Pray for Katie

Katie is 13 years old and was diagnosed with Hodgkin's Disease, a lymphatic cancer. This site is a request to pray for her. Call her prayer pager 1-361-333-KATY (5289), enter your ZipCode and # key, to let her know you have prayed for her. Updates of her progress will be posted on the site. The Power of Prayer is Awesome.

Saturday, December 31, 2005

Katie in Hawaii

Katie and I are spending two weeks in Hawaii learning and undergoing a nutritional program for cancer and a detoxification program for the previous chemotherapy she received. It is a difficult program. Maybe not the most enjoyable way to spend the holidays for a 13 year old girl. The weather in Hawaii is nice with 68 to 83 degree days. We have been out sight seeing for about 2 hours a day this last week. The scenery and beaches are beautiful. We even went swimming in a warm water pool warmed by a volcano right on the beach front. It was a once in a lifetime experience for both of us. A very special thanks to Tom, Crystal, Karen and Sandy for getting us over here.

Texas Monthly ran an article on Katie and the whole ordeal in the January 2006 issue. Check it out below. I am sorry there have not been more updates but evil eyes are watching everything we do. Katie is doing well and feeling good. We will have some more tests done in January after we return. Then we should know more.

We are still accepting donations to help with the legal and medical bills at Thanks to Tony and Laureen at Compassion Children for providing this service.

Happy New Year to all.


Monday, December 26, 2005

Whose Life Is It Anyway? - Texas Monthly Magazine

Texas Monthly Magazine January 2006
Katy Vine

Whose Life Is It Anyway?

When Edward and Michele Wernecke rejected standard medical treatment for their cancer-stricken daughter, the state took twelve-year-old Katie out of their custody—and set off a nationwide debate over the meaning of parents’ rights.

ON THE SATURDAY BEFORE HALLOWEEN, Edward Wernecke stood in his kitchen, thumbing through a stack of file folders filled with photocopies and Internet printouts of medical articles. The solemn 53-year-old rancher was indifferent to the flies that buzzed around the room and landed once in a while on his face and white Resistol. Edward’s wife, 37-year-old Michele, stood nearby. Despite the cheering crescendos of the couple’s 3-, 5-, and 14-year-old sons, who chased a toy monster truck through the hallways, Michele and Edward seemed unruffled. It was hard to know whether they were intensely focused or simply dazed.

Speaking in a methodical, relaxed monotone, Edward laid out his family’s ten-month-long ordeal, a story made famous by TV reports and newspaper headlines. It had all started the previous December, when Edward and Michele’s twelve-year-old daughter, Katie, had developed a severe cough. It had seemed like bronchitis, but on January 7, when her breathing grew labored, Edward took Katie to the emergency room. The news he received was devastating: A fifteen-by-eighteen-centimeter mass in Katie’s chest was choking her. By eight o’clock that night, she had been diagnosed with Hodgkin’s disease, a cancer of the lymph nodes. “Talk about your world stopping,” Michele said. “All I could think is that my baby has cancer and she’s dying.”

The Werneckes would barely have time for heartache. Instead, they soon found themselves entrenched in a prolonged legal battle. When they refused doctor-recommended radiation treatment for Katie, fearing its toxic side effects, she was removed from their custody by Child Protective Services. Taken from their ranch in Banquete, thirty miles west of Corpus Christi, their daughter spent the summer being shuttled between M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, in Houston, and a nearby foster home. In early fall, when doctors worried that Edward was still impeding Katie’s treatment, a judge in Corpus Christi severed Edward’s communication with her altogether.

The case garnered national attention. Parents around the country were surprised to learn that if they dismissed a doctor’s recommendation, their child could be taken from them. But that is indeed the case. In Texas, losing custody of a child in such situations is unusual but not unheard of. While the most-common instances involve religious objections, such as the refusal of blood transfusions by Christian Scientists or Jehovah’s Witnesses—which legally constitutes medical neglect—the state has also intervened when religion has played no part in the failure to comply with the prescribed care for a minor. In a well-publicized case in 1996, for example, Fort Worth ten-year-old Rachel Stout found herself at the center of a custody battle with CPS when her family whisked her off to Canada for alternative treatment to a life-saving colectomy. Ultimately, Rachel was given court-ordered surgery and returned to her parents. University of Texas at Austin law professor Jack Sampson says that this is typical of cases he has seen, though he doesn’t see as many as he used to. Often, he says, “if the parents have talked to a lawyer, they know they’ll lose.”

