|
Part
1
DoCS – Stealing Our Children for Medicine?
One Australian Family’s Nightmare Loss of Health Freedom
An Article By Eve Hillary Revised 15/12/2003
[Part 2] [Part
3] [Part 4]
This
story is also available as a .pdf file (needs Adobe Acrobat Reader)
Important: This information is not to be construed as medical advice. It is one
family’s experience and it is sourced and referenced with additional information.
For legal reasons the names of the child and parents have been changed. This is a
revised edition which further de-identifies the family’s details-not by request of the
family but rather by request of DoCS having applied to the Court for suppression
orders. However, they succeeded only in winning minor concessions, now made. No
other information has been changed. The facts in this article are true and stand as
logically probative facts derived from affidavits, legal documents, medical records,
interviews and independent research. This revised edition complies with court
orders issued in the NSW Supreme Court on 8/12/03. Pursuant to these orders the
author is hereby legally entitled to publish this revised article. The author gives
permission for this revised article to be freely distributed for non commercial
purposes. (If you have a previous version of this article, please replace it with this
revised edition and you may pass it on.)
To
Begin
Lisa was a red cheeked, athletic eleven-year-old when she complained of feeling unwell
in late November 2002. She had been robustly healthy all her life, and had never
experienced any serious illness. She was born and raised in an Australian rural
community where the family has a farm. Lisa enjoyed helping her parents with gathering
eggs, planting organic vegetables and tending to the cows. Her father, James, worked
nearby to supplement the family income and her mother Elizabeth attended to Lisa and
her siblings at home. Lisa’s grandparents lived on an adjacent parcel of the family
landholding near a scenic river frontage, where Lisa, her siblings and their cousins were
frequent visitors. The older children spent enjoyable days swimming in the river, and
helping their grandmother with chores including homemade butter making. The extended
family formed a close and cooperative unit that gathered regularly. At those times Lisa’s
favourite activity was babysitting for the younger cousins while her parents, uncles and
aunts spent the day pitching in with some of the heavier farm chores.
Every Parent’s Nightmare
Lisa was normally a lively girl with a keen sense of fun, but in November 2002 her
parents became concerned that she had seemed unwell over the previous few days. Late
that evening they noticed a lump in her upper abdomen and James decided to take her to
the local hospital some distance away while Elizabeth planned to stay home with the
other children. By the time preparations were made, Lisa was asleep. The next morning
the lump was still there and James took her to the local hospital where the family doctor
examined Lisa. He thought it was her bladder but catheterisation did not alleviate the
problem. James was advised to take Lisa to another hospital some distance away where
blood tests were taken. The duty doctor returned to tell James that the tests indicated 11
year-old Lisa was 14 weeks pregnant. James, as the father of a number of children,
thought this was not the case for a variety of reasons, and told the doctor that he had
never seen a pregnancy originate from “so high up in the abdomen”. He gave permission
for further tests including a Doppler test to check for a foetal heartbeat and an abdominal
ultrasound, scheduled for the following day. The doctor however was so convinced Lisa
was pregnant that he had already contacted the local office of DoCS, the Department of
Community Services (child protection). He was determined to question Lisa about
sexual matters. In the interim, the Doppler test revealed no hint of a foetal heartbeat.
Meanwhile, Elizabeth had arrived at the hospital, and with both parents present, Lisa
underwent an abdominal ultra sound the following morning, when a tumour was found.
James had refused to allow the staff to question Lisa about sexual matters until more
conclusive tests could be done, but they had questioned the child anyway. It is not
known what effects this added stress had on the child. She had by that time undergone a
number of uncomfortable procedures and was faced with a serious, possibly
life threatening diagnosis. To Lisa it would have appeared that her life had taken a turn
toward uncertainty from the relatively carefree life she’d had on the farm.
Shaken to the core, but struggling to remain calm for Lisa’s sake, James and Elizabeth
drove their daughter to John Hunter Children’s hospital in Newcastle. The next morning,
following a CT scan, oncologist Dr. A. and surgeon, Dr. Cassey, told Lisa and her parents
that urgent surgery was necessary to remove the tumour. James and Elizabeth agreed and
signed the consent form after Lisa told them she “wanted it out”.
Dr. John Cassey finished operating on Lisa at 3pm on Wednesday, November 27th. The
tumour had been the size of a small football and extended the height of the abdomen from
the pelvis to the diaphragm. Dr. Cassey removed the mass, along with the left ovary and
four lymph nodes. He explained that Lisa had felt off colour because the mass had cut off
its own blood supply and was breaking down. He reassured James and Elizabeth that all
went well even though they were alarmed at the length of time Lisa had been in recovery
after surgery. Both parents were momentarily relieved and felt Lisa was in good hands
with Dr. Cassey.
