Please read the following article then go to this link for devastating outcome of this immoral legal behaviour DOCS – Stealing Our Children for Medicine? One Australian Family’s Nightmare Loss of Health Freedom An Article By Eve Hillary Revised 15/12/2003 Important: This information is not to be construed as medical advice. It is one family’s experience and it is sourced and referenced with additional information. For legal reasons the names of the child and parents have been changed. This is a revised edition which further de-identifies the family’s details-not by request of the family but rather by request of DoCS having applied to the Court for suppression orders. However, they succeeded only in winning minor concessions, now made. No other information has been changed. The facts in this article are true and stand as logically probative facts derived from affidavits, legal documents, medical records, interviews and independent research. This revised edition complies with court orders issued in the NSW Supreme Court on 8/12/03. Pursuant to these orders the author is hereby legally entitled to publish this revised article. The author gives permission for this revised article to be freely distributed for non commercial purposes. (If you have a previous version of this article, please replace it with this revised edition and you may pass it on.) Lisa was a red cheeked, athletic eleven-year-old when she complained of feeling unwell in late November 2002. She had been robustly healthy all her life, and had never experienced any serious illness. She was born and raised in an Australian rural community where the family has a farm. Lisa enjoyed helping her parents with gathering eggs, planting organic vegetables and tending to the cows. Her father, James, worked nearby to supplement the family income and her mother Elizabeth attended to Lisa and her siblings at home. Lisa’s grandparents lived on an adjacent parcel of the family landholding near a scenic river frontage, where Lisa, her siblings and their cousins were frequent visitors. The older children spent enjoyable days swimming in the river, and helping their grandmother with chores including homemade butter making. The extended family formed a close and cooperative unit that gathered regularly. At those times Lisa’s favourite activity was babysitting for the younger cousins while her parents, uncles and aunts spent the day pitching in with some of the heavier farm chores. Every Parent’s Nightmare Lisa was normally a lively girl with a keen sense of fun, but in November 2002 her parents became concerned that she had seemed unwell over the previous few days. Late that evening they noticed a lump in her upper abdomen and James decided to take her to the local hospital some distance away while Elizabeth planned to stay home with the other children. By the time preparations were made, Lisa was asleep. The next morning the lump was still there and James took her to the local hospital where the family doctor 1 examined Lisa. He thought it was her bladder but catheterisation did not alleviate the problem. James was advised to take Lisa to another hospital some distance away where blood tests were taken. The duty doctor returned to tell James that the tests indicated 11 year-old Lisa was 14 weeks pregnant. James, as the father of a number of children, thought this was not the case for a variety of reasons, and told the doctor that he had never seen a pregnancy originate from “so high up in the abdomen”. He gave permission for further tests including a Doppler test to check for a foetal heartbeat and an abdominal ultrasound, scheduled for the following day. The doctor however was so convinced Lisa was pregnant that he had already contacted the local office of DoCS, the Department of Community Services (child protection). He was determined to question Lisa about sexual matters. In the interim, the Doppler test revealed no hint of a foetal heartbeat. Meanwhile, Elizabeth had arrived at the hospital, and with both parents present, Lisa underwent an abdominal ultra sound the following morning, when a tumour was found. James had refused to allow the staff to question Lisa about sexual matters until more conclusive tests could be done, but they had questioned the child anyway. It is not known what effects this added stress had on the child. She had by that time undergone a number of uncomfortable procedures and was faced with a serious, possibly lifethreatening diagnosis. To Lisa it would have appeared that her life had taken a turn toward uncertainty from the relatively carefree life she’d had on the farm. Shaken to the core, but struggling to remain calm for Lisa’s sake, James and Elizabeth drove their daughter to John Hunter Children’s hospital in Newcastle. The next morning, following a CT scan, oncologist Dr. A. and surgeon, Dr. Cassey, told Lisa and her parents that urgent surgery was necessary to remove the tumour. James and Elizabeth agreed and signed the consent form after Lisa told them she “wanted it out”. Dr. John Cassey finished operating on Lisa at 3pm on Wednesday, November 27
Please read the following article then go to this link for devastating outcome of this immoral legal behaviour
DOCS – Stealing Our Children for Medicine?
One Australian Family’s Nightmare Loss of Health Freedom
Important: This information is not to be construed as medical advice. It is one
family’s experience and it is sourced and referenced with additional information.
For legal reasons the names of the child and parents have been changed. This is a
revised edition which further de-identifies the family’s details-not by request of the
family but rather by request of DoCS having applied to the Court for suppression
orders. However, they succeeded only in winning minor concessions, now made. No
other information has been changed. The facts in this article are true and stand as
logically probative facts derived from affidavits, legal documents, medical records,
interviews and independent research. This revised edition complies with court
orders issued in the NSW Supreme Court on 8/12/03. Pursuant to these orders the
author is hereby legally entitled to publish this revised article. The author gives
permission for this revised article to be freely distributed for non commercial
purposes. (If you have a previous version of this article, please replace it with this
revised edition and you may pass it on.)
Lisa was a red cheeked, athletic eleven-year-old when she complained of feeling unwell
in late November 2002. She had been robustly healthy all her life, and had never
experienced any serious illness. She was born and raised in an Australian rural
community where the family has a farm. Lisa enjoyed helping her parents with gathering
eggs, planting organic vegetables and tending to the cows. Her father, James, worked
nearby to supplement the family income and her mother Elizabeth attended to Lisa and
her siblings at home. Lisa’s grandparents lived on an adjacent parcel of the family
landholding near a scenic river frontage, where Lisa, her siblings and their cousins were
frequent visitors. The older children spent enjoyable days swimming in the river, and
helping their grandmother with chores including homemade butter making. The extended
family formed a close and cooperative unit that gathered regularly. At those times Lisa’s
favourite activity was babysitting for the younger cousins while her parents, uncles and
aunts spent the day pitching in with some of the heavier farm chores.
Every Parent’s Nightmare
Lisa was normally a lively girl with a keen sense of fun, but in November 2002 her
parents became concerned that she had seemed unwell over the previous few days. Late
that evening they noticed a lump in her upper abdomen and James decided to take her to
the local hospital some distance away while Elizabeth planned to stay home with the
other children. By the time preparations were made, Lisa was asleep. The next morning
the lump was still there and James took her to the local hospital where the family doctor
examined Lisa. He thought it was her bladder but catheterisation did not alleviate the
problem. James was advised to take Lisa to another hospital some distance away where
blood tests were taken. The duty doctor returned to tell James that the tests indicated 11
year-old Lisa was 14 weeks pregnant. James, as the father of a number of children,
thought this was not the case for a variety of reasons, and told the doctor that he had
never seen a pregnancy originate from “so high up in the abdomen”. He gave permission
for further tests including a Doppler test to check for a foetal heartbeat and an abdominal
ultrasound, scheduled for the following day. The doctor however was so convinced Lisa
was pregnant that he had already contacted the local office of DoCS, the Department of
Community Services (child protection). He was determined to question Lisa about
sexual matters. In the interim, the Doppler test revealed no hint of a foetal heartbeat.
Meanwhile, Elizabeth had arrived at the hospital, and with both parents present, Lisa
underwent an abdominal ultra sound the following morning, when a tumour was found.
James had refused to allow the staff to question Lisa about sexual matters until more
conclusive tests could be done, but they had questioned the child anyway. It is not
known what effects this added stress had on the child. She had by that time undergone a
number of uncomfortable procedures and was faced with a serious, possibly lifethreatening
diagnosis. To Lisa it would have appeared that her life had taken a turn
toward uncertainty from the relatively carefree life she’d had on the farm.
Shaken to the core, but struggling to remain calm for Lisa’s sake, James and Elizabeth
drove their daughter to John Hunter Children’s hospital in Newcastle. The next morning,
following a CT scan, oncologist Dr. A. and surgeon, Dr. Cassey, told Lisa and her parents
that urgent surgery was necessary to remove the tumour. James and Elizabeth agreed and
signed the consent form after Lisa told them she “wanted it out”.
Dr. John Cassey finished operating on Lisa at 3pm on Wednesday, November 27th. The
tumour had been the size of a small football and extended the height of the abdomen from
the pelvis to the diaphragm. Dr. Cassey removed the mass, along with the left ovary and
four lymph nodes. He explained that Lisa had felt off colour because the mass had cut off
its own blood supply and was breaking down. He reassured James and Elizabeth that all
went well even though they were alarmed at the length of time Lisa had been in recovery
after surgery. Both parents were momentarily relieved and felt Lisa was in good hands
with Dr. Cassey.
Three days later the John Hunter Children’s oncologist, Dr. A. told the family that the
histopathology report had returned. The result indicated a rare ovarian mixed germ cell
tumour consisting of various types of malignant cells, resulting from cancerous changes
of various ovarian cell lines. These cells secreted hormonal substances and tumour
markers into her bloodstream. He expressed concern about any residual tumour cells and
told James and Elizabeth that their daughter would die with certainty if she did not
receive chemotherapy. With chemo, Dr. A. claimed, Lisa had an “85% chance of being
cured”. They asked the doctor how chemo worked. James reports, the doctor “could not
describe it as anything other than deadly poison and that it was indiscriminate in the way
that it killed both cancer and healthy cells.” Dr. A. recommended three chemotherapeutic
agents to be given over three days, bleomycin, carboplatin and etoposide. This was to be
repeated four or five times at 21-28 day intervals.
Impossible Choices – “For my eyes only”
Lisa and her parents returned to the farm to reunite with the other children and their
grandparents. Meanwhile Lisa, clearly delighted to be back home, made a remarkably
quick recovery surrounded by her family. Before the next visit to the hospital four days
later James and Elizabeth studied as much information as possible about chemotherapy.
They discovered that Chemotherapy originated from mustard gas from which the first
family of cytotoxic (cell killing) drugs were synthesized. Nitrogen mustard is still listed
on schedule one of the Chemical Weapons Convention. (1,2) Since then, many other
equally toxic chemical agents have been developed and used as chemotherapeutic agents.
