

Billy Best refused to submit to the tyranny of that criminally-operated cancer industry. And he is alive today precisely because he dared to make that choice. He did what virtually no one else dares do (because people have been instilled with such fear that they dare not question authority these days) -- He took responsibility for his own health, radically improved his diet, evaded the state-sponsored medical terrorists who sought to inject him with poison, and ultimately saved his own life.

It is precisely these behaviors that the conventional cancer industry seeks to suppress. If the public at large followed the leadership of Billy Best, cancer rates would plummet across the world, and the cancer industry -- whose very existence is based on financial profit -- would collapse. If people were to assert their own right to protect their children from syringe-toting tyrants, the cancer industry would have no patients and no profits. The entire industry is propped up almost entirely by disinformation, fear tactics and now the threatening of parents at gunpoint.

Never take your children to a conventional cancer doctor
It is important to inform all NaturalNews readers that the mere act of taking a child to a conventional cancer doctor is now, in practice, a "surrender" of your child to the State. Once you walk through the door of that cancer clinic, any disagreement with the advice of the cancer doctor will result in you being labeled a criminal, even while state employees kidnap your child and seek to have you jailed.

These are not exaggerations. They are accurate descriptions of precisely what has happened to the parents of Daniel Hauser, Katie Wernecke, Abraham Cherrix (http://www.naturalnews.com/026305.html), Billy Best and many other children. In most of these cases, the parents had no choice but to become fugitives of the law in order to protect their children from syringe-toting cancer doctors armed with chemical poisons.

Conventional medicine, in a very real way, has become the enemy of the People. By invoking "gunpoint medicine" and turning parents into criminals, the medical establishment now blatantly portrays itself as an oppressive, tyrannical institution that, to many people, is far more scary than any terrorist organization. These actions on the part of cancer doctors and Child Protective Services are arguably terrorist campaigns as they clearly terrorize families in an attempt to control them.

This is the very definition of terrorism, in fact: The use of weapons (or the threat of the use of weapons) against the People to accomplish a political aim or to intimidate or coerce the People. An upcoming article here on NaturalNews explores this issue in more detail, explaining precisely why cancer doctors now fit the definition of "terrorists" as defined under the U.S. Patriot Act.

Watch for that later this week here on NaturalNews.com

In the mean time, check out this new CounterThink cartoon that depicts the truth about chemotherapy "treatment" in America: http://www.naturalnews.com/026330.html

You'll really enjoy this one...

MRoCkEd
05-26-2009, 11:21 AM
I'll reserve judgment until I hear what he actually said. Is the video anywhere?

johnrocks
05-26-2009, 11:34 AM
I'll reserve judgment until I hear what he actually said. Is the video anywhere?

Myself, although we don't have to be 100% in lock step to be traveling the same road, afterall, the message of freedom also involves freedom to have a different POV.

dannno
05-26-2009, 11:47 AM
Myself, although we don't have to be 100% in lock step to be traveling the same road, afterall, the message of freedom also involves freedom to have a different POV.

See the OP. I said he has the right to have his own POV, but so does Dick Cheney. That doesn't mean I'm not going to call him out, and yes, he is VERY VERY wrong here. It is unhealthy for people in the freedom movement to be preaching consistency when we aren't consistently applying the principle of freedom.

This issue is too important to ignore.

dannno
05-26-2009, 11:49 AM
I'll reserve judgment until I hear what he actually said. Is the video anywhere?

Hmmm I don't have the video, that would be good for someone to post. Essentially he agrees that the courts should force the parents to to give their kid chemo when they are on track with an all natural treatment.

Unfortunately the poisoning from the first chemotherapy, which I believe he was forced by the courts to undergo, was affecting the performance of the all natural cure, so the tumor appeared to be growing.. natural treatments are NOT effective if you have chemotherapy, which is the primary reason why the Medical Industrial Complex will not recognize these treatments. They give kids chemo and the all natural treatment and it doesn't help because chemo destroys your entire body. They didn't want their kid to be poisoned anymore and wanted to continue on track with the all natural treatment.

