Dear Professor and Vice Chancellor Schmidt
I write as a mother of a son who had osteogenic sarcoma with secondary lung metastases. I appeal to you to consider the consequences of the recent court action against the parents of Dominik Feld, who is a young boy with osteo sarcoma.
Had we as a family been aware of Cellular Medicine in 1988 we too would have pursued it as an integrated approach to the healing of the body. Our son, who was diagnosed at 17 and died 5 months later at 18 years of age, by his choice ceased the administration of cytotoxins. His own oncologist stated to him that he (the doctor) would never have chemotherapy. Upon seeing the devastating effects upon the physical wellbeing of my son after the administration of Cisplatin, he dropped to his knees, placed his hands on my son's lap and said "I have done this to you - I am sorry".
There is no scientific research available to say that chemotherapy or a specific regime of such, saves the life of a patient with osteogenic sarcoma. It is trial and error in each case.
Though being legally in our care at 17 we gave our son the right to choose about his treatments. He chose to have his leg amputated as the orthopaedic surgeon suggested - the reasoning behind his recommendation being 'aesthetic'. A second opinion from a world renowned orthopaedic surgeon stated that most of his patients died not from the cancer but from the chemotherapy administered. Later discussions with other surgeons after the death of our son, disclosed that they would never have recommended amputation given our son's position.
Throughout this 5 months my son was open to all the possible complementary health options of which we became aware. He chose to take high doses of multivitamins, pursued an organic non-meat (fish included) high vegetable and fruit diet rich in fresh juices, and meditated daily. He believed it was about healing the whole body - not just removing the symptoms that were indicative that something was amiss within his body.
To deny the right of a parent to love and care for their child is to deny the rights of that child. To use the testimony of people with ONE perspective on the treatment and healing of the human body is to deny the existence of proven alternative perspectives . In a court of law surely all proof needs to be submitted upon which to make an informed decision.
To remove a child from the custody of his parents through such a traumatic situation, removes the rights of that child to be in a loving environment where absolutely no-one else has the interests of that child at heart more than the loving parents. He is not a number to them, not a statistic, not a guinea pig, not a faceless body - but their own flesh and blood. They are driven to protect him from harm. They have no vested interest apart from to see their son in good health.
I cannot imagine the devastating consequences on my son, of a court of law claiming that I was not to be a part of his decision making process around his own body. The anxiety and anger would have added to the stress his body was already under.
Any health management process needs to be about the well-being of the person involved - not about power and political point scoring.
This is an eight year old boy who needs his family, to ensure that if he has any chance of surviving this very aggressive disease, to be walking beside him all the way - that he is not alone. He does not need to be facing this future without them and their unconditional love.
Should the journey of this little boy be such that he is to die (and statistically it would seem that this is a very real possible outcome of this cancer with such secondaries, no matter what regime has been administered), he needs to know his family is beside him . To be able to die in peace is what we all wish for our loved ones. Even more so as a parent of a child, when the normal process of life is being turned upside down and that child is to predecease the parent. The conflict being created around this family will certainly not ensure that Dominik is able to find peace within his mind, body or soul.
I plead with you to intervene in this case and grant the parents the right to pursue the best balance of healing they can for their son.
In faith and trust of the people with the power to ultimately make the right decision for Dominik, not that of the medical and pharmaceutical fraternities.
Australia
-----------------------------------------
Dear Sir,
It is time that the medical field caught up with all of the clinical proof available to us all which proves that natural therapies work. I support this letter from Dr. Rath completely. It is only a matter of time before the whole world knows about these proofs being self-evident.
Please take the appropriate honourable action and allow Dominik Feld to continue his recovery by natural means.
Regards
Australia
-----------------------------------------
Dr Rath is right, of course. You know it (if not, it's an even worse case), and we know it. Nobody forced you to be a doctor, so stick to your oath!
Hungary
-----------------------------------------
Dear Professor Schmidt,
I hope you will listen to Dr. Rath's open letter and to the voice of all the people like me who urge you to take position for the right to choose the way we want to be cured.
I am sure that Dr. Heribert Jurgens is convinced of doing something good, but none of us has the right to use force on others only because he thinks he is doing something good.
Freedom, I believe, comes first. Many in the past have died to get freedom for us today, in western civilised countries. Even if Dr. Jurgens were right, he has not the right to force a cure on little Dominik: either he can be really and honestly convincing to him and his parents or he must let them choose freely, even if this could imply the death of this poor little boy. Death is anyway at risk and I think it is really cruel what Dr Jurgens has done, and not only cruel but irresponsible. We all know that recovery very much depends on so many factors and I cannot imagine how Dominik can feel being taken from his parents custody and forced to medical treatment they don't approve of.
If Dr. Jurgens REALLY CARED for his patient he would never have gone to court, there are so many other ways to help. It is sad that the court gave way to his requests, this shows that we are facing a social problem. Which are today our values? Which are the distorted values that can bring us to such court sentences that can bring us to such decisions without considering what all this can mean for a boy, for his family?
I DO HOPE that YOU WILL, as Vice-Chancellor of Munster University, do all is in your power to foster freedom in medical research and also freedom for patients to choose how they want to be cured. I hope you will work to make it clear that behaviours such as those of Dr. Jurgens are unethical and unacceptable. Doctors' duty is to help and to find acceptable ways to help, always in the interest of patients, without lacking in respect toward their needs and their specific personality. Doctors are not soldiers, I'm afraid Dr. Rath is right in asking that Dr. Jurgens be suspended.