Because of its high toxicity, staff using protective clothing, goggles, boots and
specialised rubber gloves administers chemotherapy. The floor below the preparation
area and intra venous stand is protected from accidental spills, as just a few drops of
concentrate are so corrosive that it can damage surfaces and cause chemical burns to
human skin. An accidental spill kit is located on the wall of chemotherapy rooms. Staff
mopping up spills carefully handle the hazardous material and dispose of it as toxic
waste. The chemotherapy is infused into the patient and it immediately kills fast-dividing
cells including cancer cells, but also cells forming bone marrow, immune system,
digestive system, hair follicles and reproductive cells of the testes and ovary. It also kills
healthy cells throughout the body, including liver, kidney and brain cells. Parents of
children having chemo are cautioned to wear gloves when bathing their children or
coming into contact with their urine. The chemicals saturate the body tissues, killing red
blood cells, which carry oxygen to body cells. This causes fatigue, anaemia, and
shortness of breath. Low white blood cell count occurs due to the death of white blood
cells, the cells responsible for fighting infection. The patient develops a severely
compromised immune system incapable of fighting off infection. The immune system’s
natural killer cells are destroyed by the chemicals, and unable to continue seeking out and
destroying cancer cells. Platelets are destroyed and with them the body’s blood clotting
ability. This causes nosebleeds and the potentially fatal risk of haemorrhage into lungs,
intestines, brain or other organs, depending on how low the platelet count falls. Most
patients retch, vomit and experience diarrhoea shortly after chemo starts. In some cases
chemotherapy has to be stopped or the patient will die. Three percent of patients die from
the therapy. Many others die later from longer-term complications, when the deaths are
attributed to cancer and not to the treatment. Some 67% of people who do not survive the
course of treatment die because of their weakened immune system’s failure to overcome
infection, directly attributable to the chemotherapy. Those that survive the treatment
often experience longer-term sequelae. Chemotherapy drugs are often in themselves
carcinogenic chemicals that break and damage DNA. This creates a seed for a new cancer
that may emerge years later as a direct effect of the treatment. The most common cancers
that are caused by chemotherapy are leukaemia and lymphoma. Apart from the
relatively temporary effects of hair loss, this type of therapy most often causes permanent
damage to ovaries and testes causing sexual dysfunction and permanent inability to have
children. Considering the significant risks of chemotherapy, this treatment would be
expected to deliver considerable efficacy. However, according to U.S. physician and
author Dr. Cynthia Foster MD:
“Cytotoxic chemotherapy kills cancer cells by way of a certain mechanism called "First Order
Kinetics." This simply means that the drug does not kill a constant number of cells, but a
constant proportion of cells. So, for example, a certain drug will kill 1/2 of all the cancer cells,
then 1/2 of what is left, and then 1/2 of that, and so on. So, we can see that not every cancer cell
necessarily is going to be killed. This is important because chemotherapy is not going to kill
every cancer cell in the body. The body has to kill the cancer cells that are left over after the
chemotherapy is finished. This fact is well known by oncologists.
Now, how can cancer patients possibly fight even a few cancer cells when their immune systems
have been disabled and this is yet another stress on the body, and they're bleeding because they
have hardly any platelets left from the toxic effects of the chemotherapy? This is usually why,
when chemotherapy is stopped, the cancer grows again and gets out of control. We have now
created a vicious cycle, where doctors are trying to kill the cancer cells, and the patient is not
able to fight the rest, so the doctors have to give the chemotherapy again, and then the patient
can't fight the rest of the cancer cell, and then the doctors give the chemotherapy again, and so
James and Elizabeth went on to research the three cancer drugs the oncologist intended to
use and discovered a number of facts they had not been told. Bleomycin is a toxic agent
that is known to cause permanent lung damage and precludes the medical use of oxygen.
This side effect would make any future resuscitation attempts or anaesthetic increasingly
likely to cause severe, permanent and possibly fatal lung damage. The other
chemotherapy drugs were Carboplatin and Etoposide. The former has a high incidence of
causing deafness in children. In recent studies it was found that hearing loss was found
in 79% of patients treated with Carboplatin. (3) Etoposide is known to be associated with
further cancers including leukaemia following its use. Both chemicals are also toxic to
bone marrow, kidneys, skin and liver. Platinum containing chemotherapeutic agents are
known to leave residual platinum in the body for years. The long-term toxicity of this
substance is unknown. And according to the manufacturer’s instructions, none of the
three chemicals have sufficient information available to recommend their use in children.
The family then researched other cancer therapies and found a number of wholistic
treatment approaches conducted by researchers both in Australia and in the UK. They
came across Professor C. who conducted interesting work using bioenergetic medicine,
oxygen therapy and other immuno-supportive treatments. The Professor was a scientist
but not a medical doctor, however he worked with a medical team in Melbourne. The
other interesting work James and Elizabeth found was that of Dr. Kenyon of Dove Clinic
in UK, who used intravenous natural anti cancer therapies and nutritional support on
cancer patients with encouraging results. In principle James and Elizabeth preferred
treatment modalities that aimed to support the immune system in order to strengthen the
body’s ability to scavenge the cancer cells. They were keen to preserve Lisa’s quality of
life instead of risking her death from the effects of the treatment alone. However, they
still needed to know more about both chemo and other treatments before they could make
a firm decision.
The family returned with Lisa to see Dr. A. in early December for blood tests and a
check-up. James 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 James, the
doctor could not give an answer as to the causes, but told the parents he wanted to start
the chemotherapy on Lisa 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. James and
Elizabeth 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 Lisa would die.
The doctor expected them to consent to chemotherapy. Still actively researching the
various treatment options, James asked for evidence that such treatment would work.
The doctor left the room and returned some time later with about six papers. James
recalls the doctor said; “This is all I have, you will have to accept it.” James asked him
for a copy of these studies, to which he recalls the doctor replied, “They are for my eyes
The parents wondered why there was so much secrecy about the treatment if it is
purported to “cure” Lisa. Dr. A, clearly annoyed, mentioned that if James and Elizabeth
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. James
and Elizabeth, 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 Lisa’s enthusiastic co-operation for two
weeks. Lisa’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
Elizabeth and James 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. James and Elizabeth 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. James and Elizabeth 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.) (4)
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, James and Elizabeth
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 Lisa. The parents decided to continue
with Professor C’s treatment after they noticed a striking improvement in Lisa’s general
health almost immediately after she’d started treatment. For the time being Lisa 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. James and Elizabeth regularly took
Lisa 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 Lisa could use extra support,
James asked the doctor if he would be willing to monitor Lisa’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).
James 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 Lisa’s
pathology report to Professor C and Dr. B. in Melbourne.
With no hope of support from the oncologist, James and Elizabeth 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 Lisa’s
progress. Meanwhile, after consulting with Lisa, 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 Lisa 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 Lisa’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 James nor Elizabeth had had much previous medical knowledge
but they were determined for Lisa’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
Lisa to have informed choice and a voice in the decision-making.
While Elizabeth was more involved with the day to day nurturing role of her other
children and providing for Lisa’s special needs, James 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 Lisa
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. Lisa’s treatment and frequent trips to doctors and to Melbourne was
demanding most of their available time.
Getting “Very Messy”
If Lisa 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, Elizabeth and James kept in regular contact with Professor
C’s clinic in Melbourne. Lisa 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 Lisa’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.
Lisa’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 Lisa at
increased “risk of harm”.
Back on the family farm, James, Elizabeth and Lisa’s grandmother had learnt to
administer Professor C’s treatment regimen home. Lisa 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 Lisa was
pursuing treatment other than the one Dr. A had prescribed.
Meanwhile Lisa 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, “Lisa
responded very well and was able to walk around the cattle with me, sometimes a journey
of over three kilometres, over steep hilly country.” Lisa 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 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 recall, “The treatment Lisa 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 Lisa recently have not believed that she has cancer, as she
has responded so well to the treatment.”
In May, James and Elizabeth took Lisa to see the doctor on the Central Coast. Dr.
Roehrich 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 Lisa warmed to Dr. Roehrich’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 Lisa 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 Lisa’s abdomen revealed no lumps or clinical abnormalities. Dr.
Roehrich was aware of Lisa’s rising tumour markers. He took a detailed history and the
parents briefed him fully on Lisa’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. Roehrich could only include some
essential nutrient supplements that were missing from Lisa’s regimen to strengthen her
immune function, until such time that he had more information. He noted Lisa’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 Lisa’s particular
While the family attended to Lisa’s care back home on the farm, DoCS at Taree had
consulted with their internal legal advisor who issued requests for information under
section 248 of the Children and Young Persons Care and Protection Act. 1998. The
previous week the department had contacted Lisa’s school with instructions to answer a
list of questions. The school replied; “Lisa” is always well groomed and cared for. She
is a well mannered and co-operative student.” DoCS compiled a dossier on Lisa’s school
and medical records, and interviewed the local GP. Dr. A, the oncologist prepared a
written report to the effect that Lisa has not had his treatment for several months and
purported that she would die without his treatment.
On May 15, 2003, just before lunch, two caseworkers from the Taree office of DoCS
arrived at the family’s home. Lisa was having her school lessons at her grandmother’s
house nearby, from where she was summoned so the caseworkers could serve the child
with documents. Meanwhile James explained in great detail the medical treatment Lisa
was currently having. The women served the father with a notice under Section 173 of
the Children and Young Persons Care and Protection Act. 1998, which forced him to take
Lisa to Dr. A at a specified time later that week. The hospital was a two-hour drive away.
When Lisa arrived from her grandmother’s house, the two caseworkers were visibly
shocked. One noted in her report later; “The child arrived with her aunty and her baby
cousin. I observed the child to be tall, slender, she had rosy cheeks, good skin tone,
bright eyes, no visible signs of being ill, bouncy, active and apparently not incapacitated
due to her illness.” Judging by the tone of Dr. A’s concerns, they evidently expected to
see a neglected and dying child. The caseworkers took Lisa aside and served the notice
on her, explaining to her that they were there to “make sure children are cared for
properly”. Lisa took the paper that stated she would be compelled to see Dr. A, whom
she and her family had decided not to see months ago. Lisa was eleven years and 8
months old. It was the first time she had ever experienced strangers coming to her home
and forcing a course of action on her and her family.