ARealConservative
05-26-2009, 11:58 AM
the courts have a role in preventing neglect and abuse. How do we decide what is neglect/abuse? This is a pretty tough question and I don't think our movement needs split over it.

Individual States will need to find a way to balance such a fine line.

dannno
05-26-2009, 12:12 PM
the courts have a role in preventing neglect and abuse. How do we decide what is neglect/abuse? This is a pretty tough question and I don't think our movement needs split over it.

Individual States will need to find a way to balance such a fine line.

Yes, but they have to respect individual's right to choose their own medical treatment. Period. You cannot force a medical treatment on an individual that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars when it is not even necessary. That is grossly immoral and just plain evil.

dannno
05-26-2009, 12:13 PM
In other words, by forcing chemotherapy on the kid, you are DEPRIVING HIM of the ability to heal naturally. In this case, the state is neglecting the child, not the parents.

angelatc
05-26-2009, 12:21 PM
the courts have a role in preventing neglect and abuse. How do we decide what is neglect/abuse? This is a pretty tough question and I don't think our movement needs split over it.

Individual States will need to find a way to balance such a fine line.

The state has already proven to me that they're incapable of restraining themselves. I think friends and family should have the role of preventing neglect and abuse. But neither of those words apply to refusing medical treatment.

ARealConservative
05-26-2009, 12:30 PM
Yes, but they have to respect individual's right to choose their own medical treatment. Period. You cannot force a medical treatment on an individual that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars when it is not even necessary. That is grossly immoral and just plain evil.

the bottom line is if parental actions are ever allowed to be questioned by the state?

Either the state can adopt rules for how parents can act, or they can't.

This applies to spankings, going to bed with no dinner, and even chemotherapy.

I prefer that my state looks into the well beings of children. Does the state go too far? Absolutely! But I'm not convinced this is one of those times....my mind is open though.

dannno
05-26-2009, 12:34 PM
the bottom line is if parental actions are ever allowed to be questioned by the state?

Either the state can adopt rules for how parents can act, or they can't.

This applies to spankings, going to bed with no dinner, and even chemotherapy.

I prefer that my state looks into the well beings of children. Does the state go too far? Absolutely! But I'm not convinced this is one of those times....my mind is open though.

How is CHOOSING a DIFFERENT medical alternative have anything to do with HURTING or NEGLECTING your child??? That should be an absolute right for ANYBODY!!

Why do you think that the medical industrial complex should have absolute say over what medical treatments should be mandated to who?? They are profiteering, and you are INSANE!

You are monster and a tyrant if you actually believe the state should be telling people what MEDICAL treatments they should get.. and I'm surprised that you've actually heard Ron Paul talk about anything related to choice in your entire life.

ARealConservative
05-26-2009, 12:52 PM
How is CHOOSING a DIFFERENT medical alternative have anything to do with HURTING or NEGLECTING your child??? That should be an absolute right for ANYBODY!!

Why do you think that the medical industrial complex should have absolute say over what medical treatments should be mandated to who?? They are profiteering, and you are INSANE!

You are monster and a tyrant if you actually believe the state should be telling people what MEDICAL treatments they should get.. and I'm surprised that you've actually heard Ron Paul talk about anything related to choice in your entire life.

:rolleyes:

the internet allows people to act in a way they wouldn't otherwise.

I have never been called a monster in person, but since it is clear you can't hold rational conversations, we won't be having an irrational one.

later luddite.

dannno
05-26-2009, 01:09 PM
:rolleyes:

the internet allows people to act in a way they wouldn't otherwise.

I have never been called a monster in person, but since it is clear you can't hold rational conversations, we won't be having an irrational one.

later luddite.