Three days later the John Hunter Children’s oncologist, Dr. A. told the family that the
histopathology report had returned. The result indicated a rare ovarian mixed germ cell
tumour consisting of various types of malignant cells, resulting from cancerous changes
of various ovarian cell lines. These cells secreted hormonal substances and tumour
markers into her bloodstream. He expressed concern about any residual tumour cells and
told James and Elizabeth that their daughter would die with certainty if she did not
receive chemotherapy. With chemo, Dr. A. claimed, Lisa had an “85% chance of being
cured”. They asked the doctor how chemo worked. James reports, the doctor “could not
describe it as anything other than deadly poison and that it was indiscriminate in the way
that it killed both cancer and healthy cells.” Dr. A. recommended three chemotherapeutic
agents to be given over three days, bleomycin, carboplatin and etoposide. This was to be
repeated four or five times at 21-28 day intervals.
Impossible Choices – “For my eyes only”
Lisa and her parents returned to the farm to reunite with the other children and their
grandparents. Meanwhile Lisa, clearly delighted to be back home, made a remarkably
quick recovery surrounded by her family. Before the next visit to the hospital four days
later James and Elizabeth studied as much information as possible about chemotherapy.
They discovered that Chemotherapy originated from mustard gas from which the first
family of cytotoxic (cell killing) drugs were synthesized. Nitrogen mustard is still listed
on schedule one of the Chemical Weapons Convention. (1,2) Since then, many other
equally toxic chemical agents have been developed and used as chemotherapeutic agents.
Because of its high toxicity, staff using protective clothing, goggles, boots and
specialised rubber gloves administers chemotherapy. The floor below the preparation
area and intra venous stand is protected from accidental spills, as just a few drops of
concentrate are so corrosive that it can damage surfaces and cause chemical burns to
human skin. An accidental spill kit is located on the wall of chemotherapy rooms. Staff
mopping up spills carefully handle the hazardous material and dispose of it as toxic
waste. The chemotherapy is infused into the patient and it immediately kills fast-dividing
cells including cancer cells, but also cells forming bone marrow, immune system,
digestive system, hair follicles and reproductive cells of the testes and ovary. It also kills
healthy cells throughout the body, including liver, kidney and brain cells. Parents of
children having chemo are cautioned to wear gloves when bathing their children or
coming into contact with their urine. The chemicals saturate the body tissues, killing red
blood cells, which carry oxygen to body cells. This causes fatigue, anaemia, and
shortness of breath. Low white blood cell count occurs due to the death of white blood
cells, the cells responsible for fighting infection. The patient develops a severely
compromised immune system incapable of fighting off infection. The immune system’s
natural killer cells are destroyed by the chemicals, and unable to continue seeking out and
destroying cancer cells. Platelets are destroyed and with them the body’s blood clotting
ability. This causes nosebleeds and the potentially fatal risk of haemorrhage into lungs,
intestines, brain or other organs, depending on how low the platelet count falls. Most
patients retch, vomit and experience diarrhoea shortly after chemo starts. In some cases
chemotherapy has to be stopped or the patient will die. Three percent of patients die from
the therapy.
Many others die later from longer-term complications, when the deaths are
attributed to cancer and not to the treatment. Some 67% of people who do not survive the
course of treatment die because of their weakened immune system’s failure to overcome
infection, directly attributable to the chemotherapy. Those that survive the treatment
often experience longer-term sequelae. Chemotherapy drugs are often in themselves
carcinogenic chemicals that break and damage DNA. This creates a seed for a new cancer
that may emerge years later as a direct effect of the treatment. The most common cancers
that are caused by chemotherapy are leukaemia and lymphoma. Apart from the
relatively temporary effects of hair loss, this type of therapy most often causes permanent
damage to ovaries and testes causing sexual dysfunction and permanent inability to have
children. Considering the significant risks of chemotherapy, this treatment would be
expected to deliver considerable efficacy. However, according to U.S. physician and
author Dr. Cynthia Foster MD: “
Cytotoxic chemotherapy kills cancer cells by way of a certain mechanism called "First Order
Kinetics." This simply means that the drug does not kill a constant number of cells, but a
constant proportion of cells. So, for example, a certain drug will kill 1/2 of all the cancer cells,
then 1/2 of what is left, and then 1/2 of that, and so on. So, we can see that not every cancer cell
necessarily is going to be killed. This is important because chemotherapy is not going to kill
every cancer cell in the body. The body has to kill the cancer cells that are left over after the
chemotherapy is finished. This fact is well known by oncologists.
