Lawyer: Police drop warrant after mom, son with cancer return

Quite frankly I have high hopes for the targeted nano treatments that are currently in testing. I can't blame her for not wanting chemo for her son, but hopefully it will be successful and he will do well. I'm worried that surviving for 5 years qualifies a treatment as successful.

Originally posted by elfie
Quite frankly I have high hopes for the targeted nano treatments that are currently in testing. I can't blame her for not wanting chemo for her son, but hopefully it will be successful and he will do well. I'm worried that surviving for 5 years qualifies a treatment as successful.

Same here, some of the new treatments look like they have great potential for targeting cancer cells only, unlike traditional chemo.

reply to post by Illuminatus I



Chemo is not therapy. It is hell, and some people survive it.

I pray these other techniques develop with a quickness.

reply to post by HunkaHunka


Amen. Coming from someone who was treated for the exact same type of cancer that he has, I can guarantee you that it excruciating.

I don't understand why they wouldn't let the parents chose what treatment to give their son. Actually, from what I remember reading when this story first came out, he was in on the decision as well. I don't agree with them leaving the area, but at the same time I don't blame them. If someone was threatening to take my child away from me, I would probably try and leave too.

reply to post by Illuminatus I


Wow what? Are you going to respond or just simply type a 1 word response? Have I confused you? Oh I'm sorry your opinion is the only one that counts.

Originally posted by bigshow
reply to post by Illuminatus I

 

Wow what? Are you going to respond or just simply type a 1 word response? Have I confused you? Oh I'm sorry your opinion is the only one that counts.

I said wow because you started going off on a metaphysical tangent about who gets cancer and why based on the "good" and "bad" they do in their lives.

It has nothing to do with anything.

Originally posted by riddle6
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

I don't understand why they wouldn't let the parents chose what treatment to give their son. Actually, from what I remember reading when this story first came out, he was in on the decision as well. I don't agree with them leaving the area, but at the same time I don't blame them. If someone was threatening to take my child away from me, I would probably try and leave too.

Would you be saying the same thing if there was a 100% cure, yet they still chose to give their son pixie dust and prayer?

reply to post by Illuminatus I


Yes I would, because I have actually been through what the son is going through. If I had had a choice in the matter, I would have probably chosen not to have treatment after the first treatment. I really don't see how any alternative treatment, regardless of what it is, could be any worse than chemotherapy and radiation.

He was going to a Natural medicine clinic down in Mexico. They use natural remedies to cure illnesses and such.

My wife is from Mexico and she used to take a flower extract for headaches and some other plant for her time of the month pains.

She thought this lady was out of her mind for trying to go to one for cancer. They just don't do that sort of thing.

It's my understanding that she told the court that because of her religion she is opposed to Chemo therapy, but I had heard on the news that she was catholic. Can anyone confirm this?

reply to post by Illuminatus I


Chemo has a track record because Chemo is the only thing people with cancer are allowed to use in this country. Susan Summers went to Europe for alternative treatments. Many otherwise smart people said she would die ; she is still alive. The Cancer medical establishment in this country has become over bearing as evident by the fact they are putting bounties on patients. Greedy people have no place in medicine.

I bet the son would have a better chance of surviving if he sought treatment in Europe. European doctors don't seem to be as married to chemo therapy as American doctors. With all the publicity they have recieved, they should not have much trouble attaining funds.

Originally posted by riddle6
reply to post by Illuminatus I

 

Yes I would, because I have actually been through what the son is going through. If I had had a choice in the matter, I would have probably chosen not to have treatment after the first treatment. I really don't see how any alternative treatment, regardless of what it is, could be any worse than chemotherapy and radiation.

You'd turn down a 100% cure for one that doesn't work? Are you crazy?

What's wrong with you?

reply to post by Illuminatus I


First off, the type of cancer that he had does NOT have a 100% cure rate, at best, that rate is 90-95%. That percentage is only based on the first five years after treatment is completed. Nothing, at least in the cancer world, has a 100% cure rate.

And YES, I would still refuse treatment for myself even if the doctor told me there was a 99% chance of a cure. I'm not crazy, I've been through it before. It's unlike anything that anyone can imagine unless they have been through it before. I'm more about quality, not quantity. If refusing treatment meant that I would live a year less, but that year I would be able to enjoy my life without having to be bogged down with chemotherapy and radiation, then I would refuse it.

Originally posted by riddle6
reply to post by Illuminatus I

 

First off, the type of cancer that he had does NOT have a 100% cure rate, at best, that rate is 90-95%. That percentage is only based on the first five years after treatment is completed. Nothing, at least in the cancer world, has a 100% cure rate.