In the case of the Werneckes, the question of medical neglect was perhaps the murkiest the state had seen. F. Scott McCown, the executive director for Austin’s Center for Public Policy Priorities and a retired state district court judge who has handled more than two thousand child abuse cases, says, “You either say children are the property of the parents, or you say there is a point at which parents don’t get to make decisions. If you go the second route, you have to leave it up to judges to decide the child’s fate. It’s almost impossible from a distance to find out whether the decision is right or not. Even when you have the facts, sometimes it’s difficult to say what’s the right thing to do.”

In October the Texas Supreme Court had finally restored supervised meetings, and Edward was excited now to have scheduled a reunion for October 30, his first chance to see his daughter in six weeks. When Michele received a call on her cell phone to confirm the appointment, Edward watched as she paced the kitchen. Their five-year-old had come down with strep throat, which they knew might complicate their meeting with Katie. Michele put the phone to her shoulder to consult with Edward.

“This is the social worker,” she said matter-of-factly. “She wants to know if we’re coming. I told them we might not be able to, and now Katie is crying. What do I tell her?”

“Any trace of strep could kill her after her chemo treatment,” Edward replied.

“Should I say that?” she asked.

Edward stared silently at the kitchen counter for a minute, then said, “My parents could take the boys, but they’re so old the strep could kill them too.”

“Well, the social worker needs to know if we’re coming. Should I call them back?”

He nodded yes.

THE WERNECKES HAD ALWAYS been a busy family, and the kids had had the run of the ranch while Michele managed a feed store in nearby Kingsville and Edward worked cattle. Once in a while, Edward and Michele’s lax supervision caused concern, like the time a CPS worker found Katie and her older brother wandering near a road. But Edward and Michele considered their children independent, not like smothered city kids. Katie was a precocious, freckle-faced Bible-drill champ, the valedictorian of her seventh-grade class, and when her hacking cough had worsened around New Year’s Day, she’d done her best to ignore it, reluctant to ruin her perfect school-attendance record with a trip to the clinic. When Edward finally took her to Driscoll Children’s Hospital, in Corpus Christi, he wasn’t surprised by her confident response to the diagnosis. “This is just a bump in the road,” she reassured her family. “It’s only cancer.”

Edward was less optimistic. He staggered through the halls of the hospital in tears after Dr. Nejemie Alter, Katie’s pediatric hematologist-oncologist, told him that she might have died of suffocation within 24 hours had she not come in. Given the right treatment, however, she would have an 80 to 95 percent chance of recovery. Edward called Michele that night from the hospital to explain the treatment options for a child with Hodgkin’s disease: either four rounds of chemotherapy or two rounds of chemotherapy followed by radiation.

In late April, there was good news. After four rounds of chemo, Katie’s PET scan showed no active cancer. Edward felt victorious. So when Alter suggested following up with radiation from Katie’s neck to her diaphragm to ensure the cancer’s eradication, Edward hesitated. Since his daughter’s diagnosis, he’d been combing the Internet for articles on Hodgkin’s and its cures, and what he’d learned about radiation disturbed him. With a doctorate in agriculture from Texas A&M University, he prided himself on being an independent thinker. One article in the New England Journal of Medicine, written by Vincent DeVita, the former director of the National Cancer Institute, said that radiotherapy “by itself increases the risk of late second solid tumors in the irradiated field and the incidence rises steeply when radiotherapy and chemotherapy are combined.” Radiation, it turned out, could stunt Katie’s growth, make her sterile, and increase her chances of getting breast cancer.

Requests to avoid radiation, Edward learned, are not unusual when there are viable alternatives. When cyclist Lance Armstrong, for example, was diagnosed with testicular cancer, he decided against conventional radiation in favor of customized therapy. Emboldened by his research, Edward requested another oncologist’s opinion. Alter referred Katie to a pediatric oncologist in Corpus Christi, then suggested oncologists in McAllen, San Antonio, and Houston. But Edward was skeptical, worried that anyone whom Alter referred would of course parrot the standard treatment.

The Werneckes dragged their feet. It was hard to justify subjecting their daughter to radiation if the cancer was inactive. Alter’s worries, meanwhile, escalated with each idle day. In his mind, the Werneckes’ hesitancy was not only disastrous; according to state law, it constituted medical neglect, as defined by the Texas Family Code: “the failure to seek, obtain, or follow through with medical care for the child, with the failure resulting in or presenting a substantial risk of death, disfigurement, or bodily injury or with the failure resulting in an observable and material impairment to the growth, development, or functioning of the child.” In early May Alter called CPS. “[Edward] was reluctant to take his daughter for radiation treatment,” he would later testify in court. “That’s when I had to call [the state].”