On May 19th Lisa and her parents were on the road once again. James had managed to
get a concession out of DoCS that they would not be forced to see Dr. A. Instead DoCS
made a booking with another Oncologist, Professor M at the Sydney Children’s Hospital.
Dr. M conducted a clinical examination. In a letter to Dr. A on 30th May he states; “When
I examined “Lisa” on 20.5.03 I could find no abnormalities”. He ordered a bone and CT
scan for Lisa for the following week. He ordered no other treatment in the interim.
Chemo was discussed. The hospital social worker consulted with the family. She later
reported back to DoCS that James and Elizabeth had requested studies (that supported the
efficacy of chemotherapy for Lisa’s type of cancer). The social worker complained that
they seemed quite “strange”. The Sydney Oncologist was also unnerved by the parents’
request for information. He reported back to DoCS that; “The parent’s behaviour and
decision making about basics shows significant departure from normal behaviour in our
Meanwhile in the absence of medical evidence the parents did not enter into any
agreements about chemotherapy for Lisa. The doctor was quite clearly looking for other
reasons as to why the parents were not convinced about chemo. He noted; “I don’t feel
it’s only the family’s decision, but perhaps the church or influences from grandparents
and extended family members.”
Lisa and her family were nondenominational. They had never gone to a church in search
of medical information.
The family returned to see Dr. M, the Sydney Oncologist the following week. He told
them the bone scan was clear, as was the former site of the original mass. But the CT
scan revealed that Lisa had a plum sized mass attached to the lower pole of her spleen
which did not appear to be a solid tumour mass, but appeared cystic or fluid filled. The
doctor told the parents that Lisa was now in urgent need of chemotherapy and he wanted
to start immediately. James told Dr. M he would give him an answer in a few days, and
the family returned home. The doctor contacted DoCS and told them he was concerned
that Lisa would drop dead at any moment.
By now the family had travelled from home to Sydney to Melbourne for professor C’s
treatment and back home again. Back on the farm the family’s reunion was held under a
cloud. Lisa was quieter than usual as she was forced to reconsider her treatment options.
She told her parents that she had seen kids who’d had chemo at the hospital and she had
decided that if that were her only choice she would rather die happy, surrounded by her
family and animals. No sooner had the family settled down from their exhausting trip,
than another visitor arrived from DoCS to question Lisa. She was beginning to sense the
pressure keenly, and it was beginning to show. Lisa was more reluctant than ever to talk
to strangers. Later she told her father; “I don’t want chemotherapy, Dad, there is no
guarantee that I would live.”
Meanwhile the department of Community Services (DoCS) intervened swiftly and took
the case to the Supreme Court where Lisa was made a ward of that Court.
In the week prior and just after the court hearing, James’s car was broken into twice, the
money he had in the glove box was untouched. Their home had also been entered during
the Queen’s Birthday long weekend. Nothing but important papers had been taken, all of
them pertaining to Lisa’s court case.
Involuntary chemotherapy was started on June 13, and lasted for three days. Lisa was so
sick during the procedure the hospital staff warned that she could die from the treatment.
Within days Lisa had brown striped skin discoloration over her body and her hair began
falling out in clumps. She was allowed home to recover. Two weeks later she presented
to Dr. Roehrich, hardly able to stand. She was pale and listless. She said very little. The
doctor noted that she’d had severe and prolonged nosebleeds, a sign of a low platelet
count, and upper respiratory tract infection, along with an active chest infection. She’d
also had abdominal discomfort and cramping since the treatment. The doctor
recommended a pro-biotic lactobacillus powder to restore the bowel flora after the
chemo’s massive gut cell kill-off had disturbed bowel function. Lisa later reported this
had helped her “a lot”. He wrote a medical certificate declaring Lisa as “unfit to receive
another dose of chemotherapy at this time”. In addition Lisa was still suffering from a
heavy chest infection and seemed unfit for any invasive procedure. The following day her
parents were compelled to bring her to the Sydney Children’s hospital. The DoCS’ legal
representative wrote a letter to his Honour, the Supreme Court Judge, notifying him of
the fact that Lisa would be operated on forthwith to remove her spleen. As Lisa was
wheeled into the operating room, her parents were told this was a court order and were
given no opportunity to sign a consent form. As James and Elizabeth waited for Lisa to
come out of surgery they were left wondering why it was that since Lisa had had the
chemo, (which was supposed to decrease tumour size), her splenic lump had doubled in
size. The staff could not give them an adequate explanation. Now their child was
suffering from the post-operative complications of a severe chest infection for which she
could not have oxygen because she had had Bleomycin as one of her chemotherapeutic
agents, which when combined with therapeutic oxygen, can cause lung damage. Lisa
was in agony for a week post operatively while she tried to cough and clear her chest
without tearing her abdominal sutures. Ten days after surgery she still had not eaten
much. Hunched and frail, barely able to get out of bed, she received a visit from the
DoCS legal personnel and caseworkers. They sent her grandmother out of the room and
when they were alone with her, they impressed upon Lisa that she was a ward of the
Court and without chemotherapy, they claimed, she would certainly die. DoCS social
workers were determined to make Lisa aware of her “rights”. Lisa had never in her life
heard so much about death as she had since the people from DOCS had come into her
Dr. Roehrich visited Lisa at the hospital. He was shocked at Lisa’s emaciated state and
the large amount of weight she had lost. He noticed that the child was unusually quiet
and withdrawn, hardly bothering to look up, even at her mother and grandmother. Since
he had seen the parents last he had investigated a number of clinics in various countries
that had had quite surprising success with integrative and natural cancer treatments, but it
seemed a mute point at the time. He was also in the process of conducting a search of the
medical literature about chemotherapy treatment for Lisa’s cancer, and what he found
was beginning to surprise him. But for the time being he decided to keep it to himself.
His concern was with Lisa’s emotional wellbeing, which had clearly suffered since she
was forced to undergo treatment. Most of all he suspected her main suffering came from
the fact that the Court was now her parent. And there was another hearing scheduled.
Dr. Roehrich decided to address the court directly with the following plea on Lisa’s
July 23, 2003
To His Honour Judge (name deleted),
Re: My patient; (name and date of birth deleted)
I, Dr. Eckard Roehrich am a registered medical doctor, having practiced medicine in New South Wales
since 1982. Prior to that time I practiced medicine and surgery in Hamburg, Germany where I was board
certified in general surgery and trauma surgery. In addition to my medical degree I hold a PhD in
Experimental Medical Physiology from the University of Kiel. Please refer to my CV for further
I can confidently say that I am well grounded in conventional medical approaches to cancer such as surgery
and chemotherapy. However during the last 20 years of medical practice, I have also undertaken further
professional training in environmental and nutritional medicine, which includes nutritional and
complementary and alternative approaches. I have practiced an integrated approach to medicine for over
20 years, encompassing both orthodox as well as alternative treatments for a variety of conditions including
cancer. I currently use a variety of modalities and integrate them according to the patient’s needs. This
includes: pharmaceutical approaches, nutritional medicine, surgery, acupuncture, diet, orthomolecular
medicine, hormone therapies (where required), intra-venous therapies and counselling. I have found many
positive outcomes using this integrated approach with few side effects. It can also be tailored to individual
needs and tolerances.
I have read all available legal material and medical records pertaining to (“Lisa”), to this current time.
I first saw (Lisa) on 19.5.03 at my surgery at which time she had been recovering from surgery to remove a
left ovarian tumour in November 2002. Despite rising tumour markers at the time she looked remarkably
well. She had been undergoing treatment under (Professor C.) at the time and the treatment regimen was in
the process of being reassessed when the Department of Community Services (DoCS) intervened, as I
understand it, at the behest of (Dr. A) who had formed the opinion that Lisa would die if she did not
undergo his recommended treatment consisting of high dose chemotherapy. As a result of this action (Lisa)
became a ward of the Court and subsequently underwent further surgery and a cycle of chemotherapy,
under the supervision of Dr. A’s nominated colleague (Dr.M). (Lisa) tolerated the chemotherapy very
poorly with major side effects, which I documented at the time of her visit to my surgery on 3.7.03. During
her involuntary hospitalisation and treatment I noted that (Lisa) had become very despondent, refused to eat
and suffered significant weight loss.
I understand that in the interim Mr. and Mrs. (deleted) have sought medical advice from Dr. Kenyon, a
physician in the UK with an integrated approach. I am familiar with the regimen Dr. Kenyon proposes and
would be happy to oversee his protocol. I would be equally willing to continue monitoring (Lisa’s)
treatment and be involved in administering other integrated approaches, should the court so decide. My
preference is to brief a specialist oncologist who is versed in both orthodox and integrative approaches. I
would be happy to treat or monitor (Lisa) under his supervision.
It is not my intention at this time to argue the merits or shortcomings of either approach to treatment of
(Lisa’s) condition. And in my opinion it is most unfortunate that the family has been caught in the crossfire
between medical opinions, when it is obvious to me that they had widely researched the available treatment
options and were trying to provide their daughter with a range of therapeutic options up until the time
(Lisa) became a ward of the Court by way of DoCS intervention.
I can state with absolute certainty the fact that (Lisa) is a very intelligent girl. She has heard a great deal of
discussion from staff about her care, and about the “likelihood” of her “death” if she does not pursue Dr.
M’s and Dr. A’s treatment. She is aware that Dr. A and Dr. M have recommended to DoCS that her parents
have limited access to her. Furthermore (Lisa) is aware of their advice that she be entirely removed from
her family and placed in foster care and furthermore that she involuntarily undergoes another 3 to 4 cycles
of chemotherapy such as the first course which caused severe side effects. I have closely monitored (Lisa’s)
progress since before she became a ward of the Court. It is my opinion that removing (Lisa) from her
closely-knit family would be tantamount to collapsing this child’s life and removing from her all that she
knows and holds dear. Placing her into an alien environment and severing bonds between (Lisa), her
parents and her sisters and brothers, would cause her such excruciating emotional pain and stress that this
cataclysmic event alone can be reasonably expected to shorten her life expectancy even if the forced
treatment she undergoes is guaranteed to work, which it is not. Indeed, as I had occasion to observe
recently, the mere threat of this possibility, while (Lisa) is forced to languish in the hospital environment, is
already deeply distressing to her, and is set to undermine her chances of recovery, no matter what modality
Children undergoing chemotherapy are at considerable risk of developing post-traumatic stress disorder,
even when supported by a loving family. It is difficult to imagine how (Lisa) would endure this extremely
unpleasant procedure after she has been virtually orphaned by the persistent actions of the department of
community services claiming to act in her best interests.
