site map


Privacy policy  ▪  About


Bookmark and Share

BLOG: July 2009

Hodgkin's lymphoma in children: better alternatives

So, how did the conventional treatment for Hodgkin's lymphoma fare with respect to the four requirements, set in the very beginning, that would justify legal enforcement, against the will of children/adolescents diagnosed with the disease and their parents? Here's the short summary:

1. Does it have nearly 100% success rate?


2. Does limited delay of this particular treatment generally involves serious health risk?


3. Is it nearly free from dangerous side effects?


4. Is it the only viable alternative?


Now that we have unveiled the true face of "cure" for Hodgkin's offered by the conventional medicine, can we blame parents for trying to use non-invasive alternatives first?

That is all that Danny Hauser and his parents - as well as Katie Wernecke and her parents, Abraham Cherrix and his parents, and many others - asked for. For that, the parents have been labeled by the government to be neglectful, unfit to take care of their own children.

Are there alternative, non-invasive therapies for Hodgkin's disease that can actually work? Certainly. Mind you, Hodgkin's does not result from the body being deficient in highly toxic chemicals and/or deadly radiation. It has its physiological/environmental causes and, as with any other disease in general - and cancers in particular - the key for a true cure lies in the body itself.

Hoxsey herbal formula alone, while helpful in strengthening the immune system, probably wouldn't do it for most Hodgkin's patients. When combined with nutritious, organic diet - which is originally part of it - it does become significant healing force. More so with added detox routine. But there are alsio other cancer-fighting forces among non-invasive therapeutic options. Here are some of them.

Laetrile, also called Amygdalin and vitamin B17, is a natural non-toxic substance belonging to the large family of plant substances known as nitrilosides. Common source are apricot kernels, but many other edible plants have high nitriloside content. Their complex molecules are made of hydrogen cyanide, a benzene ring or acetone, and sugar. In the intestine, it is broken by the bacterial/fungal enzyme β-glucosidase into hydrogen cyanide, benzaldehyde or acetone, and sugar (cancer cells themselves produce high levels of β-glucosidase enzyme, as opposed to the normal cells which hardly produce any).

Hydrogen cyanide is highly cytotoxic, but readily neutralized in the normal cell by the rhodonase enzyme. Cancer cells, typically low in rhodonase, are left exposed to hydrogen cyanide's toxicity.

Similarly, benzaldehyde's strong cytotoxicity is quickly neutralized by oxidation into non-toxic benzoic acid in the oxygen-rich environment of the normal cell, but not so in the oxygen-depleted cancer cell. Synergistic toxic effect of these two compounds on the cancer cell

exceeds that of any chemotherapy agent,

yet to the rest of the body laetrile is only 1/20 as toxic as aspirin.

How did conventional medicine manage to get around such a cancer-fighting commodity? Easily. In the clinical trial at Mayo Clinic in the early 1980s, sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, they used laetrile as racemic mixture, having only 1/10 the strength of its levo-rotary form. Even so, some improvement did show, but the trial was terminated, proclaiming laetrile ineffective. Case closed.

As a result, most of clinical applications of laetrile in the U.S. (some states do allow its use in officially terminal cases, on patient's request; also, it is legal in Europe, and used regularly by Dr. Ernesto Contreras at his clinic in Tijuana, Mexico) have taken place before 1980s, and were limited in size.

One of them was on a group of 10 patients with inoperable metastatic cancers, by Dr. John A. Morrone, M.D., Attending Surgeon at the Jersey City Medical Center, New Jersey, in 1962. Three of these patients were diagnosed with Hodgkin's; here's how they responded to laetrile therapy, as reported by Dr. Morrone (Chemotherapy of inoperable cancer,
Preliminary report of 10 cases treated with laetrile):

Case 5. R.F., age 20, male, single, premedical student, weight 200 lb., height 59 in., blood pressure 114/70 mm. Diagnosis: malignant lymphoma, type Hodgkin's. Condition started as enlarged cervical gland, diagnosis on biopsy. Urinalysis negative, hemoglobin 11 Gm./100cc.

Deep X-ray therapy was employed. The patient complained of weakness, dizziness, and pain in the axillae and groin. The cervical, axillary and inguinal glands were palpably enlarged. The conjunctivae and sclerae were pale and icteric.

Laetrile 1 Gm. was injected intravenously. In ten minutes the systolic blood pressure dropped 6 mm. but there were no other apparent effects. Four days later the patient reported that he felt more active, had a better appetite, and had suffered no ill-effects.

An injection of Laetrile 1Gm. was repeated. The systolic blood pressure dropped 4 mm. in ten minutes, no other apparent effects.

In a period of four and a half months he received nineteen injections of Laetrile, five of 1 Gm. and fourteen of 2 Gm.