CPS investigator Kim Garcia, hearing that the Werneckes showed no intention of making a radiation appointment, issued an ultimatum: Make the appointment by May 31 or the state will remove Katie from your custody. On June 1, when the Werneckes had still not scheduled an appointment, Garcia drove out to Banquete for Katie. But she was too late. Michele and Katie were already roaming the coast in search of a hiding place.

When Garcia pulled up to the house with two police officers, Edward tried to bar the door, but they forced him aside. “She’s not here,” he insisted as they checked rooms and closets. Garcia took note of the house: Stacks of paper from that year’s tax returns were piled around the living room. Unwashed dishes and Katie’s medicine sat on the kitchen counter alongside livestock syringes (Edward claims they were sealed with plastic caps). Before leaving, she filled out a report stating that the house was a safety hazard. As Edward read the paperwork, officers loaded his stunned boys into a car and issued an Amber Alert for Katie. He paced his empty house for days. “It was a completely devastating feeling,” he said.

Within two weeks, CPS had found Katie hiding at a relative’s ranch and taken her into state custody; the boys were returned home. As Katie spent the summer at M.D. Anderson, Edward and Michele went to court repeatedly to fight the state and get her back. They also worked to publicize their cause, igniting debates nationwide over parents’ rights and medical decisions. Talking to Katie Couric on the Today show, Michele said, “Treat her for what her body calls for and not standard protocol.” Edward’s blog,, received thousands of hits. Letters poured in to the Corpus Christi Caller-Times, some giving voice to the question that was on every parent’s mind. As one Washington woman put it, “Does this mean that all of us must now abdicate our rights to decide our own methods of medical treatment and let the state decide?” Soon the Werneckes would be petitioning Governor Rick Perry for a meeting, broadcasting their plea on area billboards: “Katie Wernecke wants to go home to her parents.”

ON JUNE 10 THE WERNECKES listened in shock as a radiologist reported in court that Katie’s cancer had returned, her chances of recovery now down to 50 percent. Though Katie needed her parents’ support more than ever, their access continued to be monitored; when they visited at M.D. Anderson, guards followed them everywhere. The presiding judge in Corpus Christi, Carl Lewis, was torn. Medical neglect cases rely heavily on a judge’s discretion, and his information on Katie was constantly changing. At the court hearings throughout the following weeks, CPS argued for radiation based on the opinions of Katie’s M.D. Anderson doctors, including pediatric oncologist Robert Wells. Sometimes radiation can be avoided, he explained in court testimony, but “with patients like Katie, with [a] large mass, the relapse rate is fifty percent. That’s why chemo-only wasn’t considered.” While it was a sound argument, Lewis was eager to hear the Werneckes’ proposal. But even though they had been campaigning against radiation—going so far as to threaten Katie’s radiologist with a lawsuit—they offered few alternatives in the courtroom. Still, Lewis remained open-minded: He would let two independent Hodgkin’s disease specialists review Katie’s medical records for a hearing in early September before making a decision.

By the time of the hearing, however, the family’s lawyers didn’t have the necessary opinions. “We couldn’t find a doctor to testify on our behalf,” Luis Corona, the Werneckes’ local counsel, would explain later. “The problem was, we couldn’t have her examined because she was in state custody. A lot of doctors don’t want to go against conventional treatments. They didn’t want to get involved in the controversy.” It was a costly holdup; the judge could not evaluate a nonexistent alternative. After almost half a dozen hearings, and with no viable options to consider, Lewis had had enough. “This isn’t poker,” he said. “I’m not waiting anymore. Every hour we wait is an hour that’s critical to this child’s life.”

Katie had had enough too. After months of hearing the side effects of high-dose chemo, she’d made a choice herself: She was not going to take the next scheduled round. Refusing to cooperate with nurses or doctors, she pulled the catheters out of her shoulder and drank a soda when she was told it would interfere with the procedure. Alarmed, Lewis met with Katie in person, alone. Three days later, on September 19, he told the Werneckes that their disapproval of standard protocol was affecting Katie’s cooperation. “How long are we going to do” he pleaded. Lewis cut off all communication between Edward and Katie; Michele would be allowed visits provided she sign a contract in which she’d agree to encourage doctors’ recommendations. Immediately after the hearing, Lewis underwent open-heart surgery for a torn aorta. He signed the orders the next morning in his recovery bed.