So far (Lisa) has not been consulted about her management. Her only way to register her disapproval has
been her periodic refusal to eat in the hospital. She will be 12 years old in [deleted] weeks. With the utmost
respect, my recommendation is to allow (Lisa) her voice. I also respectfully recommend she be allowed to
return home to a family environment while the merits or shortcomings of her management are argued
elsewhere but at her bedside. If you will allow me to make one further suggestion, I would request that the
court considers allowing two oncologists with integrative approaches to be briefed on (Lisa’s) condition. I
would be happy to assist with this.
I would be happy to provide Your Honour with further and better particulars if required.
Dr. Eckard Roehrich MBBS PhD
What About the Side Effects?
Patients who underwent chemo were 14 times more likely to develop leukemia and 6 times more likely to
develop cancers of the bones, joints, and soft tissues than those patients who did not undergo chemotherapy
(NCI Journal 87:10)."— Dr.John Diamond MD
Lisa lurched from crisis to crisis as each court hearing decided the next traumatic event in
her life. She seemed to be forever waiting on a ruling from a Judge somewhere in Sydney
who had nothing but papers before him and who had never met her. Her fate was in a
stranger’s hands and Lisa had found it difficult to be in hospital for weeks on end without
seeing her brothers and sisters. And she missed her pets. Now the State of New South
Wales (DoCS) was her parent and all she knew of them was the women and men who
came around in their suits and handed pieces of paper to her and talked about her “rights”
and told her she would die if she did not have chemo. She well remembered the last dose
she had five weeks previously and it was the first time since her illness began that she
had felt close to death. The treatment made her feel worse than she had ever felt in her
life. “I don’t want that stuff in me, Mum,” she’d said after the first treatment. “Can’t I
just undo it and let it go on the floor?” Had Lisa decided to carry out her idea, the
hospital staff would have been required to carry out the following manufacturer’s
instructions regarding spills and disposal:
“If spills occur, restrict access to the affected area. Wear two pairs of gloves (latex rubber), a
respirator mask, a protective gown and safety glasses.…spills to be treated with sulfuric acid
with potassium permanganate…cytotoxic waste should be regarded as hazardous or toxic and
clearly labelled…and should be incinerated at 1,100 degrees C.” (49)
Far from being able to reassure Lisa and her family with solid evidence of the safety and
efficacy of the treatment, the oncology staff had already made the decision that any
obstacle to its administration would be removed. The hospital staff was always on the
lookout for signs of non-compliance. It was of great importance that Lisa learnt to like
her chemotherapy treatments and regard the fatigue, retching, body aches, bloating,
nosebleeds and abdominal pain as a sign that it was doing her good. Both oncologists
had already petitioned DoCS and the Court to order a full psychological assessment into
Lisa’s and her family’s attitudes. Far from being independent, the nominated
psychologist was closely affiliated with Dr. M from the Children’s hospital and had done
much DoCS work in the past.
Lisa was hastily discharged from Sydney Children’s Hospital when Dr. M felt the case
was too troublesome. The Eastleigh’s questions were now becoming somewhat difficult
when asked in front of other parents. He discharged Lisa on the grounds that her case
was preventing him from treating those patients who wanted his treatment. He said he
would not undertake any more hands-on treatment but he and Dr. A both petitioned the
court and DoCS asking for Lisa to be removed from her parents and confined to the
Hunter Children’s hospital for extensive chemotherapy treatments. The doctors further
recommended Lisa be placed in a foster home. They requested that the parent’s access to
the child be severely restricted.
In a ruling handed down by the Supreme Court in July Lisa was returned to the care of
Dr. A at the John Hunter Children’s hospital. Her access to her parents was to be limited
to two hours only. DoCS did not consult Dr. Roehrich’s opinion as Lisa’s primary care
doctor. And the Judge evidently took no account of Dr. Roehrich’s recommendations for
the child’s health and wellbeing.
The questions about the side effects were never answered.
“Children who are successfully treated [with chemotherapy] for Hodgkin's disease are 18 times more
likely later to develop secondary malignant tumours. Girls face a 35 per cent chance of developing breast
cancer by the time they are 40----which is 75 times greater than the average. The risk of leukemia
increased markedly four years after the ending of successful treatment, and reached a plateau after 14
years, but the risk of developing solid tumours remained high and approached 30 per cent at 30 years (New
Eng J Med, March 21, 1996)”
Lisa’s New “Parents”
Prisoners shall have opportunities for taking physical exercise, including sports and games, and for being
out of doors. Sufficient open spaces shall be provided for this purpose in all camps.
Article 38 Geneva Convention
Lisa’s shrunken little body seemed further dwarfed by the large empty room she solely
occupied at the John Hunter Children’s hospital. She would be twelve years old in a few
weeks, normally a joyful occasion when her family would put on a celebration for her.
Now the thought held only a painful reminder that she had lost her family, possibly
indefinitely. The recent events also claimed 20 percent of her body weight since she last
weighed herself at home. She now weighed just over 30 kg. Most of the day, she sat on
her bed gazing out of the airtight and screened window at the trees on the hospital
grounds. She was a little farm girl and it was the only bit of nature she had seen for
weeks. Her mother had asked the staff’s permission to take Lisa for a walk outside but
the request was refused. By then Lisa had not had fresh air or sunshine for weeks. Her
head was entirely bald and she only managed a smile when her parents were there. Lisa
did not know why the judge had restricted her parents from seeing her. She was allowed
to see her parents or sisters for only two hours a day and the hospital staff had included
the time she had spent on the phone to them as being counted as visiting time. Lisa was
twisted into anxious despair most of the day waiting for her family to come, her limbs
folded up into a protective posture. Food trays came and went, laden with milk, icecream
custard, coloured jelly and bacon. She did not eat those foods. She had been used
to fresh fruits and vegetables, rice, whole-grains, chicken and fish at home. Her trays
went back untouched and her weight steadily declined. Dr. Roehrich had requested that
Dr. A allow Lisa to eat the nutritious foods that she was accustomed to. He mentioned
that Lisa appeared nutritionally deficient and in all probability was suffering from the
early effects of mal-nutrition. He also recommended Lisa continue taking the minerals
and vitamins he had prescribed for her earlier, to promote her recovery, and to correct the
deficiencies. Dr. A explained that he had decided on an ordinary hospital diet for Lisa
and nothing else. Evidently the oncologist felt strongly that only chemotherapy was
indicated for her condition and that did not include fresh air, sunshine or adequate
nutrition. Dr. Roehrich was also deeply concerned about Lisa’s emotional welfare. She
had been a happy and carefree child when he’d first seen her, despite her diagnosis. She
was mischievous and engaging. She adored her parents, sisters and brothers, and they
clearly adored her. Her mother was a wholesome woman, a nurturing type and father
was clearly the family protector. Now the family was broken and Lisa appeared anxious
and despairing at the thought of being placed into a foster home and not seeing her family
again. Dr. Roehrich mentioned his concerns to Dr. A.
Meanwhile Dr A had also become concerned about Lisa’s mental and emotional
wellbeing. Lisa had told him “I hate you,” earlier. Now he was determined to find out
why. He expected the psychologists report would clear up the mystery as to Lisa’s
attitude towards him. The report written by Dr. Lucy Blunt stated that neither parent was
suffering from any auditory or visual hallucinations, a fact that they were undoubtedly
pleased to hear after they had been sleep deprived for several months since DoCS came
into their lives, and sent virtually broke with legal bills. Dr. Blunt had given Lisa a
complex intelligence test just a few days after Lisa’s major surgery and at a time when
the child was beside herself with worry about what would become of herself and her
family. Lisa’s performance was below par for her age, which Dr. Blunt thought would
affect “the degree to which her wishes should be taken into account [as to] decisions to be
made in her best interests.” Evidently Lisa did not pass the test that would entitle her too
much of an opinion about what should be done to her. The psychologist felt duty bound
to tell Lisa that she would die if she did not have chemo, and she probed the child on
what it might be like to die. After this lengthy (and unhappy-sounding) crossexamination,
Dr. Blunt noted that “given the right foster parent (preferably a childless
woman or a childless couple), foster care may be able to provide a more ‘normal’
environment” for Lisa. It is difficult to understand why the doctor would match Lisa with
a childless single woman when the child came from a large farming family with a number
of children. Unfortunately Dr. Blunt did not define what was her understanding of the
word ‘normal’. Dr. Blunt, a psychologist, then went on to recommend that Lisa should
On one July evening, just after the new order restricting the family’s access, it was time
for Lisa’s parents to leave after their two-hour visit. Lisa was due to have another round
of enforced chemotherapy soon, and felt so upset at the prospect that she threatened to
kill herself. This had hardly crossed the staff’s mind, as Dr. Blunt had reported that Lisa
did not appear to be suffering from depression. The parents were in turmoil but the terms
of the court order compelled them to leave promptly. Worried and uncertain they stopped
at the hospital café before embarking on the two-hour trip back home. Dr. Roehrich had
also visited and joined them on his way out. The group looked up to see a conundrum. It
was Lisa, running towards the hospital exit in search of her family, pursued by two
hospital staff. Lisa’s older sisters went over to talk with her. James was cautious about
approaching his daughter because of the court orders. Dr. Roehrich also went over to
attempt to calm her. The staff had summoned two burley security guards who promptly
arrived, intent on manhandling her back to the ward. Dr. Roehrich stopped them and
assured the staff that he would convince her return to the ward. He spoke to her
reassuringly and the group slowly wound their way back. The scene was played out in
the front lobby of the hospital in front of a mural that had been painted by an Iraqi
woman refugee artist. It depicted a scene of despairing and emaciated children in a
prison camp surrounded by barbed wire.