I said IF... and it still stands, if what I said is true, which you have not specifically stated yet, then I am right and you are irrational...and a monster.. and if you are not very intimidating and I met you then I WOULD say it to your face. I can't believe anybody who advocates Ron Paul's ideas and freedom would advocate government making healthcare decisions. There is no rational debate on this topic, the government should not be doing it. The fact is that this thread proves there ARE alternatives to chemo, but that is really irrelevant to the conversation. This is about HEALTH FREEDOM, which is an entire subforum topic. How can you be against an entire subforum topic??

If you really think that way then you have learned very little from this movement.

ARealConservative
05-26-2009, 01:18 PM
I said IF... and it still stands, if what I said is true, which you have not specifically stated yet, then I am right and you are irrational. I can't believe anybody who advocates Ron Paul's ideas and freedom would advocate government making healthcare decisions. There is no rational debate on this topic, the government should not be doing it. The fact is that this thread proves there ARE alternatives to chemo, but that is really irrelevant to the conversation. This is about HEALTH FREEDOM, which is an entire subforum topic. How can you be against an entire subforum topic??

If you really think that way then you have learned very little from this movement.

If you think that parents never criminally withhold medical care, you are an idiot.

outside of that, it is a fine line to draw between parental rights and abuse, and I'm not going to sign on to the issue. the medical community in that state feels withholding treatment is tantamount to abuse.

One thing I have learned is morons exist on all sides of the political debate. I have witnessed first hand some extremely idiotic and irrational people. Some truly racist and bigoted people, and some people extremely thoughtful and well read, all on this very forum.

But in the end, I'm pretty much the same person today I was in 2007.

jsu718
05-26-2009, 01:22 PM
I don't know that I would believe this story as given. I have seen plenty of things from naturalnews and other similar sources that have no basis in science or in reality... it kind of comes with the territories. It always reminds me of this girl I dated that was convinced that she was allergic to aspirin even though she had never had an allergic reaction to it.

LittleLightShining
05-26-2009, 01:24 PM
I agree with you, Dannno. I have a problem with the whole thing.

dannno
05-26-2009, 01:25 PM
If you think that parents never criminally withhold medical care, you are an idiot.

Who is witholding medical treatment??




outside of that, it is a fine line to draw between parental rights and abuse, and I'm not going to sign on to the issue. the medical community in that state feels withholding treatment is tantamount to abuse.

They aren't witholding treatment, they are using an alternative treatment that is NOT compatible with "standard" treatments. The alternative treatment happens to not supply the medical industrial complex with hundreds of thousands of dollars and not cause medical bankruptcy which raises the cost of healthcare for EVERYBODY.

Do you see why this is an important issue?? The state is forcing a monopoly on healthcare decisions, and you are supporting it. For this you are the antithesis of liberty.

dannno
05-26-2009, 01:27 PM
:mad:


I don't know that I would believe this story as given. I have seen plenty of things from naturalnews and other similar sources that have no basis in science or in reality... it kind of comes with the territories. It always reminds me of this girl I dated that was convinced that she was allergic to aspirin even though she had never had an allergic reaction to it.

Then maybe you should watch the fucking ABC interview with the guy they were talking about in the NaturalNews article and stop filling my thread with misinformation that could be cleared up by simply reading the OP!!

jsu718
05-26-2009, 01:29 PM
:mad:



Then maybe you should watch the fucking ABC interview with the guy they were talking about in the NaturalNews article and stop filling my thread with misinformation that could be cleared up by simply reading the OP!!

Thanks, but I did read the OP. It doesn't address the issues that I brought up. There is still a lot of deception coming from both sides.

ARealConservative
05-26-2009, 01:32 PM
Do you see why this is an important issue?? The state is forcing a monopoly on healthcare decisions, and you are supporting it. For this you are the antithesis of liberty.

:rolleyes:

I understand medical care in Saudi Arabia is even more draconian. Don't you see how you are supporting it?

pinkmandy
05-26-2009, 02:05 PM
I agree with you, Dannno. I have a problem with the whole thing.

So do I.