ON OCTOBER 31 EDWARD CARRIED a box full of files into the courtroom. As he silently approached his place across the aisle from CPS workers and lawyers, he wore the same grave expression he had shown in newspaper photos. Michele smiled and bounced a little as she talked. She and Edward had found a way to visit Katie the previous day after all, and Katie had seemed to be in good spirits. With Lewis recovering from his surgery, a new judge, Jack Hunter, was presiding, and Michele was optimistic that she’d finally get Katie back for good.

Hunter had made it clear before the hearing that he wasn’t going to rehash who did what to whom, stating, “My job is to save this baby, and I’m going to do it.” He admonished the lawyers when they traded accusations about Katie’s condition. “Let’s say you’re right, and in nine months we find you’re right and the child has died,” he said. “Every hour [we argue] is one less she has to live.”

Katie’s chances of beating Hodgkin’s had now slipped to 20 percent. Although she had resumed chemotherapy, her doctors attributed the relapse to her unwillingness to stay on their treatment schedule. Edward and Michele, who blamed the doctors for her deteriorating condition, had an alternative to suggest. A doctor in Wichita, Kansas, at the Center for the Improvement of Human Functioning International, would give Katie vitamin C treatments as a next step. After lengthy arguments by the lawyers about guarantees and “true treatment plans,” Dr. Wells testified via speakerphone, urging Katie’s continued treatment at M.D. Anderson. “Two times when the therapy stopped, the disease has come back within a month,” he said. “If Katie leaves for a month...I’m afraid she’ll have a recurrence, and I don’t know if I’d have any therapies that can help her...At some point you run out of time...At some point this disease will be incurable.”

Finally, Hunter asked for Katie on speakerphone. Her voice was weak, and she sounded tired. “Do you feel like everyone is pulling on you?” he asked.

“Kinda,” she said.

“What do you want to do?”

“I want to go home.”

“Do you want to talk to a doctor in Wichita?”


“We’ve all gotten off whack,” Hunter said after the final arguments. “The court is of the opinion to dismiss the department.” Katie could return home.

EMERGING FROM THE HOSPITAL on November 3, Katie shrunk from the press as she stood between her parents, looking pale in the bright sun. She stared at the ground and answered only a few questions. “I’m feeling better,” she told the Caller-Times. “It was very boring and kind of lonely without my parents.” Edward, for the first time in a while, was smiling. “Today,” his lawyer’s press release read, “all Texas parents have achieved a substantial victory protecting their rights to decide how their children will be cared for when a medical crisis occurs.”

It will be a while before anyone knows the measure of victory. Lingering questions about the wisdom of the CPS intervention, the doctors’ persistence, and the Werneckes’ determination can only be answered by Katie’s outcome. Given the many variables, any family-law attorneys hoping to learn hard-and-fast rules from a case like this will be disappointed.

Although Judge Hunter had asked that Katie return to M.D. Anderson for follow-up treatment, Edward canceled all of Katie’s appointments at the facility. At home, Katie received vitamin C injections from a registered nurse, and that alone would be her treatment until further notice.

“Dr. Wells called me the other day,” Edward said in November, as Katie received her treatments in the next room. “He said that if Katie doesn’t get radiation, she’ll die. I told him we were in another doctor’s care. I said, ‘Why do you ask? Are you thinking of turning us in to CPS again?’”

The answer, Edward was surprised to hear, was yes.

Find this article at:

Saturday, December 24, 2005

Prayer Vigil for Katie Tonight

A prayer vigil for the healing of Katie Wernecke is being held on December 24th at 6:00pm 7:00pm 8:00pm and 9:00pm across this country. New York to California and Wisconsin to Texas and Utah to Florida. Ohio, North and South Carolina, and Texas. Join us for prayer for the complete healing of Katie Wernecke on Christmas Eve. We are united in prayer with one voice and one purpose. Thanks to Arthur and Sharon Raiche in South Carolina for making this happen and the many gifts.


Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Radiation Risk From CT Scans

Radiation Risk From CT Scans: A Call for Patient-Focused Imaging Posted 01/26/2005

Richard C. Semelka, MD Editor's Note:Richard Semelka, MD, is one of the preeminent practitioners of abdominal MRI in the United States and is a frequent contributor to Medscape Radiology..

Hippocrates is credited with the expression "First, do no harm" (ca 460-ca 377 B.C.), which has become the oath of all physicians in their doctoral graduation. The radiology community adheres to the fundamental precept of ALARA (as low as reasonably achievable) in order to limit patients' exposure to harmful radiation."First, Do No Harm": The Present-Day Fallacy.