The basic daily food rations shall be sufficient in quantity, quality and variety to keep prisoners of war in
good health and to prevent loss of weight or the development of nutritional deficiencies. Account shall also
be taken of the habitual diet of the prisoners.
The Geneva Convention
"Keep in mind that the 5 year mark is still used as the official guideline for "cure" by mainstream
oncologists. Statistically, the 5 year cure makes chemotherapy look good for certain kinds of cancer, but
when you follow cancer patients beyond 5 years, the reality often shifts in a dramatic way."—Dr. John
The MD Anderson Comprehensive Cancer Center was sued in August,1998, for making
unsubstantiated claims that it cures "well over 50% of people with cancer." – Professor Emeritus
Dr. Samuel Epstein
Dr Roehrich was on his way to the John Hunter Children’s Hospital to visit Lisa and to
have a conference with her treating oncologist Dr. A. The last court order had stated that
Dr. Roehrich had visiting rights to Lisa as her primary care doctor. However, the last
time he tried to visit, he was told he would have limited access to her and a hospital staff
member would supervise his visits. This was by order of Dr. A, who had also refused to
allow Dr. Roehrich access to Lisa’s pathology results. Today however, he had finally
been successful in getting an appointment with Dr. A to discuss a matter that was
becoming of increasing concern to him.
Dr. Roehrich’s appearance was that of a kindly 59-year-old doctor, bespectacled and
conservative. His mild mannered demeanour, however, belied the fact that he was a
board certified specialist general surgeon and trauma surgeon, which he’d practiced in a
busy European teaching hospital until 1982 when he opened his practice near the NSW
Central Coast. He also held a Ph.D in Medical Physiology and was particularly
knowledgeable in biochemistry and the role of nutrients in disease.
In his medical practice he was used to liasing with specialists and found it important for
the sake of all concerned, to maintain good relationships with colleagues. That was the
basis for a multidisciplinary approach, where a team worked together for a good patient
outcome. But the Lisa’s case was unusual for a number of reasons. And now he had a
new role as arbitrator between Lisa’s treating doctor and the parents. By now, the family
was clearly upset about what they considered a heavy handed approach and lack of
convincing information about the chemotherapy treatment Lisa was forced to undergo.
World’s Best Practice
According to the National Cancer Institute, about one-third of all cancer deaths are related to
malnutrition. For cancer patients, optimal nutrition is important. Cancer can deplete your body's
nutrients and cause weight loss. Cancer and cancer treatment can also have a negative effect on
your appetite and your body's ability to digest foods. These factors may leave you in a vulnerable
condition - high nutrient need, and low nutrient intake.
Dr. Roehrich had many patients in his own practice who were undergoing chemotherapy
and some of them came to him for additional complementary treatments such as
nutritional support and acupuncture. This was called integrative medicine and it
combined orthodox medicine with proven complementary and alternative approaches.
More recently he had done post-graduate studies in orthomolecular (nutritional)
medicine, which he employed successfully in his practice on patients with a variety of
conditions. (50) In combining these approaches he was in keeping with best practices in
major cancer treatment centres around the world including the Memorial Sloan-Kettering
Cancer Centre which states on its website: “The Integrative Medicine service at
Memorial Sloan Kettering was established in 1999 to complement mainstream medical
care and address the emotional, social and spiritual needs of patients and
families…Integrative medicine combines the discipline of modern science with the
wisdom of ancient healing.”
The world’s largest cancer institutions have had to integrate their approaches because too
many people were opting for the proven benefits of complementary and alternative
medicine. To ignore those approaches would have meant a loss of trust on the part of
discriminating patients who want every possible opportunity for recovery. A US study
at M.D. Anderson Cancer Centre showed that 83% of cancer patients used alternatives.
The Huston Texas based cancer centre is the world’s largest with over 13,000 patients
and offers a wide variety of orthodox, alternative and complementary treatments.
Like top cancer treatment centres Dr. Roehrich’s experience also showed that cancer is a
complex disorder that requires a multidisciplinary approach. He believed that a patient’s
survival was dependent on being able to have faith and trust in their caregivers and in the
treatments they were receiving. That meant patients needed to have a choice in their
treatment so they could participate in the process of recovery. He doubted a positive
outcome could be achieved if a particular treatment was forced on a patient.
So far, Dr. Roehrich was very impressed with the skill of both surgeons, Dr.Cassey and
Dr. Dilley, who had operated on Lisa. As a surgeon, he realised how successful skilled
cancer surgery could be in producing good survival rates. Following the surgery Lisa
reverted back to the control of the oncologists, Dr. A and Dr. M whose treatment
modality is chemotherapy. As far as Dr. Roehrich was aware, the parents also felt
grateful to the surgeons, but the chemotherapy, mandated by the oncologists was another
matter and it had become the sticking point for them. In his role as peacemaker, he found
it ironic that he was now in a position of defending the use of chemotherapy and
explaining its use to Lisa’s family so they could be reassured. Being their doctor he was
keenly aware of the sleepless nights they were having, and he felt they needed help in
dealing with Lisa’s treatment.
However, in order to help the family understand the basis for Dr. A’s prescribed
chemotherapy for Lisa, he felt duty bound to first review the medical literature himself.
Not long after Lisa’s attempt to flee the hospital, Dr. Roehrich took some time one
evening to conduct a search of the world’s scientific studies on outcomes for treatment of
Lisa’s type of cancer using the chemicals she had been prescribed. The most prominent
study was the same UK study, (UK CCSG (GC2), that both Dr. M and Dr. A cited was
the basis for their decision to implement Lisa’s present chemotherapy by Court order.
Apart from his medical degree and specialist qualifications Dr. Roehrich had spent
several years conducting scientific research. He was versed in strict laboratory protocols
and statistical language. He became immersed in the scientific study the oncologists
cited and soon was troubled by what he saw. Both oncologists claimed that Lisa would
have an 85% chance of a cure from cancer if she had their chemotherapy treatment. Both
based this on the UK CCSG (GC2) study (51)
On December 12th 2002, Dr. A had made a note in Lisa’s medical records that she had
“0% chance” of survival if she did not have his treatment. The abovementioned study he
based this on did not have a control group to compare other treatments, which meant
there was no evidence in that study to support Dr. A’s assertions that she would die
without his treatment. As to the claim of an 85% cure rate with this treatment, the figures
given in the study pertained to a five-year survival rate only. In the science of
epidemiology the word “cure” means an event free normal lifespan comparable to a
healthy peer group. A five-year survival rate does not by any standard support the
oncologists assertions of a cure. Dr. Roehrich came to realise that those unsubstantiated
claims had formed the basis for the DoCS intervention and Court order to treat Lisa
against her will. This compounding error had had a devastating effect on all concerned.
The family was broken up by DoCS. The parents were facing mounting and crippling
legal costs to defend themselves against the relentless legal battering from DoCS. Their
medical costs were escalating. James had missed months of work, which further
worsened their financial situation. Lisa’s health was deteriorating. She was beside
herself with worry. Since shortly after the last court order Lisa was put on suicide watch.
Dr. Roehrich arrived at the hospital Wednesday August 6th at 4:30 pm. Dr. A had
allowed him 20 minutes with Lisa. The hospital had a list of people who could visit or
phone her. Lisa could not see her friends, as they were not on the list of people allowed
to visit. Only immediate family, and only for two hours. It was done for Lisa’s
“protection”. Dr. Roehrich was not prevented access to Lisa’s records by court order but
rather by the order of Dr. A.
He sat at Lisa’s bedside and a nurse sat on the other side of the bed, watching closely.
Conversation was difficult. Lisa seemed reluctant to say anything at all, a far cry from
the elfin pranksterism she’d displayed around the doctor before she was made a ward of
the Court. She’d had her room searched previously and staff had confiscated from her
carry case, the vitamins Dr. Roehrich had prescribed for her two months previously. She
seemed keenly aware of her lack of privacy and had made no notations in her journal.
The doctor asked if she had gone to play therapy. She said “no” and indicated she doesn’t
feel like it. She had not participated in music or art therapy. Once an excellent student,
she told him she attended hospital school occasionally, but did not seem interested in the
subject. She played with her key ring and fingernails and ignored the nurse, making no
attempt to interact with her. Dr. Roehrich made a mental note that Lisa seemed anxious
at times but appeared primarily shut down emotionally. He did not know how she would
tolerate another few months under these conditions of captivity. He had on a previous
visit asked the nurse’s permission for the three of them to go for a supervised walk
around the hospital grounds so Lisa could get some fresh air and sunshine, not only to lift
her spirits but also to provide her with adequate vitamin D from the sunshine. However,
this was refused. He noted that Lisa looked frail. She had lost 20% of body weight since
she had had the first chemotherapy treatment, which placed her significantly underweight
for her height and age.
Dr. A and Dr. V, director of Hunter Children’s Health Network, came to collect Dr.
Roehrich after his 20-minute allotted visit and took him to a private conference room.
The hospital doctors both expressed their surprise that Dr. Roehrich, as the family GP had
taken such a keen interest in the case of Lisa. Dr. Roehrich agreed that the case is indeed
unusual. He usually did not feel the need to get involved with a patient’s hospital
treatment. And though he was not part of the specialist team, he had never felt so
disturbed by a case before. Dr. A explained the reason for the strict supervision was that
they were intent on preventing any alternative therapy from being administered. Dr.
Roehrich assured him he had no intention of administering complementary or alternative
therapy at this time, let alone on the sly, (despite the fact that major cancer centres all
over the world integrate these modalities). Dr. Roehrich’s concern however was the fact
that Lisa suffered from major nutritional deficiencies owing to her illness and two
operations, the present stress, a diet that is foreign to her, her refusal to eat due to her
unhappiness, and her very significant weight loss. This could diminish her chances of
survival due to malnutrition alone. Dr. Roehrich explained that this could be rectified by
allowing her to have the essential supplements to correct this, and to allow her to eat the
diet to which she is accustomed. This required only a phone call to the dietician. Dr. A
declined this suggestion. “You may talk to my dietician,” he said. “But she will report to
me, and right now we want Lisa on the hospital diet.”