Now, how can cancer patients possibly fight even a few cancer cells when their immune systems
have been disabled and this is yet another stress on the body, and they're bleeding because they
have hardly any platelets left from the toxic effects of the chemotherapy? This is usually why,
when chemotherapy is stopped, the cancer grows again and gets out of control. We have now
created a vicious cycle, where doctors are trying to kill the cancer cells, and the patient is not
able to fight the rest, so the doctors have to give the chemotherapy again, and then the patient
can't fight the rest of the cancer cell, and then the doctors give the chemotherapy again, and so
on.”
James and Elizabeth went on to research the three cancer drugs the oncologist intended to
use and discovered a number of facts they had not been told. Bleomycin is a toxic agent
that is known to cause permanent lung damage and precludes the medical use of oxygen.
This side effect would make any future resuscitation attempts or anaesthetic increasingly
likely to cause severe, permanent and possibly fatal lung damage. The other
chemotherapy drugs were Carboplatin and Etoposide. The former has a high incidence of
causing deafness in children. In recent studies it was found that hearing loss was found
in 79% of patients treated with Carboplatin. (3) Etoposide is known to be associated with
further cancers including leukaemia following its use.
Both chemicals are also toxic to
bone marrow, kidneys, skin and liver. Platinum containing chemotherapeutic agents are
known to leave residual platinum in the body for years. The long-term toxicity of this
substance is unknown. And according to the manufacturer’s instructions, none of the
three chemicals have sufficient information available to recommend their use in children.
The family then researched other cancer therapies and found a number of wholistic
treatment approaches conducted by researchers both in Australia and in the UK. Theycame across Professor C. who conducted interesting work using bioenergetic medicine,
oxygen therapy and other immuno-supportive treatments. The Professor was a scientist
but not a medical doctor, however he worked with a medical team in Melbourne. The
other interesting work James and Elizabeth found was that of Dr. Kenyon of Dove Clinic
in UK, who used intravenous natural anti cancer therapies and nutritional support on
cancer patients with encouraging results. In principle James and Elizabeth preferred
treatment modalities that aimed to support the immune system in order to strengthen the
body’s ability to scavenge the cancer cells. They were keen to preserve Lisa’s quality of
life instead of risking her death from the effects of the treatment alone. However, they
still needed to know more about both chemo and other treatments before they could make
a firm decision.
The family returned with Lisa to see Dr. A. in early December for blood tests and a
check-up. James asked the doctor about the possible causes of their daughter’s cancer, as
the diagnosis had seemed at odds with their healthy lifestyle. According to James, the
doctor could not give an answer as to the causes, but told the parents he wanted to start
the chemotherapy on Lisa in the first weeks of January, some 5 weeks away. That would
give her time to recover from the major surgery she had just endured. James and
Elizabeth asked about any alternatives to chemotherapy and reported the doctor told them
nothing else “has ever worked” and he “would not consider using anything else”. It
seemed the parents’ line of questioning appeared to irritate the doctor. By the end of the
consultation he displayed a sudden change from his previous position. Now he told them
it was imperative to start chemotherapy in the next five days, before he departed on his
trip to the US, or Lisa would die.
The doctor expected them to consent to chemotherapy. Still actively researching the
various treatment options, James asked for evidence that such treatment would work.
The doctor left the room and returned some time later with about six papers. James
recalls the doctor said; “This is all I have, you will have to accept it.” James asked him
for a copy of these studies, to which he recalls the doctor replied, “They are for my eyes
only.”
The parents wondered why there was so much secrecy about the treatment if it is
purported to “cure” Lisa. Dr. A, clearly annoyed, mentioned that if James and Elizabeth
didn’t go along with his treatment “things could get quite messy.” In most cases parents
caved in when oncologists mentioned the mere hint that their children would be taken
away from them. Around that time most parents dispensed with any more enquiries and
signed the agreement form for the child to commence chemotherapy treatment. James
and Elizabeth, however, were the rare exceptions. They wanted the evidence.
Two days later the family flew to Melbourne to see Professor C. The Professor showed
them his statistics on survival rates following his treatments, which included vitamins,
minerals, ozone (oxygen therapies), and bioenergetic treatments. The parents concluded
on the evidence that Professor C had something to offer with his non-toxic, wholistic
approach. This treatment was commenced, with Lisa’s enthusiastic co-operation for two
weeks. Lisa’s subsequent blood tests indicated the tumour markers had dropped
dramatically since starting Professor C’s treatment.
