DoCS – Stealing Our Children for Medicine?
One Australian Family’s Nightmare Loss of Health Freedom
Page 1| Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6
The family returned with Sarah to see Dr. A. in early December for blood tests and a check-up. Mark 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 Mark, the doctor could not give an answer as to the causes, but told the parents he wanted to start the chemotherapy on Sarah 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. Mark and Dianne 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 Sarah would die.
The doctor expected them to consent to chemotherapy. Still actively researching the various treatment options, Mark asked for evidence that such treatment would work. The doctor left the room and returned some time later with about six papers. Mark recalls the doctor said; “This is all I have, you will have to accept it.” Mark 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” Sarah. Dr. A, clearly annoyed, mentioned that if Mark and Dianne 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. Mark and Dianne, 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 Sarah’s enthusiastic co-operation for two weeks. Sarah’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
Dianne and Mark 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. Mark and Dianne 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. Mark and Dianne 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.)
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, Mark and Dianne 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 Sarah. The parents decided to continue with Professor C’s treatment after they noticed a striking improvement in Sarah’s general health almost immediately after she’d started treatment. For the time being Sarah 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. Mark and Dianne regularly took Sarah 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 Sarah could use extra support, Mark asked the doctor if he would be willing to monitor Sarah’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). Mark 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 Sarah’s pathology report to Professor C and Dr. B. in Melbourne.
With no hope of support from the oncologist, Mark and Dianne 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 Sarah’s progress. Meanwhile, after consulting with Sarah, 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 Sarah 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”.
Truth Isn’t Easy
The summer of 2003 brought a string of hot days and blazing bushfires, but Sarah’s family had their own crisis to attend to. Because of their healthy lifestyle, they had never imagined that any of their children would suffer from childhood cancer. Suddenly they were thrust into a position of heavy responsibility, having to decide what was best for their daughter. Neither Mark nor Dianne had had much previous medical knowledge but they were determined for Sarah’s sake to learn all they could. At the time of their daughter’s surgery the previous November they both agreed that they could not live comfortably with their choices unless they were solely guided by the weight of credible evidence and by their own reasoning ability. They also knew how important it was for
Sarah to have informed choice and a voice in the decision-making.
While Dianne was more involved with the day to day nurturing role of her other children and providing for Sarah’s special needs, Mark took the role of family protector all the more seriously and spent most of his spare time researching. Out of a pressing need for accurate information, he barraged the medical professionals with a multitude of questions at every opportunity. Both parents considered it vitally important to receive accurate and not conflicting information so they could keep their options open to several treatment possibilities including chemo if or when the time came. For the time being Sarah was making astonishing progress and they decided to continue with the Melbourne Professor’s regimen. They also stayed in touch with Dr. Kenyon and studied his protocols and reviewed the studies that had been conducted on his treatments. They discovered other cancer treatment centres in Germany, USA, Mexico and Switzerland, which were getting good survival rates using natural approaches or integrative approaches using a variety of orthodox and natural treatments. All they required now was a doctor to advise them without bias on the merits or shortcomings of any given treatment option, someone who would not railroad them and who could give them accurate information. They had heard of a doctor near the NSW Central Coast who practiced integrative medicine using both orthodox and proven alternative approaches. They made arrangements to see him as soon as they could juggle work and domestic schedules. Sarah’s treatment and frequent trips to doctors and to Melbourne was demanding most of their available time.
Getting “Very Messy”
If Sarah and her family were under the impression that they had moved on to another doctor’s care, it was not how Dr. A saw it. The previous December, he had made a clinical note to the effect that should the family decide to refuse his treatment that he claimed would bring an 85% probability of a “cure”, he would consider it a “child protection” matter. The doctor offered no supporting evidence for his prognosis.
During February and March, Dianne and Mark kept in regular contact with Professor C’s clinic in Melbourne. Sarah returned to playing games with her siblings, which usually amounted to setting them up with various mischievous pranks, which they took with good humour. Most of Sarah’s antics were so clever it was difficult to be angry with her and the family was collectively relieved and happy that her elfin sense of fun was undiminished. Sarah’s lively presence gave them all an opportunity to experience their close bond together again as a family.