Dr. V was mostly silent throughout. Dr. Roehrich decided to broach the subject that
made him feel most uneasy about the matter. He said he’d reviewed the scientific
literature upon which Dr. A is basing his treatment and prognosis, and upon which DoCS
has intervened with such force, and upon which the Court has made its decision to uphold
these plans. Dr. Roehrich told him of the lack of evidence for his assertions that Lisa
would die without his treatment and with them she would be “cured”. Dr. A replied,
“Well that’s all we’ve got.”
Dr. Roehrich spent the next hour’s drive home immersed in his thoughts. He could not
imagine what medical reason the doctors had for keeping Lisa confined for months in the
hospital when other children are allowed to go home between cycles of chemotherapy.
He could not imagine how any doctor could sleep at night knowing there was a child
under his “care” who was a captive of his treatment; a treatment whose scientific basis he
had misrepresented. Was his colleague not perturbed by a child who wanted to take her
own life because she could not imagine living without her family? Dr. Roehrich could
not imagine, even in war torn countries, that children would deliberately be denied
essential nutrients to prevent the effects of malnutrition. He could not account for a
reason why Dr. A would insist on a treatment that is so far outside the best practice of
mainstream cancer treatments, as to be at odds with not only good medical practice, but
that also denies this child her most basic human rights.
Dr. Roehrich had petitioned the court to allow him to brief an oncologist with an
integrated approach, to address Lisa’s debilitating health problems. A number of
colleagues had already expressed an interest and many doctors have expressed their
concern as to the way this matter has been handled.
On Friday the 8th of August the DoCS legal representative met with James and Elizabeth.
He told them that they would never have another opportunity of giving their daughter
vitamin or mineral supplements again. He told them she could be placed into a foster
Contact Parents: (e-mail Deleted not because of parents’ wishes but DoCS’ by Court
Last updated 15/12/2003
The author asserts copyright over all but the quotes and references at end section,
but this article may be distributed for non-commercial purposes. For any other
purpose please contact the author at;email@example.com
About Eve Hillary
Eve Hillary is based in Sydney. She a medical analyst and writer on issues
pertaining to the health care industry and environmental health.
She is the author of Children of a Toxic Harvest: An Environmental
Autobiography, and numerous articles relating to health issues. Her most
recent book is Health Betrayal; Staying away from the sickness industry.
She is also a public speaker.
Eve has spent 25 years in health care where she has observed the medical
industry at first hand from the inside.
End Section Contains:
Source Materials for Further Study
Websites for Further Information
References for Professionals
"Two to 4% of cancers respond to chemotherapy….The bottom line is for a few kinds of
cancer chemo is a life extending procedure---Hodgkin's disease, Acute Lymphocytic
Leukemia(ALL), Testicular cancer, and Choriocarcinoma."----Ralph Moss, Ph.D. 1995
Author of Questioning Chemotherapy.
"NCI now actually anticipates further increases, and not decreases, in cancer mortality
rates, from 171/100,000 in 1984 to 175/100,000 by the year 2000!"--Samuel Epstein.
"A study of over 10,000 patients shows clearly that chemo’s supposedly strong track
record with Hodgkin’s disease (lymphoma) is actually a lie. Patients who underwent
chemo were 14 times more likely to develop leukemia and 6 times more likely to develop
cancers of the bones, joints, and soft tissues than those patients who did not undergo
chemotherapy (NCI Journal 87:10)."—John Diamond
Children who are successfully treated for Hodgkin's disease are 18 times more likely later
to develop secondary malignant tumours. Girls face a 35 per cent chance of developing
breast cancer by the time they are 40----which is 75 times greater than the average. The
risk of leukemia increased markedly four years after the ending of successful treatment,
and reached a plateau after 14 years, but the risk of developing solid tumours remained
high and approached 30 per cent at 30 years (New Eng J Med, March 21, 1996)
"Success of most chemotherapy is appalling…There is no scientific evidence for its
ability to extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most
common organic cancer…chemotherapy for malignancies too advanced for surgery
which accounts for 80% of all cancers is a scientific wasteland."---Dr Ulrich Abel. 1990
The New England Journal of Medicine Reports— War on Cancer Is a Failure: Despite
$30 billion spent on research and treatments since 1970, cancer remains "undefeated,"
with a death rate not lower but 6% higher in 1997 than 1970, stated John C. Bailar III,
M.D., Ph.D., and Heather L. Gornik, M.H.S., both of the Department of Health Studies at
the University of Chicago in Illinois. "The war against cancer is far from over," stated Dr.
Bailar. "The effect of new treatments for cancer on mortality has been largely
"My studies have proved conclusively that untreated cancer victims live up to four times
longer than treated individuals. If one has cancer and opts to do nothing at all, he will live
longer and feel better than if he undergoes radiation, chemotherapy or surgery, other than
when used in immediate life-threatening situations."---Prof Jones. (1956 Transactions of
the N.Y. Academy of Medical Sciences, vol 6. In a fifty page article by Hardin Jones of
National Cancer Institute of Bethesda, Maryland, he surveyed global cancer of all types
and compared the untreated and the treated, to conclude that the untreated outlives the
treated, both in terms of quality and in terms of quantity.
"With some cancers, notably liver, lung, pancreas, bone and advanced breast, our 5 year
survival from traditional therapy alone is virtually the same as it was 30 years ago."---P
"1.7% increase in terms of success rate a year, its nothing. By the time we get to the 24
century we might have effective treatments, Star Trek will be long gone by that time."
"….chemotherapy’s success record is dismal. It can achieve remissions in about 7% of all
human cancers; for an additional 15% of cases, survival can be "prolonged" beyond the
point at which death would be expected without treatment. This type of survival is not the
same as a cure or even restored quality of life."—John Diamond, M.D.
"Keep in mind that the 5 year mark is still used as the official guideline for "cure" by
mainstream oncologists. Statistically, the 5 year cure makes chemotherapy look good for
certain kinds of cancer, but when you follow cancer patients beyond 5 years, the reality
often shifts in a dramatic way."—Dr. John Diamond MD
"Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy…Chemotherapy does not
eliminate breast, colon or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade.
Yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumours…Women with breast cancer are
likely to die faster with chemo than without it."—Alan Levin, M.D.
"The five year cancer survival statistics of the American Cancer Society are very
misleading. They now count things that are not cancer, and, because we are able to
diagnose at an earlier stage of the disease, patients falsely appear to live longer. Our
whole cancer research in the past 20 years has been a failure. More people over 30 are
dying from cancer than ever before…More women with mild or benign diseases are
being included in statistics and reported as being "cured". When government officials
point to survival figures and say they are winning the war against cancer they are using
those survival rates improperly."---Dr J. Bailer, New England Journal of Medicine (Dr
Bailer’s answer to questions put by Neal Barnard MD of the Physicians Committee For
Responsible Medicine and published in PCRM Update, sept/oct 1990.
"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.
"Finding a cure for cancer is absolutely contraindicated by the profits of the cancer
industry’s chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery cash trough."—Dr Diamond, M.D.
"We have a multi-billion dollar industry that is killing people, right and left, just for
financial gain. Their idea of research is to see whether two doses of this poison is better
than three doses of that poison."—Glen Warner, M.D. oncologist.
•"Percentage of cancer patients whose lives are predictably saved by chemotherapy
•Conclusive evidence (majority of cancers) that chemotherapy has any positive
influence on survival or quality of life - none.
•Percentage of oncologists who said if they had cancer they would not participate
in chemotherapy trials due to its "ineffectiveness and its unacceptable toxicity" -
•Percentage of people with cancer in the U.S. who receive chemotherapy - 75%.
•Company that accounts for nearly half of the chemotherapy sales in the world -
•Chairman of the board of Bristol-Meyers - Richard L. Gelb.
•Mr. Gelb's other job: vice chairman, board of overseers, board of managers,
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, World's largest private cancer
treatment and research center.
•Chairman, Memorial Sloan-Kettering's board of overseers, board of managers -
John S. Reed.
•Reed's other job - director, Philip Morris (tobacco company).
•Director, Ivax, Inc., a prominent chemotherapy company - Samuel Broder.
•Broder's other job (until 1995) - executive director, National Cancer
Institute."from Reclaiming Our Health: Exploding the Medical Myth and
Embracing the Source of True Healing by John Robbins.
"If you can shrink the tumour 50% or more for 28 days you have got the FDA's definition
of an active drug. That is called a response rate, so you have a response...(but) when you
look to see if there is any life prolongation from taking this treatment what you find is all
kinds of hocus pocus and song and dance about the disease free survival, and this and
that. In the end there is no proof that chemotherapy in the vast majority of cases actually
extends life, and this is the GREAT LIE about chemotherapy, that somehow there is a
correlation between shrinking a tumour and extending the life of the patient."---Ralph
"The majority of publications equate the effect of chemotherapy with (tumour) response,
irrespective of survival. Many oncologists take it for granted that response to therapy
prolongs survival, an opinion which is based on a fallacy and which is not supported by
clinical studies. To date there is no clear evidence that the treated patients, as a whole,
benefit from chemotherapy as to their quality of life."---Abel.1990.
"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.
"He said, "I'm giving cancer patients over here at this major cancer clinic drugs that are
killing them, and I can't stop it because they say the protocol's what's important." And I
say, "But the patient's not doing well." They say, "The protocol's what's important, not
the patient." And he said, "You can't believe what goes on in the name of medicine and
science in this country." --Gary Null
The Politics of Cancer--- Professor Emeritus Dr. Samuel Epstein
That in spite of over $20 billion expenditures since the "War against Cancer" was
launched by President Nixon in 1971, there has been little if any significant improvement
in treatment and survival rates for most common cancers, in spite of contrary misleading
hype by the cancer establishment---the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and American
Cancer Society (ACS).
That the cancer establishment remains myopically fixated on damage control _diagnosis
and treatment _ and basic genetic research, with, not always benign, indifference to
cancer prevention. Meanwhile, the incidence of cancer, including nonsmoking cancers,
has escalated to epidemic proportions with lifetime cancer risks now approaching 50%.
