site map



Health news:
June 2010 - Dec 2013

Minimizing breast cancer risk

May 2010

Time to move beyond salt ?

Salt hypothesis vs. reality

Is sodium bad?

April 2010

Salt studies: the latest score

From Dahl to INTERSALT

Salt hypothesis' story

March 2010

Salt war

Do bone drugs work?

Diabetes vs. drugs, 3:0?

February 2010

The MMR vaccine war: Wakefield vs. ?

Wakefield proceedings: an exception?

Who's afraid of a littl' 1998 study?

January 2010

Antibiotic children

Physical activity benefits late-life health

Healthier life for New Year's resolution


December 2009

Autism epidemic worsening: CDC report

Rosuvastatin indication broadened

High-protein diet effects


November 2009

Folic acid cancer risk

Folic acid studies: message in a bottle?

Sweet, short life on a sugary diet


October 2009

Smoking health hazards: no dose-response

C. difficile warning

Asthma risk and waist size in women


September 2009

Antioxidants' melanoma risk: 4-fold or none?

Murky waters of vitamin D status

Is vitamin D deficiency hurting you?


August 2009

Pill-crushing children

New gut test for children and adults

Unhealthy habits - whistling past the graveyard?


July 2009

Asthma solution - between two opposites that don't attract

Light wave therapy - how does it actually work?

Hodgkin's lymphoma in children: better alternatives


June 2009

Hodgkin's, kids, and the abuse of power

Efficacy and safety of the conventional treatment for Hodgkin's:
behind the hype

Long-term mortality and morbidity after conventional treatments for pediatric Hodgkin's


May 2009

Late health effects of the toxicity of the conventional treatment for Hodgkin's

Daniel's true 5-year chances with the conventional treatment for Hodgkin's

Daniel Hauser Hodgkin's case: child protection or medical oppression?

April 2009

Protection from EMF: you're on your own

EMF pollution battle: same old...

EMF health threat and the politics of status quo

March 2009

Electromagnetic danger? No such thing, in our view...

EMF safety standards: are they safe?

Power-frequency field exposure

February 2009

Electricity and health

Electromagnetic spectrum: health connection

Is power pollution making you sick?

January 2009

Pneumococcal vaccine for adults useless?

DHA in brain development study - why not boys?

HRT shrinks brains


Bookmark and Share

May 2009

Daniel Hauser Hodgkin's case: child protection
or medical oppression?

}Daniel's case - True chances - Late effects - Mortality - Real picture
Hodgkin's kids - Alternatives

Should the authorities have the power to decide what type of medical treatment is appropriate for your child's life-threatening illness? And, if you don't agree, to take your child away - possibly jailing you in the process - and force that treatment upon your child? The parents of 13-year old Daniel Hauser from Minnesota, suffering from Hodgkin's lymphoma, are just learning that what they think is best for their son doesn't count.

Of course, the answer to the above questions would be easy if the government is backing a treatment that:

 1  - has nearly 100% success rate

 2  - limited delay of treatment involves serious health risk

 3  - has no dangerous side effects, and

 4  - no viable alternative

The reality is, unfortunately, usually much less of a clean cut. In January 2009 Daniel's parents learned that their son has Hodgkin's lymphoma, a deadly lymphatic cancer if left untreated. Initially, they went along with the recommended conventional treatment, which combines radiation and chemotherapy.

After one round of chemo in February, despite its positive results in shrinking the tumor, the Hauser family became very concerned with side effects of the harsh, toxic treatment, both immediate and long-term. They decided to quit chemo in favor of "do no harm" natural treatments (herbal supplements, vitamins, ionized/alkaline water and other natural alternatives), including some traditional American Indians' remedies.

However, after the hospital's oncologist informed state's child protection services about treatment non-compliance, court order was issued to the parents. In a desperate attempt to avoid forced continuation of chemotherapy, the mother fled out of the state with Daniel for six days. Court order was issued for her arrest. The parents had two choices: either accept chemo, or have their son taken away by the authorities.

 So, in June this year, Danny was back to chemo. It did, initially, shrink the tumor again, and, on the negative side, it is poisoning Daniel's body, making him feeling seek and angry.

Are Daniel's parents justified in their fear from chemo and radiation? The fact is that both are

inherently toxic treatments

which most often kill Hodgkin lymphoma, but in the process they poison the entire body. It often makes patient feel miserably sick, and can have

very serious health consequences longer-term -

especially in children.

That doesn't seem to agree with the official picture of the treatment. Press articles cite doctors saying that conventional treatment would give to Daniel "90% chance of success", while without any treatment he would most likely die from the disease.

But what "90% chance of success" really does mean? Plain 9 in 10 chances to beat Hodgkin's, fully recover and live long and happy life? Or there is more to it than this simplistic picture? Shouldn't we know that?

However, doctors don't seem to be willing to talk about possible long-term effects. Is it really all as good and clean as "90% chance of success" imply, or there are also other legitimate concerns? How close is the conventional pediatric treatment for Hodgkin's to the four conditions, listed in the beginning, that would make its legal enforcement justifiable?

Following pages will attempt to answer these burning questions.