In March the John Hunter Hospital social worker, was instructed to organise a meeting between Dr. V, head of Hunter Children’s Health network, and Dr. A (the oncologist), due to his concerns that the parents did not return to him for treatment. The social worker noted that the “parents’ delay” in agreeing to Dr. A’s treatment is placing Sarah at increased “risk of harm”.
Back on the family farm, Mark, Dianne and Sarah’s grandmother had learnt to administer Professor C’s treatment regimen home. Sarah enjoyed her treatments and reported that she felt they were doing her “good”. This was evidenced by her return to her favourite activities of playing games with her siblings, riding bikes, going for long walks in the hilly country and seeing her friends.
On March 11, Dr. A and Dr. V at John Hunter Children’s Hospital decided to contact the Department of Community Services (DoCS) regarding their concerns that Sarah was pursuing treatment other than the one Dr. A had prescribed.
Meanwhile Sarah spent the beginning of the new school year being home schooled by her family, as the 40 km roundtrip to school was deemed to be too much. Her Grandmother and mother took turns giving her maths, reading and spelling lessons and her daily treatments. Her parents took her to the local GP regularly for tumour marker blood tests, and by May they had risen. Professor C explained that it sometimes happened with the treatment she was on and his team would keep an eye on it. Meanwhile, he adjusted the regimen accordingly. Despite the rise in her blood tests, Grandmother states, “Sarah responded very well and was able to walk around the cattle with me, sometimes a journey of over three kilometres, over steep hilly country.” Sarah enjoyed climbing and swinging from tree branches. It was impossible to keep her inside for long. She enjoyed the country air and revelled in playing with her numerous pet dogs, sheep and calves. She loved watching nature and even had a pet hermit crab. She was always thrilled to see her friends especially since she was well enough to stay overnight with friends of the family. Peter and Lyn (her uncle and aunt) recall, “The treatment Sarah has been on has made such a difference to her, that we can honestly say each time she has been with us, all have remarked how well and healthy she looked. Her energy level was high and she has been the liveliest of all their children. People that have met Sarah recently have not believed that she has cancer, as she has responded so well to the treatment.”
In May, Mark and Dianne took Sarah to see the doctor on the Central Coast. Dr. Tyler was a surgeon by training but practiced as a GP with a special interest in nutritional and environmental medicine. He practiced an integrative approach to medicine in general. With cancer treatment, he was comfortable with surgery, chemotherapy and proven natural or complementary treatments. He states his primary objective with respect to any medical treatment is to weigh the risks to benefits and tailor it to the patient’s quality of life. He regards his role as providing patients with informed choices and he is an avid reader of the medical literature.
It wasn’t long before Sarah warmed to Dr. Tyler’s mild manner, and jumped around his consultation room while he tried to elicit a history from her. Finally, he let her twirl around his office chair in order to test her stamina. To him Sarah appeared extraordinarily well considering she had a grade three ovarian tumour (one that had spread to other areas) removed six months previously. She did not complain of any pain or discomfort and moved her body freely while doing her mischievous antics in the surgery. Examination of Sarah’s abdomen revealed no lumps or clinical abnormalities. Dr. Tyler was aware of Sarah’s rising tumour markers. He took a detailed history and the parents briefed him fully on Sarah’s history, providing all available test results. He noted that the parents were health and diet conscious, and keen to discover possible environmental links to their daughter’s cancer. They were very knowledgeable about certain chemicals and hormonally active substances in the environment that were possible triggers of ovarian and testicular cancers. They were concerned about the escalation of these cancers and wished to avoid the risks for their 5 other children. A brief discussion followed about those issues. For the time being Dr. Tyler could only include some essential nutrient supplements that were missing from Sarah’s regimen to strengthen her immune function, until such time that he had more information. He noted Sarah’s healthy appearance in his clinical notes and made a mental note to avail himself of medical studies on both chemotherapy and the other modalities of treatment for Sarah’s particular problem.