That the NCI has a long track record of budgetary shell games in efforts to mislead
Congress and the public with its claim that it allocates substantial resources to cancer
prevention. Over the last year, the NCI has made a series of widely divergent claims,
ranging from $480 million to $1 billion, for its prevention budget while realistic estimates
are well under $100 million.
That the NCI allocates less than 1% of its budget to research on occupational cancer the
most avoidable of all cancers which accounts for well over 10% of all adult cancer
deaths, besides being a major cause of childhood cancer.
That cancer establishment policies, particularly those of the ACS, are strongly influenced
by pervasive conflicts of interest with the cancer drug and other industries. As admitted
by former NCI director Samuel Broder, the NCI has become "what amounts to a
governmental pharmaceutical company."
That the MD Anderson Comprehensive Cancer Center was sued in August, 1998 for
making unsubstantiated claims that it cures "well over 50% of people with cancer."
That the NCI, with enthusiastic support from the ACS the tail that wags the NCI dog 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 nontoxic
alternative cancer drugs.
That, as reported in The Chronicle of Philanthropy, the ACS is "more interested in
accumulating wealth than saving lives." Furthermore, it is the only known "charity" that
makes contributions to political parties.
That the NCI and ACS have embarked on unethical trials with two hormonal drugs,
tamoxifen and Evista, in ill-conceived attempts to prevent breast cancer in healthy
women while suppressing evidence that these drugs are known to cause liver and ovarian
cancer, respectively, and in spite of the short-term lethal complications of tamoxifen. The
establishment also proposes further chemoprevention trials this fall on tamoxifen, and
also Evista, in spite of two published long-term European studies on the ineffectiveness
of tamoxifen. This represents medical malpractice verging on the criminal.
That the ACS and NCI have failed to provide Congress and regulatory agencies with
available scientific information on a wide range of unwitting exposures to avoidable
carcinogens in air, water, the workplace, and consumer products food, cosmetics and
toiletries, and household products. As a result, corrective legislative and regulatory action
has not been taken.
That the cancer establishment has also failed to provide the public, particularly African
American and underprivileged ethnic groups with their disproportionately higher cancer
incidence rates, with information on avoidable carcinogenic exposures, thus depriving
them of their right-to-know and effectively preventing them from taking action to protect
themselves a flagrant denial of environmental justice
www.ciss.org.auCancer Inormation and Support Society Sydney, Aust.
www.cancercenter.comIntegrated cancer hospital.
According to the National Cancer Institute, about one-third of all cancer deaths are
related to malnutrition. For cancer patients, optimal nutrition is important. Cancer can
deplete your body's nutrients and cause weight loss. Cancer and cancer treatment can also
have a negative effect on your appetite, and your body's ability to digest foods. These
factors may leave you in a vulnerable condition - high nutrient need, and low nutrient
At Cancer Treatment Centers of America, we believe that nutrition plays an important
role in the treatment of cancer. That's why each patient who comes to us for help receives
a nutrition assessment and an individualized plan designed to prevent malnutrition,
reduce side effects and enhance his or her overall well being. Cancer Treatment Centres
http://www.naturalstandard.com/Database on natural cancer therapies for health
professionals. Pay site.
1. Einhorn, J.,Nitrogen mustard: the origin of chemotherapy for cancer, Int. J. Radiat.
Oncol. Biol. Phys.,1985, 11(7), 1375-1378.
2. Goodman, L. S.; Wintrobe, M. M.; Dameshek, W.; Goodman, M. J.; Gilman, A.;
McLennan, M. T., Landmark article Sept. 21, 1946: Nitrogen mustard therapy. Use of
methyl-bis(beta-chloroethyl)amine hydrochloride and tris(beta-chloroethyl)amine
hydrochloride for Hodgkin's disease, lymphosarcoma, leukemia and certain allied and
miscellaneous disorders.J. Am. Med. Assoc., 1984, 251(17), 2255-2261.
3. Delayed Administration of Sodium Thiosulfate in Animal Models Reduces Platinum
Ototoxicity without Reduction of Antitumor Activity
Leslie L. Muldoon, Michael A. Pagel, Robert A. Kroll, Robert E. Brummett, Nancy D.
Doolittle, Eleanor G. Zuhowski, Merrill J. Egorin and Edward A. Neuwelt
4. In an especially dramatic table, Dr. Abel displays the results of chemotherapy
in patients with various types of cancers, as the improvement of survival rates,
compared to untreated patients. This table shows:
a In colorectal cancer: no evidence survival is improved.
b.Gastric cancer: no clear evidence.
c.Pancreatic cancer: Study completely negative. Longer survival in control
(untreated) group.[emphasis mine:rsc]
d.Bladder: no clinical trial done.
e.Breast cancer: No direct evidence that chemotherapy prolongs survival; its use
is "ethically questionable." (That is particularly newsworthy, since all breast
cancer patients, before or after surgery, are given chemotherapy drugs.)
f.Ovarian cancer: no direct evidence.
g.Cervix and uterus: No improved survival.
h. Head and neck: no survival benefit but occasional shrinkage of tumours
5. Sankila, Risto, et al. "Risk of cancer among offspring of childhood cancer survivors."
New England Journal of Medicine 338, no. 19 (1998): 1339-44.
6.Sklar, C.A. "Growth and neuroendocrine dysfunction following therapy for childhood
cancer." Pediatric Clinics of North America 44 (1997): 489-503.
7. Wallace, W.H., and C.J. Kelnar. "Late effects of antineoplastic therapy in childhood on
growth and endocrine function." Drug Safety 15, no. 5 (Nov 1996): 325-32.
8. Sklar, C.A. "Growth and neuroendocrine dysfunction following therapy for childhood
cancer." Pediatric Clinics of North America 44 (1997): 489-503.
9. Wallace, W.H., and C.J. Kelnar. "Late effects of antineoplastic therapy in childhood on
growth and endocrine function." Drug Safety 15, no. 5 (Nov 1996): 325-32.
10. Goldiner, P.L., and O. Schweizer. "The hazards of anesthesia and surgery in
bleomycin-treated patients." Seminars in Oncology 6, no. 1 (Mar 1979): 121-4.
11. Hulbert, J.C., J.E. Grossman, and K.B. Cummings. "Risk factors of anesthesia and
surgery in bleomycin-treated patients." Journal of Urology 130, no. 1 (Jul 1983): 163-4.
12. Miller, R.W., et al. "Pulmonary function abnormalities in long-term survivors of
childhood cancer." Medical Pediatric Oncology 14, no. 4 (1986): 202-7.
13. Farrell, G.C. "Drug-induced hepatic injury." Journal of Gastroenterology and
Hepatology 12, no. 9-10 (Oct 1997): S242-50.
14. Aisenberg, J., et al. "Bone mineral density in young adult survivors of childhood
cancer." Journal of Pediatrics Hematology/Oncology 20, no. 3 (May-Jun 1998): 241-5.
15. Arikoski, P., et al. "Reduced bone mineral density in long-term survivors of
childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia." Journal of Pediatrics Hematology/Oncology
20, no. 3 (May 1998): 234-240.
16. Halton, J.M., et al. "Altered mineral metabolism and bone mass in children during
treatment for acute lymphoblastic leukemia." Journal of Bone Mineral Research 11, no.
11 (Nov 1996): 1774-83.
17. Hanif, I., H. Mahmoud, and C.H. Pui. "Avascular femoral head necrosis in pediatric
cancer patients." Medical Pediatric Oncology 21, no. 9 (1993): 655-60.
18. Henderson, R.C., C.D. Madsen, C. Davis, and S.H. Gold. "Bone density in survivors
of childhood malignancies." Journal of Pediatrics Hematology/Oncology 18, no. 4 (Nov
19. Henderson, R.C., et al. "Longitudinal evaluation of bone mineral density in children
receiving chemotherapy." Journal of Pediatrics Hematology/Oncology 20, no. 4 (Jul-Aug
20. Hesseling, P.B., et al. "Bone mineral density in long-term survivors of childhood
cancer." International Journal of Cancer 11 Supplement (1998): 44-7.
21. Hoorweg-Nijman, J.J., et al. "Bone mineral density and markers of bone turnover in
young adult survivors of childhood lymphoblastic leukaemia." Clinical Endocrinology
(Oxford) 50, no. 2 (Feb 1999): 237-44.
22. Muller, H.L., M. Klinkhammer-Schalke, and J. Kuhl. "Final height and weight of
long-term survivors of childhood malignancies." Experimental and Clinical
Endocrinology and Diabetes 106, no. 2 (1998): 135-9.
23. Talvensaari, K., and M. Knip. "Childhood cancer and later development of the
metabolic syndrome." Annals of Medicine 29, no. 5 (Oct 1997): 353-5.
24. Talvensaari, K., et al. "Clinical characteristics and factors affecting growth in longterm
survivors of cancer." Medical Pediatric Oncology 26, no. 3 (Mar 1996): 166-72.
25. Mauch, P.M., et al. "Second malignancies after treatment for laparotomy staged IAIIIB
Hodgkin's disease: a long-term analysis of risk factors and outcome." Blood 87, no. 9
(1 May 1996): 3625-32.
26. Neglia, J.P., et al. "Second neoplasms after acute lymphoblastic leukemia in
childhood." New England Journal of Medicine 325, no. 19 (7 Nov 1991): 1330-6.
27. Nicholson, H.S., et al. "Late effects of therapy in adult survivors of osteosarcoma and
Ewing's sarcoma." Medical Pediatric Oncology 20, no. 1 (1992): 6-12.
28. Novakovic, B., et al. "Late effects of therapy in survivors of Ewing's sarcoma family
tumors." Pediatric Hematology/Oncology 19, no. 3 (May-June 1997): 220-5.
29. Nyandoto, P., T. Muhonen, and H. Joensuu. "Second cancer among long-term
survivors from Hodgkin's disease." International Journal of Radiation Oncology and
Biological Physics 42, no. 2 (1 Sept 1998): 373-8.
