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,
(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
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
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
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
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.