Daniel's true 5-year chances
with the conventional treatment for Hodgkin's
Daniel's case -
True chances -
Hodgkin's kids -
"90% success chance" promised to Daniel Hauser by the
conventional medicine close enough to 100% success to justify
forcing him into a highly toxic treatment? Is "90% success rate"
fair presentation of Daniel's true 5-year chances, and his
Let's first define what 100% success
rate should mean in treating any disease: simply put, it should
mean that the disease is eliminated
without inflicting significant lasting
damage to the mind or body.
Can the conventional treatment for
Hodgkin's claim this?
Looking at the results of North
American clinical trials for so called
treatment (usually four chemo drugs and radiation
combined) of pediatric Hodgkin's, the 5-year survival rates
range from below 80% to nearly 100%. In general, the average
reported rate is close to 100% for the least advanced (favorable
stage I and II Hodgkin's lymphoma), declining below 80% for
most advanced (unfavorable stage III and IV) forms of disease.
Number of children in most of these
trials is relatively small, up to a few dozens, which makes the
result statistically unreliable. However, a pattern emerging
from a number of such small studies can be assumed to be a good
indicator of the overall survival rates.
In Daniel's case, having stage IIB Hodgkin's - considered
unfavorable, but less so than the most advanced unfavorable stages -
his chances to survive
5 years after undergoing conventional treatment - at least
statistically - are somewhere between 85% and 90%.
It should be noted, though, that deaths due to "unrelated causes"
may not be included in the survival rate figure. Knowing that this
type of treatment ignores the actual (individual) cause of the
does not track specific effects of the treatment on body chemistry,
the accuracy of assigning the "unrelated" attribute is inevitably
But just being alive after 5 years is a pretty vague description.
How does your child feel? What is its quality of life? What are the
prospects of being alive and having good life 10 or 20 years after
According to the reported numbers, Daniel's
chances to be symptom-free
(so called "event-free" rate) in 5-year period are somewhere between 2
in 3 and 9 in 10. The "symptom-free", as defined in Hodgkin's
treatment terminology, is limited to the specific set of symptoms
caused by Hodgkin's disease; it does not expand to other symptoms
and diseases, even those directly caused by the treatment (in other
words, rates for "being and feeling well" are not reported).
So, another statistical figure, for him being free from symptoms
of Hodgkin's after 5 years is somewhat lower, probably around 75%.
There is no data to determine at least statistical probability for
Daniel of being truly
disease-free after 5 years; perhaps, it could be 2 in 3 at
These numbers are only approximate, but serve their purpose. The
picture that emerges is already less promising than what "90%
success rate" implies. One is certain: conventional Hodgkin's
can not claim near 100%
the first of four conditions set in the
beginning, even within
the first 5 years following the treatment, except for the most
favorable cases - to which Daniel doesn't belong. As will be
detailed ahead, his prospects
become more bleak going
beyond these first five years.
The next question is whether
Hodgkin's treatment, in order to attempt an alternative,
non-invasive therapy, either alone or combined with the conventional
treatment, can significantly worsen child's short- and long-term
chances of survival and wellbeing?
This question is easier to answer, at least in general. Between
the two extremes, one being a near-inert Hodgkin's that doesn't
significantly advance for years, and the other its aggressive form
that can flare up within a few months, Hodgkin's lymphoma is most
often a slowly spreading malignancy. In the majority of cases, a
magnitude of decline in the chances for survival, or for severity of
immediate and long-term effects, resulting from delay in starting
the conventional therapy
would be justified in
the light of possibility to significantly reduce - or even avoid -
risks and toxicity of the treatment.
The specifics could be and should be determined, in terms of
permissible decline in statistical chances for survival and
"freedom-from-symptoms" with the conventional treatment, in case that
it becomes the lest resort.
Considering that the conventional Hodgkin's treatment itself
imposes significant health risks - more about it ahead - giving a
chance to some form of non-invasive therapy, or at least, to some
form of so called integrated therapy, combining conventional
invasive with selected non-invasive treatments in order to reduce
the overall toxicity, could literally be a lifesaver.
Of course, this would require from the conventional medicine not
only to admit that the alternative non-invasive treatments can have
beneficial effect in treating Hodgkin's, but also to open up door for
their regular use. And that is exactly what American Medical
does not want to happen
Not because there is a solid factual basis to dismiss alternative
treatment as a hoax - to the contrary - but because mainly inexpensive, natural
therapies are against everything that this organization has become: a
drug/radiation/surgery merchant for the mighty pharmaceutical
It abused its official powers to sideline and marginalize
non-invasive, alternative treatments for cancer, so that it can keep
its lion's share of the market. But using law enforcement to force
their highly toxic treatments on children under the pretext of
"child protection" is going a step too far. An instance of
self-destructive greed for money, power and control, that will
backfire and ultimately help alternative medicine.
By not having near 100% success rate in general - and in the case
of Daniel Hauser in particular - for the first 5-10 years after
treatment, nor being critically affected by moderate delays in most
conventional Hodgkin's treatment has already
failed to fulfill
requirement for justifiable legal enforcement
when parents opt to give a try to an
alternative, non-invasive therapy with their child.
But there are
two other very important questions to answer: (1) does the
for Hodgkin's inflict longer-term damage to the patients, and (2) are there viable
non-invasive alternatives for treatment of Hodgkin's disease?
So, the next question is how invasive is the therapy; does it
harm your child physically and psychologically, and do the
longer-term prospects (beyond 5-year period) justify that sacrifice?
The answer to these questions is of crucial importance, for two
reasons. One is that the facts about it are very much obscured and
withheld not only from the public in general, but also from the very
patient. The other is that, as will be documented, the most serious,
deadliest consequences of the highly toxic conventional treatment
surface in one to three
decades after it was completed.
Let's start by naming and specifying these late effects of
┆ NUTRITION ┆