30. Nygaard, R., et al. "Second malignant neoplasms in patients treated for childhood
leukemia. a population-based m cohort study from the Nordic countries, The Nordic
Society of Pediatric Oncology and Hematology (NOPHO)." Acta Pediatrics Scandinavia
80, no. 12 (Dec 1991): 1220-8.
31. Pratt, C.B.B., et al. "Second malignant neoplasms occurring in survivors of
osteosarcoma." Cancer 80, no. 5 (1 Sept 1997): 960-5.
32. Rich, D.C., et al. "Second malignant neoplasms in children after treatment of soft
tissue sarcoma." Journal of Pediatrics Surgery 32, no. 2 (Feb 1997): 369-72.
33. Robison, L.L. "Survivors of childhood cancer and risk of a second tumor." Journal of
the National Cancer Institute 85, no. 14 (21 Jul 1993): 1102-3.
34. Sankila, R., et al. "Risk of subsequent malignant neoplasms among 1,641 Hodgkin's
disease patients diagnosed in childhood and adolescence: a population-based cohort study
in the five Nordic countries. Association of the Nordic Cancer Registries and the Nordic
Society of Pediatric Hematology and Oncology." Journal of Clinical Oncology 14, no. 5
(May 1996): 1442-6.
35. Scaradavou, A. "Second malignant neoplasms in long-term survivors of childhood
rhabdomyosarcoma." Cancer 76, no. 10 (15 Nov 1995): 1860-7.
36. Witherspoon, R.P., H.J. Deeg, and R. Storb. "Secondary malignancies after marrow
transplantation for leukemia or aplastic anemia." Transplantation Science 4, no. 1 (Sept
37. Wolden, S.L., et al. "Second cancers following pediatric Hodgkin's disease." Journal
of Clinical Oncology 16, no. 2 (Feb 1998): 536-44.
38. Wong, F.L., et al. "Secondary brain tumors in children treated for acute lymphoblastic
leukemia at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital." Journal of Clinical Oncology 16, no.
12 (Dec 1998): 3761-7.
39. Barakat, L.P., et al. "Families surviving childhood cancer: a comparison of
posttraumatic stress symptoms with families of healthy children." Journal of Pediatric
Psychology 22, no. 6 (1997): 843-59.
40. Gray, R.E. "Psychologic adaptation of survivors of childhood cancer." Cancer 70, no.
11 (Dec 1992): 2713-21.
41. Greenberg, H.S., et al. "Psychologic functioning in 8-16-year-old cancer survivors
and their parents." Journal of Pediatrics 114, no. 3 (Mar 1989): 488-93.
42. Hollen, P.J., and W.L. Hobbie. "Risk taking and decision making of adolescent longterm
survivors of cancer." Oncology Nursing Forum 17 (1994): 137-48.
43. Kazak, A.E., et al. "Posttraumatic stress, family functioning, and social support in
survivors of childhood leukemia and their mothers and fathers." Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology 65 (1997): 120-9.
44. Kazak, A.E., et al. "Young adult cancer survivors and their parents: adjustment,
learning problems, and gender." Journal of Family Psychology 8, no. 1 (1994): 74-84.
45. Lansky, S., et al. "Psychosocial consequences of cure." Cancer 58 (1986): 529-33.
46. Mulhern, R.K., et al. "Social competence and behavioral adjustment of children who
are long-term survivors of cancer." Pediatrics 83 (1989): 18-25.
47. Stuber, M.L., et al. "Posttrauma symptoms in childhood leukemia survivors and their
parents." Psychosomatics 37, no. 3 (May-Jun 1996): 254-61.
48. Zeltzer, L.K., et al. "Comparison of psychologic outcomes in adult survivors of
childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia versus sibling controls: A cooperative Children's
Cancer Group and National Institutes of Health study." Journal of Clinical Oncology 15
49. The chemicals used for chemotherapy are scheduled by the government regulator
(TGA) as Schedule 4 drugs (S4). The regulator has placed antibiotics into the same
category. Interestingly, the mineral selenium, freely found in yeast and many other foods
has now also been classed as a schedule 4 drug.
50 The key idea in orthomolecular medicine is that genetic factors are central not only to
the physical characteristics of individuals, but also to their biochemical milieu.
Biochemical pathways of the body have significant genetic variability in terms of
transcriptional potential and individual enzyme concentrations, receptor-ligand affinities
and protein transporter efficiency. Diseases such as atherosclerosis, cancer, schizophrenia
or depression are associated with specific biochemical abnormalities which are either
causal or aggravating factors of the illness. In the orthomolecular view, it is possible that
the provision of vitamins, amino acids, trace elements or fatty acids in amounts sufficient
to correct biochemical abnormalities will be therapeutic in preventing or treating such
51.The United Kingdom Childrens’ Cancer Study group’s second germ cell tumor study:
Carboplatin, Etoposide and Bleomycin as effective treatment for children with malignant
extracranial germ cell tumour. J.R.Mann, F.Raafat, et al.
Studies Relating to Chemotherapy
1. Knox RA. Response is slow to deadly mixups. Too little done to avert cancer drug
errors. Boston Globe. June 26, 1995:29-33.
2. O'Donnell J. Hospital sued for not giving rescue agent. Hosp Pharm Rep.
3. Cohen M, Anderson R, Attilio RM, et al. Preventing medication errors in cancer
chemotherapy. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 1996;53:737-746.
4. Koren G, Beatty K, Seto A, et al. The effects of impaired liver function on the
elimination of antineoplastic agents. Ann Pharmacother. 1992;26:363-371.
5. Calvert AH, Vewell DR, Gumbrell LA, et al. Carboplatin dosage: prospective
evaluation of a simple formula based on renal function. J Clin Oncol. 1989;7:1748-1756.
6. Kintzel P, Dorr RT. Anticancer drug renal toxicity and elimination: dosing
guidelines for altered renal function. Cancer Treat Rev. 1995;21:33-64.
7. AHFS Drug Information. American Society of Health-System Pharmacists 1994-
8. Ewer MS, Benjamin RS. Cardiotoxicity of chemotherapeutic drugs. In: Perry MC,
ed. The Chemotherapy Source Book. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1996:652.
9. Ginsberg SJ, Comis RL. The pulmonary toxicity of antineoplastic agents. In:
Perry MC, Yarbro JW, eds. Toxicity of Chemotherapy. Orlando, Fla: Grune and Stratton;
10. Patterson WP, Reams G. Renal and electrolyte abnormalities due to
chemotherapy. In: Perry MC, ed. The Chemotherapy Source Book. 2nd ed. Baltimore:
Williams & Wilkins; 1996:730-734.
11. Grochow BL, Ames MM. A Clinician's Guide to Chemotherapy
Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1998:93-
12. DeVita VT, Hellman S, Rosenberg SA. Cancer: Principles & Practice of
Oncology. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers; 1997:333-512.
13. Mitchelson F. Pharmacological agents affecting emesis: a review (part I). Drugs.
14. Mitchelson F. Pharmacological agents affecting emesis: a review (part II). Drugs.
15. Grunber SM, Hesketh PJ. Control of chemotherapy-induced emesis. N Engl J
16. Aapro MS. Review of experience with ondansetron and granisetron. Ann Oncol.
17. Navari RM, Kaplan HG, Gralla RJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of granisetron, a
selective 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist, in the prevention of nausea and
vomiting induced by high-dose cisplatin. J Clin Oncol. 1994;12:2204-2210.
18. Italian Group for Antiemetic Research. Dexamethasone, granisetron, or both for
the prevention of nausea and vomiting during chemotherapy for cancer. N Engl J Med.
19. Gralla RJ. Adverse effects of treatment. In: DeVita VT, Hellman S, Rosenberg
SA, eds. Cancer: Principles & Practice of Oncology. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-
Raven Publishers; 1994:2338-2347.
20. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Recommendations for the use of
hematopoietic colony-stimulating factors: evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. J
Clin Oncol. 1994;12:2471-2508.
21. Rowinsky EK, Gilbert MR, McGuire WP, et al. Sequences of taxol and cisplatin.
A phase 1 and pharmacologic study. J Clin Oncol. 1991;9:1692-1703.
22. Balmer CM. Combination chemotherapy. In: Finley RS, Balmer CM, Dozier N, et
al, eds. Concepts in Oncology Therapeutics. A Self-Instructional Course. Bethesda, Md:
American Society of Hospital Pharmacists; 1991:102.
23. Browman GP. Clinical application of the concept of methotrexate plus 5-FU
sequence dependent synergy: how good is the evidence? Cancer Treat Rep. 1984;68:465-
24. Koh DW, Castro M. Pulmonary toxicity of chemotherapeutic drugs. In: Perry
MC, ed. The Chemotherapy Source Book. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins;
25. Ewer MS, Benjamin RS. Cardiotoxicity of chemotherapeutic drugs. In: Perry MC,
ed. The Chemotherapy Source Book. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1996:654.
26. Lindley CM, Bernard S, Fields SM. Incidence and duration of chemotherapyinduced
nausea and vomiting in the outpatient oncology population. J Clin Oncol.
27. Gralla RJ, Navari RM, Hesketh PJ, et al. Single-dose oral granisetron has
equivalent antiemetic efficacy to intravenous ondansetron for highly emetogenic
cisplatin-based chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16: 1568-1573.
28. Perez EA, Hesketh PJ, Sandbach J, et al. Comparison of single-dose oral
granisetron versus intravenous ondansetron in the prevention of nausea and vomiting
induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy: a multicenter, double-blind,
randomized parallel study. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:754-760.
29. Kris MG, Gralla RJ, Tyson LB, et al. Controlling delayed vomiting: double-blind,
randomized trial comparing placebo, dexamethasone alone, and metoclopramide plus
dexamethasone in patients receiving cisplatin. J Clin Oncol. 1989;7:108-114.
30. Singh SS, Cartmell A, Caldwell J. Efficacy and tolerance of low dose
dexamethasone in combination with granisetron for prophylaxis of emesis with high dose
cisplatin containing chemotherapy. Int Pharm Abstracts. 1998;35:2284.