Conundrum in the Medical Profession
“… the NCI (National Cancer Institute) has effectively blocked funding for research and clinical
trials on promising non-toxic alternative cancer drugs for decades, in favor of highly toxic and
largely ineffective patented drugs developed by the multibillion dollar global cancer drug
industry. Additionally, the cancer establishment has systematically harassed the proponents of
non-toxic alternative cancer drugs.---Professor Emeritus, Dr. Samuel Epstein
Elizabeth and James wanted to be supported with the best possible medical care for their
daughter. They sought the advice of two more doctors. One, an oncologist, agreed with
Dr. A, but could not give a reason for his views. The other doctor agreed to support them
in their choice of Professor C’s treatments because he was familiar with his work, but he
warned he would disavow all support if the matter went “legal”. The reason? The
orthodox establishment was powerful enough to cost a doctor his licence even when there
is evidence for the treatment’s efficacy. If labelled “strictly alternative”, it was a hot
potato no matter what the evidence. James and Elizabeth soon realised that the treatment
of cancer was thick with politics. They thought they could decide what was best for their
daughter, by merely pursuing the truth, but now they had to tread through a minefield
replete with hidden agendas that posed new dangers they had not considered before.
They noticed cancer doctors were divided into different camps: Orthodox oncologists
were utterly convinced, even passionately in favour of chemotherapy and those few who
were not convinced of its curative properties refused to admit this in public. Orthodox
doctors regularly accuse wholistic doctors of not practicing evidence-based medicine
even if studies support their treatments, while wholistic doctors question the validity of
some of the mainstream medical “evidence”. To complicate matters further, the two
groups are often at odds with one another. James and Elizabeth had not yet met a doctor
with the courage to speak out in public.
A notable exception came from cancer biostatistician Dr. Ulrich Abel, of Heidelberg,
Germany, who reviewed the scientific literature for cancer statistics in 1990 after he’d
become alarmed that the cancer death rate was escalating despite almost every patient
receiving chemotherapy before dying. He wrote:
"Even though toxic drugs often do effect a response, a partial or complete shrinkage of the
tumour, this reduction does not prolong expected survival…Sometimes, in fact, the cancer returns
more aggressively than before, since the chemo fosters the growth of resistant cell lines. Besides,
the chemo has severely damaged the body's own defences, the immune system and often the
kidneys as well as the liver.” (The Cancer Chronicles, December, 1990.) (4)
75 percent of oncologists said if they had cancer they would not participate in
chemotherapy trials due to its "ineffectiveness and its unacceptable toxicity. - Dr.
Abel.
And just a few of many other sources:
"For the majority of the cancers we examined, the actual improvements (in survival) have
been small or have been overestimated by the published rates...It is difficult to find that
there has been much progress...(For breast cancer), there is a slight improvement...(which) is considerably less than
reported."---U.S. Federal Government General Accounting Office
"As a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incomprehensible to me that physicians can
ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than
good."---Alan Nixon, Ph.D., Past President, American Chemical Society.
Out on A Limb
"I look upon cancer in the same way that I look upon heart disease, arthritis, high blood
pressure, or even obesity, for that matter, in that by dramatically strengthening the body's
immune system through diet, nutritional supplements, and exercise, the body can rid itself of the
cancer, just as it does in other degenerative diseases. Consequently, I wouldn't have
chemotherapy and radiation because I'm not interested in therapies that cripple the immune
system, and, in my opinion, virtually ensure failure for the majority of cancer
patients."---Dr
Julian Whitaker, M.D.
At the same time as they came across such astonishing information, James and Elizabeth
were starting to feel that they were out on a limb. But by then they had to accept what
was rapidly becoming self evident to all who saw Lisa. The parents decided to continue
with Professor C’s treatment after they noticed a striking improvement in Lisa’s general
health almost immediately after she’d started treatment. For the time being Lisa ate more
than her father and her hearty appetite led to her regaining the weight she had lost while
in hospital. Soon she had once again reached her usual weight of 40 kg with a bit of help
from grandma’s homemade butter, bread and jam. James and Elizabeth regularly took
Lisa to the local medical centre for blood tests to determine the level of tumour markers.
In January they returned to see Dr. A. Still feeling like Lisa could use extra support,
James asked the doctor if he would be willing to monitor Lisa’s progress on the current
treatment modality with scans and blood tests, considering her obvious good health and
their apparent success so far. (Low levels of tumour markers further supported this).
James reported that Dr. A refused strongly. He had consistently refused to consider any
other but his own treatment recommendations and refused weeks earlier to send Lisa’s
pathology report to Professor C and Dr. B. in Melbourne.
With no hope of support from the oncologist, James and Elizabeth decided to continue
treatment with Professor C, his team in Melbourne and their GP at Gloucester. They
resolved to add another local doctor to the team as soon as possible to monitor Lisa’s
progress. Meanwhile, after consulting with Lisa, the three of them decided not to see Dr.
A at the Hunter Children’s Hospital again.
Their decision, however, was slipping from their hands, since Dr. A was already set to
start a series of events that would draw in government instrumentalities; the same
department that had been told by a doctor weeks earlier that Lisa was “pregnant” when
he’d jumped to the wrong conclusion. Dr. A was as good as his word. Things were
already on their way towards getting “very messy”.
|
