The Quackery of Chemotherapy, Gunpoint Medicine and the Disturbing Fate of 13-Year-Old Daniel Hauser

Wednesday, May 20, 2009 by: Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
Key concepts: Medicine, Chemotherapy and Quackery

(NaturalNews) 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.

It is also interesting that conventional medicine is so utterly (and arrogantly) convinced that its chemicals are the one and only solution for any disease, it now believes those who seek other healing modalities should be arrested and imprisoned.

It puts the operations of conventional (pharmaceutical) medicine in a whole new light (or darkness, as it were). Now, conventional medicine requires armed enforcers -- medical mercenaries who push patented chemicals at gunpoint. After all, without the threat of firearms toted by local law enforcement, the courts of Minnesota would have no leverage over the Hauser family. Conventional medicine is now paired with armed foot soldiers who effectively enforce the marketing of their products at the barrel of a gun.

And let's be clear about this: The decision of the Minnesota court is little more than the marketing of a modern form of quackery, enforced with the threat firearms.

I'll ask the obvious question: When faced with being threatened at gunpoint by doctors pushing toxic chemicals onto children, with their freedoms taken away and their parental rights trampled beyond recovery, do not these parents have the right to defend the lives and safety of their children with their own firearms? If an intruder barges through your front door armed with a syringe filled with toxic chemicals, and he tries to inject those chemicals into your son or daughter, you are well within your rights as a free citizen to shoot that intruder before he can harm your children.

Guns work both ways, after all, and firearms remain the last-ditch defense of citizens attempting to protect their lives and freedoms from tyrannical governments. The United States of America, of course, is founded on precisely such principles.

The State as criminal

It is never lawful or just for a government to kidnap children at gunpoint, to imprison their parents and injected their children with toxic chemicals merely because those parents seek more natural healing modalities. Technically, any citizen who is subjected to such tyrannical treatments has every right, under the U.S. Constitution, to defend their family members with the use of lethal force against such intruders. Just because those intruders happened to be on the state payroll does not make them any less criminal in their actions.

By comparison, car companies don't market their products at gunpoint. If you showed up at a car dealer and said, "I was a pickup truck," but they shoved a gun in your face and said, "No, you will buy a sedan or you will go to prison," you would probably think that's a bit insane.

Tourism companies don't market their services at gunpoint, either. If you went to a travel agent and said you wanted to take your family to Disneyland, but they whipped out a Colt 45, shoved it in your face, and said, "You're going to Alaska," you might be taken aback.

But modern medicine is now operating with the same terrorizing threat: You take your son to a doctor, asking for help, and he calls gun-toting law enforcement officials who essentially threaten you at gunpoint, saying, "You will choose chemotherapy or lose your children." That's what's happening today, right now, with the Hauser family and the state of Minnesota.

It just goes to show you how desperate the cancer industry is to thwart free choice. The most dangerous threat to pharmaceutical medicine is an informed mother who chooses to say no to toxic chemotherapy. And that is precisely why such choices are being criminalized.

It has nothing to do with the health of 13-year-old Daniel Hauser. It has everything to do with monopolizing the medical industry, putting fear into the minds of parents, and continuing a tradition of outright quackery that sells poison to patients while calling it "treatment."

And it has everything, of course, to do with asserting the power of tyrannical government over the People, controlling their behavior, erecting virtual prisons in their own minds that prevent them from venturing outside the bounds of "accepted" behavior. Modern medicine, in this way, is working in conspiracy with tyrannical government to turn People into medical slaves, and it is stripping away their freedoms, their choice and their very children in the process.