May 21, 2009
You see it in newspapers and websites across the ‘net: People insisting that 13-year-old Daniel Hauser must be injected with chemotherapy in order to “save his life,” and that anyone refusing to go along with that is a criminal deserving of arrest and imprisonment.
What’s most astonishing about the mainstream reaction to the forced chemotherapy of Daniel Hauser is not merely that they believe states now own the children, but that they believe in the entire world there exists but one single treatment for cancer, and it happens to be the one that makes pharmaceutical companies the most money. The arrogance (and ignorance) of that position is mind boggling.
There was once a time when western medical doctors believed that the heavy metal mercury was a medicine, too. They methodically used mercury to treat hundreds of different diseases and conditions, oblivious to the fact that they were actually poisoning people with this toxic heavy metal.
And yet, imagine if authorities had arrested parents for not treating their children with mercury. Imagine if they threw parents in prison for refusing their “mercury medicine.” That would be equivalent to today’s arrogant, misguided and extremely dangerous campaign to outlaw saying “no” to chemotherapy.
A brief history of medical quackery
It was mercury, in fact, that led to the term “quack.” Mercury is called “quicksilver,” and those doctors who prescribed it were eventually discovered to be pushing toxic chemicals rather than any real medicine. They were initially called “quicks” and then later “quacks.”
The quackery of those doctors prescribing mercury wasn’t hard to miss: People taking the mercury would get extremely ill. Their hair would fall out. They would lose their appetite and experience extreme loss of body weight. Many would simply die from the toxicity.
Remarkably, these are the same side effects produced by chemotherapy. And today, chemotherapy doctors describe these side effects in precisely the same terms as the mercury quacks of a century ago, claiming the effects are “part of the healing process” and encouraging patients to find the courage to “just go through with it.”
But let’s pull our heads out of the muck here and acknowledge the obvious:
Poisoning patients — whether with mercury or chemotherapy — will never produce healing. And the prescribing of such toxic chemicals to patients is little more than sophisticated quackery, backed by seemingly convincing data (which is actually based on scientific fraud) along with the urgings of cancer doctors who rely on highly manipulative fear tactics to corral patients into treatments that will only harm them.
Do parents have the right to protect their children from poison?
Today, the mother of 13-year-old Daniel Hauser is on the run, having skipped out on the Minnesota court that ordered her to poison her own child. She is now considered criminally negligent by the state — a parent who belongs behind bars and will likely be imprisoned when she is arrested at gunpoint.
And yet, I ask you this: What else could she have done? To appear in court and submit her child to chemical injections of a toxic substance would amount to child abuse. She is doing what any sensible parent would do: She’s protecting her child from the poisons of the world, and standing up against the tyrants of modern medicine who so desperately seek to exploit her child for profit that they have actually turned to enforcing their business at gunpoint in order to do so.
It is interesting that pharmaceutical medicine is the only industry in America that’s forced to recruit its patients at gunpoint.
I call it Gunpoint Medicine, and it is exactly as it sounds: The enforcing of medical quackery at gunpoint.