I never said that.

And YES, I would still refuse treatment for myself even if the doctor told me there was a 99% chance of a cure. I'm not crazy,

Really... you'd rather live 1 year of life free of chemo, than 20 years with with a cycle of chemo?

You are crazy. Crazy like a fox.

Originally posted by Illuminatus I
Looks like the family wised up and came back, hopefully they'll treat their son instead of letting him die a dog with rabies.

Why on earth would you reference the horrible death of dogs with rabies? Because they deserve to die like that and people don't??? Why not reference the horrid death of kids in the third world? Because that would be offensive and insensitive? Yes it would, as would talking about the tortured death of a helpless animal.

In actuality, people don't let dogs die of rabies, they are euthanized. However they DO strap down kids and watch them die slowly of rabies.

Here is a video of just that (don't watch if you are sensitive about kid stuff). www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Illuminatus I
I never said that.

Really? Care to explain this to me?

Originally posted by Illuminatus I
Would you be saying the same thing if there was a 100% cure, yet they still chose to give their son pixie dust and prayer?

Originally posted by Illuminatus IReally... you'd rather live 1 year of life free of chemo, than 20 years with with a cycle of chemo?
You are crazy. Crazy like a fox.

So I'm guessing that you have nothing else to say to contribute to the conversation so you resort to name-calling? How nice.

Let me repeat this again, sense you obviously are not capable of reading my previous posts:

I HAVE BEEN THROUGH IT BEFORE

And because of that very reason, I would not want to go through it again. It was the worst hell imaginable, something that I would not wish on anyone. If you care for me to list all of the reasons why I would not want to go through it again, I will.

I don't expect for everyone to feel the same way that I do, I don't mind that. What I do mind though is people saying things like I am "crazy" because I have an opinion that doesn't go along with the mainstream.

[edit on 26-5-2009 by riddle6]

Originally posted by Sonya610

Originally posted by Illuminatus I
Looks like the family wised up and came back, hopefully they'll treat their son instead of letting him die a dog with rabies.

In actuality, people don't let dogs die of rabies, they are euthanized. However they DO strap down kids and watch them die slowly of rabies.

So you are all for these parents watching their kid die slowly from cancer, while they give him voodoo hoodoo plants and magic spells?

At least if chemo doesn't work, it has the side effect of euthanasia.

Sicko people I tell you!



[edit on 26-5-2009 by Illuminatus I]

Originally posted by riddle6

Originally posted by Illuminatus I
I never said that.

Really? Care to explain this to me?

Originally posted by Illuminatus I
Would you be saying the same thing if there was a 100% cure, yet they still chose to give their son pixie dust and prayer?

It means: I never said what you said I said.


I HAVE BEEN THROUGH IT BEFORE


And your still alive!

And because of that very reason, I would not want to go through it again.

In other words, you'd rather die than stay alive. Look, your default-suicide tendencies and apathy of mortality don't figure into this discussion so just leave your personal disposition towards death out of it. Not everyone wants to die like you.

I don't expect for everyone to feel the same way that I do, I don't mind that. What I do mind though is people saying things like I am "crazy" because I have an opinion that doesn't go along with the mainstream.

Mainstream people would rather be alive then dead. Suicidal people are always going to be considered somewhat crazy... not to mention, it's illegal so you might want to stop talking about it on ATS since it is a violation of T&C.

Okay, I'm done with this.

Seriously, in my entire time here on ATS (and I've been here a lot longer that October of last year), I have NEVER seen anything like what you are posting. It's beyond ridiculous. You completely fail to take into consideration the experiences of someone else, and then you accuse me of having a "suicide tendency" based on the mere fact that I would not want to poison myself again with chemotherapy.

It is completely useless for me to continue this conversation when you continue to pick apart everything that I post and then accuse me of violating the T&C, when I have done no such thing.

Originally posted by riddle6
Okay, I'm done with this.

Seriously, in my entire time here on ATS (and I've been here a lot longer that October of last year), I have NEVER seen anything like what you are posting. It's beyond ridiculous. You completely fail to take into consideration the experiences of someone else, and then you accuse me of having a "suicide tendency" based on the mere fact that I would not want to poison myself again with chemotherapy.

It is completely useless for me to continue this conversation when you continue to pick apart everything that I post and then accuse me of violating the T&C, when I have done no such thing.

Well, then I'll just consider myself the winner of the debate.

For the record, I've taken your account into consideration, but I find your conclusion about life and death hinging on suicidal.

If I've offended you, I apologize, but you should attempt to make better quality arguments next time.