***Preface: There is great opportunity for positive change in our society if we are able to learn from our shortcomings. We all have them. Granted, the collective shortcomings oftentimes stand out more than the individual ones. It is helpful to assume that decisions that are made to “protect” others are made with best intentions in mind. Arguably, however, if the decisions are actually made out of self-protection, legally, financially, or emotionally, the desire to protect is still operative. Therefore, we can choose compassionately to not fault another for acting out of protection for self or other. We can also firmly call attention to facts with compassion , even if we disagree with certain behaviors and decisions that have been made to date. The following is an attempt to do so in the case of Cassandra C.***
One can assume that the State of Connecticut’s decision makers are trying to protect Cassandra C. from going down a path to an early grave with the “we must protect her from making a decision that could end her life prematurely” mantra. Some, on Fox News, even went so far as to liken the State’s role in forcing chemotherapy on Cassandra C. to that of preventing a suicidal person from jumping off a building to her demise.
A different stance, however, is to liken the State’s role to one of passively observing a rape and doing nothing to stop it. Forcing a person to ingest or take something into one’s body that the person does not want is an outrageous act akin to rape. We can hear similarities in Cassandra’s own statements in her 1/8/15 op-ed piece to the Hartford Courant:
“I felt trapped…I was strapped to a bed by my wrists and ankles and sedated. I woke up in the recovery room with a port surgically placed in my chest. I was outraged and felt completely violated. My phone was taken away, the hospital phone was removed from my room…"
Let’s look at the arguments for forcing chemo on Cassandra C.
The State is saying she is too young at 17 years old to make an informed decision about her body and how she would like to treat her diagnosis of Hodgkin’s lymphoma. However, since her mother is in agreement with Cassandra’s decision, then should not the mother’s determination be the deciding factor in this case?
Another argument is that she needs the chemotherapy or else she will die. If this were actually true, it would make a much stronger case for forcing a treatment on someone, although still clearly a human rights violation, but, it’s not true at all. Here’s the evidence:
As was clearly stated in the outcome of a meta-analysis published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, Volume 16, 2004, entitled, “The Contribution of Cytotoxic Chemotherapy to 5-year Survival in Adult Malignancies”, chemotherapy has an overall failure rate of 97%. That means it appears to improve 5-year survival in only 3% of cancer cases.
Let’s play “chemo advocate” for a moment and isolate the Hodgkin’s lymphoma results from that study. The highest rate of 5-year survival for chemo users in that study was actually for those with Hodgkin’s lymphoma with a 40.3%. Many might assume that that’s wonderful news and applaud the efficacy of chemo for its specific application to Hodgkin’s disease. That would be an uninformed assumption however. We might ask why there is also a similarly higher survival rate at 37.7%, compared to the overall 3%, for testicular cancer, for example.
The answer to that very valid question is clearly explained by a little-known science known as German New Medicine, or GNM. It was first presented in 1981 by the German medical doctor named Dr. med. Ryke Geerd Hamer, and more information about it can be found at LearningGNM.com. It unequivocally explains the nature of cancer and other illnesses and shows that all “diseases” are actually functional responses of the body that follow a two-phase process.
“Old brain”-controlled organs and tissues show cell growth, a.k.a. cancer, in the first phase of an active emotional conflict and cell breakdown in the second, or, healing phase. “New brain”-controlled organs and tissues show cell breakdown in the first phase of an active emotional conflict and cell growth, i.e., cancer, in the second, or healing phase. It turns out that the cells involved in the lymph nodes and the testes are “new brain” controlled.
Therefore, by the time a person gets diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma or testicular cancer, both with “new brain”-controlled cells, they are already in the healing phase. The cancerous growth, i.e., the replenishment of the lost cells, is the healing! On the other hand, in the “old brain”-controlled organs and tissues, chemo actually amplifies the cell growth if applied during the “conflict active” phase. This explains why we see abysmally low survival rates for the majority of the 22 types of cancer in the study, with 9 of the types revealing 0% survival outcomes. It also answers the question as to why it "appears" that chemo works better for some cancers than for others.
In light of the above, the State of Connecticut is unintentionally playing Russian roulette with Cassandra’s C’s life, since with a 40.3% potential survival rate with chemo, there is still a 59.7% chance that she wouldn’t survive even if given chemo. And, if the evidence that GNM affords us is taken into the account, the reality is that the survival rate with Hodgkin’s lymphoma could potentially be closer to 100% if no chemo were used at all!
The next question must then logically be, “Why isn’t the medical profession practicing GNM-informed medicine?” The answer is at once both a simple, and yet, complex one. In short, medical professionals haven’t been taught GNM. Many have never even heard of it. The reason they are not educated about it is where the answer gets more complex and hypothetical. The curriculum taught in any educational institution is largely controlled by those with financial power. GNM poses a monumental threat to the profits of the pharmaceutical and cancer industries especially since it has a reputed 96% success rate for cancer cases.
The benefit of the doubt can be given to the State of Connecticut’s decision makers involved in Cassandra C.’s case, as perhaps this information was not known to them at the time of her “medical kidnapping”. With new information on the table, it would appear very wise and humane for the State to release Cassandra from having to undergo any further chemotherapy and to have her placed back in the custody of her mother.
GNM informs us about the potential outcome of Cassandra’s health, given the emotional conflicts and treatments she’s been undergoing. If released, she will most likely experience symptoms that will appear as if she’s worsening. The uninformed will attribute them to her having come off of chemo. Keeping Cassandra in a situation that is not optimal to her healing is to harm her further. The quicker she can be returned to her mother and taken off of a harmful drug she does not want, the quicker the rest of her healing can occur.
On behalf of a young woman whose body has been violated and whose voice has been silenced, this writer asks the State of Connecticut to “Please, free Cassandra”.
Written by Lauren Sonnenberg, LMHC, D.PSc, MCAP, psychotherapist, wellness consultant and founder of LifeCore, a private practice in Miami, FL, specializing in the treatment of the emotional aspects of chronic pain and serious illness. 305-396-6360 * www.LifeCoreOnline.com * LifeCore, Inc., is not a physician’s office and Lauren Sonnenberg, LMHC, D.PSc, CAP, is not a medical doctor (MD) and therefore cannot make medical diagnoses, treat medical conditions, or prescribe medications. Any information presented here is strictly educational and is not a replacement for medical advice.