Please do all you can to solve this sad situation with humanity and honesty
yours sincerely
Italy
-----------------------------------------
I believe that in a democracy you should have the right to choose to be a lacky of the pharmaceutical cartels. Good luck with your quest to eradicate the threats that exist to these cartel interests. Clearly Dominik is a threat. After you've killed him with chemo at least you can claim that your work was a success because the cancer was destroyed.
Best Wishes and Merry Xmas.
Australia
-----------------------------------------
Dear Professor Schmidt,
I call upon you to support the appeal of Dr. Matthias Rath, to return Dominik Feld to his parents and not to allow Professor Heribert Jürgens to use or order chemotherapy or surgery for this boy. It is the parents' and the boy's right to refuse standard oncological procedures, and it is their right to pursue alternative remedies. Dr. Rath's natural cellular health regimen has been effective in thousands of cancer cases, even after chemotherapy and radiation have failed. Please give this boy the chance to live. He did not respond well to chemotherapy, and invasive lung surgery at his age is extremely dangerous. The cellular regimen appears to be working in his case; it is the first regimen to show long-term effectiveness against metastases. If this boy is denied this natural regimen, and he then dies in the care of Dr. Heribert Jürgens, the charge of murder would be quite appropriate. The reputation and future of your university is at stake. Please return Dominik Feld to his parents immediately.
Sincerely,
USA
-----------------------------------------
Dear Sir,
Poor Dominik has right to live. No body on earth can deny him this right and no body on earth should be allowed to act God. If the bone cancer of dear Dominik is getting cured with Cellular Medicine (Natural Medicine) as claimed by Dr. Rath, then Dominik must be allowed to continue that line of treatment. Who are we to deny him right to life? Can Dr. Heribert Jurgens can guaranty that Dominik will be fully cured with his line of treatment and lead a normal life? If not then why to stop Dominik or his parents from under taking alternative line of treatment? which is showing signs of improvement in his disease. No Physician on earth should be allowed to force his line of treatment on patients. Patient or his parents / guardians must have the right to informed choices as far as the line of treatment is concerned. In my opinion this is natural justice.
With regards.
UK
-----------------------------------------
Dear Professor Schmidt,
I am writing this e-mail in support of the open letter from Dr. Rath. I am deeply disturbed by the interference of the German State in the personal lives of its citizens. This is especially true in the case when the alternative treatment chosen has Scientific basis for being used. Is it the intention of the Münster university to torture Dominik Feld with a form of treatment which may in the end at best may only extend his life for a short period of time, or at the worst kill him in the process. Is this the wisdom of medical science?
My conclusion concerning the present state of research carried out by medical science in the area of cancer, is that the only reason large double blinded highly planned statistically trials are necessary is that the results are so poor that they need sophisticated analysis methods to demonstrate benefit. Why not start measuring cancer treatments by a much higher standard. Not a few months of survival, but rather long term healing. If this were the standard, a large number of conventional treatments would be immediately discarded.
I trust that this unjust decision will be reconsidered.
Sincerely,
Canada
-----------------------------------------
I as a general medical practitioner fully agree that everybody should have the right to choose the modality of their treatment, whatever it may be or whatever the person conceives as being correct for them. This is an inalienable right of the person or their guardian as it is their person ,their soul, their body which is being treated and nobody else has the right to interfere in this decision. Whether or not a person makes a correct or otherwise decision in terms of the prevailing trend is immaterial and by taking away this right it is assumed that somebody else knows better which entails the assumption that a person is too stupid to make his or her own decision but "big brother " is wiser!!!!
This is not only extremely arrogant, but it infringes the persons freedom of choice and any institution who allows the infringement of the person's free choice is dictatorial and cannot be seen to act in the interest of the patient. I as a general medical practitioner allow my patients to explore any avenue, conventional or unconventional as I regard myself as an assistant to their health and not their dictator and to enforce a treatment without their consent is equivalent to raping their body, mind and soul.
As one day we will be responsible for our action what defence can we have for dictatorially enforcing our opinion which is merely based on a prevailing trend? Respect their decision, they take responsibility for their action, stand back and be generous and kind.
South Africa
-----------------------------------------
Dear Professor Schmidt
I urge you to deeply consider and then fully investigate the information recently presented to you via Dr Raths "Open Letter" on cancer.
The world is waking up to the attrocities perpetrated on humanity by the worldwide pharmaceutical industry and its eyes are turning to its various leaders in expectation of rapid, decisive and effective action.
You have now been made aware of the mass-murdering realities driving the cancer industry and the eyes of many are now upon you with hope and expectation. How will history record your response Mr Schmidt?
Meantime, please help Dominik recover his health-choice freedoms. His young life depends on it.
Take care and God bless.
UK
-----------------------------------------
I have full support for Dr. Mathias Rath in his battle with pharmaceutical companies and other financial giants who are using human body as a marketplace and doing business with disease. I have full support for the right to choose the desired treatment for every one as well as Little Dominik who has bone cancer. Please use your objective mind and try to look at these cases objectively, I am sure if you use your scientific mind you will be able to see that Dr. Rath is completely right in his claims about all disease as well as cancer.
Open yourself to love and mercy
Turkey
Back to top of document