During the period of medication the pains in the neck and groin ceased and the adenopathy disappeared. The patient felt euphoric and his general appearance was considerably improved. There were no apparent adverse effects from the injections. The blood picture improved after Laetrile therapy.

Case 7. G.P., age 21, male, single, college student, weight 149 lb., height 70 in., blood pressure 110/70 mm. Diagnosis: malignant lymphoma, Hodgkins type. Urinalysis and hematology negative.

A growing mass in front of the right ear, which returned four years after its initial appearance and recession, was removed and found to contain multinucleated giant cells typical of Hodgkin's disease. There was a hard, tender, enlarged lymph node in the mid-sternocleidomastoid region measuring 3x2cm. Urinalysis and liematology were negative.

Laetrile 1 Gm. was injected intravenously. The systolic blood pressure dropped 4 mm. but there were no apparent side-effects. Three days later the enlarged gland was smaller, softer, and less painful. By the sixth day all pain had ceased.

In a period of four months he received twenty-seven injections of Laetrile, ten of 1Gm. and seventeen of 2 Gm. There were no side-effects. One injection, made directly into the tumor mass, was followed by itching and local tenderness.

During the period of treatment the patient returned to college. Pain was absent, appetite good, weight increased 13 lb., and his appearance was excellent. The blood picture improved under Laetrile therapy.

Case 10. F.F- Age 17, male, single, student. weight 140 lb., height 71 in., blood pressure 110/70. Diagnosis: Hodgkin's disease, granuloma type, with metastasis to the thorax.

During the last three months a growing mass in the left supraclavicular region had reached the size of a quarter sphere of an average orange. The patient complained of pain in both axillae, weakness, nausea and anorexia. He had lost 25lb. and was jaundiced. Biopsy confirmed the diagnosis. The axillary lymph glands were enlarged, especially on the right side. The roentgenograms showed progressive nodal enlargement inside the thorax.

Laetrile 1 Gm. was injected intravenously. In five minutes the systolic blood pressure dropped 6 mm. but there were no apparent other effects.

On examination two days later the mass in the neck was softer and smaller. By the fifth day it was reduced to about half the original size, and was softer and movable. The axillary lymph glands were barely palpable. He was free from pain and his appetite had returned.

In a period of five months he received thirty-six injections of Laetrile, nineteen of 1 Gm. and seventeen of 2 Gm. There were no side-effects.

During the period of treatment there was no pain and no enlargement of the supraclavicular mass occurred. Appetite improved and the patient gained 24 lb. He returned to his studies. Comparison of before and after hemograms showed distinct improvement in the red blood cell count and hemoglobin.

All 10 patients had similar positive response, resulting in partial or full cancer remission. Coincidence? Make your own conclusion.

Another natural compound with similar, selectively toxic effect targeting cancer cells is the common mineral cesium. Being strong alkalizer, cesium is attracted to typically acidic cancer cells. Readily absorbed through their potassium channels, cesium lowers their acidity level; when the typical cancer cell pH of 6.5 drops to 7 (neutral), the cell stops growing; as it turns alkaline, with pH exceeding 7, cancer cell begins to die.

One of the "side effects" of cesium being very unhealthy for cancer cells is its very efficient suppression of pain caused by cancer, even in terminal cases. As with laetrile, their direct side effects are mild and rare; however, their efficiency can over-saturate the body with toxins created by dying and decomposing cancer cells, thus requiring simultaneous detox routine (which is very desirable for cancer patients in general, regardless of treatment type).

As a side note, this secondary toxicity is very likely the main cause of the mysterious retinoic acid syndrome, potentially life-threatening complications following remission of acute promyelocytic leukemia as a result of treatment with non-toxic vitamin A derivative, which has demonstrated efficacy making it an alternative to cytotoxic chemotherapy.

Is it really so hard for the conventional medical doctors to comprehend

how critically important is to help the body detoxify

when treating any cancer?

These non-toxic anti-cancer agents are illustration and proof that treatments based on toxicity selectively targeting cancer calls, while sparing good cells, are possible and available. They are possible for the simple reason that cancer cell has different, anaerobic (sugar/fermentation based, pretty much as in plant - specifically yeast - cell) metabolism, as opposed to aerobic (oxygen-based) metabolism of normal cells. One of the consequences is the above mentioned difference in the level of β-glucosidase and rhodonase enzymes in the cancerous vs. healthy cell.

This basic distinction of the cancerous cell has been known since 1925, when it was discovered by Nobel Prize laureate Dr. Otto Warburg.

But the official medicine won't switch to the non-toxic treatment direction unless supplied by a superior (to laetrile and/or cesium) pharmacological agent, produced by pharmaceutical industry,

so that it can be patented, get a high-price tag and
make big profits.