The state is an aggressor here. Forcing any type of medical treatment on a person who doesn't want it is wrong. This is force, plain and simple. If the kid WANTS the chemo, that's a different story but he doesn't. So this ruling is saying that the govt has the power to override the individual's choice on his own medical care choices. I don't care if he's 13. Can the govt also force a 13 yo pregnant girl to have an abortion because she is susceptible to complications? How many 'preventable' deaths can the govt prevent? I imagine we could create a law allowing the govt full reign to protect the children. Maybe even mandatory home inspections to make sure fire alarms are working and the kids are eating healthy food?

This, to me, is not freedom at all. I don't understand supporting it, either. Freedom means sometimes you aren't going to approve of or even understand what other people do with their own freedom but that doesn't give others the right to dictate another way (gotta love democracy!). Freedom means the freedom to make mistakes and certainly the freedom to heal yourself how you see fit- or suffer the consequences if you are wrong. It doesn't compare to neglect laws because they are actually laws. Here, a judge didn't approve of non-AMA approved treatments so he pushed his own preference on these people. Not right. I'm not aware of a law that says 'if a child has this "x disease" then by law they must be treated with a particular treatment'.

A person shouldn't have to flee from govt to treat his own body the way he chooses. That's tyranny.

dannno
05-26-2009, 02:16 PM
Thanks, but I did read the OP. It doesn't address the issues that I brought up. There is still a lot of deception coming from both sides.

You said the story about the guy from NN was fake, but he was interviewed on ABC.. and they were against him, they want the kid to be forced to have chemo.. what else do you want??

Look, here's the bottom line, and this is EXACTLY how Ron Paul would frame this so listen closely:


If I am WRONG, then this kid might die of cancer.

If I am RIGHT, then THE STATE is forcing poor medical care, a poison, frankly, on the ENTIRE POPULATION!! That is why I believe in choice, because when the state mandates something for everyone it doesn't matter if it is right or wrong because there could be a BETTER alternative!

jsu718
05-26-2009, 02:32 PM
You said the story about the guy from NN was fake, but he was interviewed on ABC.. and they were against him, they want the kid to be forced to have chemo.. what else do you want??

Look, here's the bottom line, and this is EXACTLY how Ron Paul would frame this so listen closely:


If I am WRONG, then this kid might die of cancer.

If I am RIGHT, then THE STATE is forcing poor medical care, a poison, frankly, on the ENTIRE POPULATION!! That is why I believe in choice, because when the state mandates something for everyone it doesn't matter if it is right or wrong because there could be a BETTER alternative!

I said it was fake? Let me look back...

"I don't know that I would believe this story as given."

No, I did not say it was fake, so you are wrong. My statement was clearly intended to indicate that neither side (assuming the man interviewed had a connection to naturalnews) has been honest in the past, so there is no reason to completely accept what is said as being factual and honest. I still maintain that view.

ARealConservative
05-26-2009, 02:34 PM
I said it was fake? Let me look back...

"I don't know that I would believe this story as given."


monster.

:D

dannno
05-26-2009, 02:38 PM
I don't know that I would believe this story as given. I have seen plenty of things from naturalnews and other similar sources that have no basis in science or in reality...

:rolleyes:

It's called insinuating, and you did it.

dannno
05-26-2009, 02:39 PM
monster.

:D

Hmm, so you didn't go back to read his original statement before posting so presumptuously?

jsu718
05-26-2009, 03:07 PM
:rolleyes:

It's called insinuating, and you did it.

No, that part was not "insinuating" anything at all. It was directly relaying past experience with naturalnews. I made a similar statement about the oppositional news sources. If you can't see for yourself that neither side is entirely honest then you need to look at your own objectivity in this matter. If anything you should already be aware that ABC, the USDOJ and practicing physicians are held to higher standards than the reporting of naturalnews.com even though they themselves have issues with their sponsors, lobbyists, etc that skew their actions away from the truth. The issue of parents having full control of the health issues involving their children involves far more than the questionable views of naturalnews.com as "proof" that your opinion is more appropriate than the current state of things. For that it will take more than logical fallacies and your own "insinuating" to make it hold weight.