Simply using natural (unpatentable), inexpensive agents already available is a no-no practice that would lead to a profit collapse for the pharmaceutical industry, and loss of the dominant position in the field of medical services by the American Medical Association (i.e. conventional, allopathic medicine). For them,

sticking to their guns is literally "to be or not to be".

 There are also other non-invasive treatments with proven ability to fight cancer: Budwig diet, macrobiotics, chelation therapy, ozone therapy, pulsed magnetic field therapy, enzyme therapy, colonic cleansing/enemas, positive imagery, vitamin/mineral mega doses, and others. But they are being ignored or ridiculed by the official medicine for the reason just stated above.

Why is it that the conventional medicine never even contemplated having "combined modality" clinical trials with these effective, but non-invasive treatments? The simple answer is: there's no money in it, and that's not "their thing".

The "no money" part is what primarily concerns the pharmaceutical industry - the mighty power that has created and controls much of what the conventional medicine is today. It had also so effectively infiltrated the overseeing government's agency, FDA, that whatever positive comes from its existence results more from it

preventing pharmaceutical industry from self-destructing
due to excessive greed,

than from its genuine concern for the wellbeing of the American people.

The "not their thing" part is what concerns AMA (American Medical Association), which wants to keep its official and practical monopoly in the area of medical services by proclaiming its medical practices to be the only proper way of doing medicine. Since these practices are mainly created by the pharmaceutical industry so that they sell its products - drugs, radiation and surgery aids -

the two are tied together "till death do us part".

Considering this, it is no wonder that so much money and research has been put into minimizing toxicity of inherently highly toxic conventional treatments for Hodgkin's, as well as into building a picture of deception that it is not only a "cure", but also the only option available, and so little in non-invasive natural alternatives. It is no wonder that researching the actual causes of Hodgkin's - immune deficiency, Epstein-Barr virus link, genetic predisposition, environmental toxins, etc. - is lagging behind for decades.

There's no money in it, and it ain't their thing.

Sadly, the entire cause-oriented medicine is sidetracked and officially downgraded to "unproven" or "experimental" at best, simply because suppressing symptoms with patented drugs and expensive surgeries is where the big profits lie. Addressing the causes, most of which originate in the environment and unhealthy lifestyle, would not only drastically reduce the profit, but would also dwarf the size of the patient market.

It would, inevitably, also expose, and financially hurt those who don't wont you to know that their smokestacks, littering of the environment, toxic chemicals, processed foods or electromagnetic fields are harming your health.

Aside the enormous influence that these multibillion dollar businesses have, the government becomes even more sympathetic when the economic growth is at stake. All this is

what the drug-free and cause-oriented medicine is up against.

After this little digression that helps understand why the things are the way they are, we can finally conclude this lengthy discourse, and answer the question:

Does the government, under the pretext of child protection, have the right to force Americans below 18 years of age to undergo conventional Hodgkin's treatment against their and will of their parents?

It does not.

There is no guarantee that child will survive; depending on the severity of the disease, the chances that it won't be alive after 5 years are between 1 in 20 and 1 in 3 (approximately). If child dies within this period, the most likely cause is Hodgkin's. Longer-term, the chances of premature death - about 2 in 3 within 30 years after the treatment - and morbidity - nearly 100% chance of suffering chronic diseases - make the conventional Hodgkin's treatment

all but safe and bullet-proof.

One could argue that this is still better than no treatment, in which case nearly all patients would die within 10 years. But "no treatment" is not what Wernecke, Cherrix, Hauser and other families wanted. They wanted to give a chance to less invasive, or non-invasive treatments first, to spare their child from excruciating, dehumanizing ordeal of the conventional Hodgkin's treatment, which still retains very real, significant risks.

What the government is doing by criminalizing the parents for this, and forcing their children to undergo toxic conventional therapy, is not child protection. It is protection of self-serving medicine abducted by profit-hungry pharmaceutical companies and political ambitions of American Medical Association, determined to dominate the field of medical services.

There is no right way to do wrong. If the government wants to get involved and help the children diagnosed by Hodgkin's - and other life-threatening diseases - it can only do so by giving fair, factual advice to parents who want best to their children about all treatment alternatives, and

let them make their choice.

It can only have the right to step in and enforce treatment when parents, by any reasonable measure, fail to act. But it cannot allow those who have vested interest from practicing particular treatment - or, for that matter, particular kind of medicine - to decide for the parents what is their only choice.

And, this cannot be overemphasized: cancer is too serious and complex disease to allow anyone without necessary medical training to decide about the particulars of child's treatment - including its parents. Guidance of a competent medical professional is essential.

Information and updates about Daniels's progress, authorized by the Hauser family, you can find at www.dannyhauser.com web site.



Comment Form is loading comments...