In recent years, there has been an increased awareness of the rights of patients and their need for information and protection. Despite this, one egregious example in which patients are not provided sufficient information to make informed decisions on their healthcare involves the limited information provided to them on diagnostic imaging tools, including their merits and potential adverse effects. A recent article in the radiology literature describes how patients are generally not informed about the potential deleterious effects of radiation exposure related to undergoing computed tomographic (CT) investigation.[1] Only 7% of patients stated that they were informed about the risks and benefits of the examination, and only 3% reported that they were informed about the increased lifetime cancer risk associated with CT. Referring emergency physicians were also largely unaware that there were any potential harmful effects from the radiation exposure, with only 9% aware of the increased cancer risk. Of even greater concern is the fact that the majority of the radiologists performing the CT examinations considered the radiation exposure of limited concern and were unaware of the amount of radiation delivered to the patient with CT. Only 47% of radiologists were cognizant of the increased risk for cancer associated with CT. The article stopped short of describing a further inadequacy of the information provided, in that the patients were not made aware that alternative, less harmful imaging techniques were available, notably, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).Why Perform CT When MRI Is Safer -- and Perhaps Better. MRI is an imaging modality that is considerably safer than CT on the basis of a number of factors, of which radiation exposure is perhaps the most serious. In addition, MRI may actually be much more accurate in describing disease. Although MRI is recognized to be superior to CT in a number of organ systems, a recent pivotal article also has shown that screening MRI of the entire body may be as accurate or more accurate than individual "gold-standard" diagnostic investigations of individual organ systems.[2] The accuracy of modern MRI to evaluate the full range of organ systems should cause reevaluation of how different imaging investigations should be used to ensure the welfare of patients and optimize their care.CT Scanning: More Harm Than Good?It is beyond question that radiation delivered by x-ray-based imaging modalities has deleterious health effects.[3-7] The problem is that an exact quantification of these harmful effects is difficult to ascertain -- which explains why physicians in general have not been overly concerned about the radiation related to CT investigation. One prior study, however, described the increased risk of breast cancer in patients who are women who received serial spine x-rays for the investigation of scoliosis,[5] and another study described the increased incidence of leukemia in patients who underwent serial radiographic examination during childhood.[8] One of the most recent of these articles[4] estimates that, per year, diagnostic x-ray use in the United States causes .9% of the cumulative risk of cancer to age 75 in men and women, equivalent to 5695 cases. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) estimates that a CT examination with an effective dose of 10 millisieverts (mSv), for example, 1 CT examination of the abdomen, may be associated with an increase in the possibility of fatal cancer of approximately 1 chance in 2000 ( statistic becomes even more alarming if one considers the potential public health problem, when one contemplates that 60 million CT scans are performed per year in the United States.[9] The pediatric population represents an especially vulnerable group of patients at increased risk for cancer development secondary to low-level ionizing radiation. Recent studies show that 600,000 abdominal and head CT examinations annually in children under the age of 15 years could result in 500 deaths from cancer attribute to CT radiation.[10] These estimates are terrifying and particularly tragic if safe, alternative radiology modalities are available.Balancing Risks and BenefitsIt has been more than 50 years since physicians had direct physical evidence of the dangers of radiation exposure,[11,12] which is older than the career experience of even the most senior practicing physicians. The understandable excitement that current practicing radiologists experience with the increased imaging capability of modern multidetector CT is therefore not tempered with the direct experience of the harmful effects of excessive radiation exposure. Techniques that employ modern multidetector CT technology, multiphase contrast-enhanced CT of the liver or kidneys, and CT urography are generally performed with the intention of acquiring sufficient data to provide maximal image quality and diagnostic information, but often without enough attention paid to limiting radiation exposure. Attention has been directed in a number of reports to diminish the amount of radiation delivered by CT studies in settings, such as pediatric CT studies or lung screening studies.[13] At the same time, it is clear that often radiation settings are not adjusted to lower levels for pediatric patients and small adults.[14]The Case for MRI: Especially in ChildrenIn my opinion, an even better approach is to avoid radiation altogether by performing MRI. As mentioned previously, consideration is not often placed as to whether another technique may provide equivalent diagnostic information with no radiation risk. The fact that modern CT equipment provides highly collimated beams and adjustable milliamperes may serve to even further lower the level of concern of radiologists and referring physicians to the dangers of radiation, and create the sense that CT is risk-free. Serial CT examinations of patients with various long-standing disorders or chronic disease are especially worrisome.Of particular importance is the pediatric patient, a population in which the radiation exposure is directed to developing organs that are extremely radiosensitive, or breast tissue in women. Examples of this circumstance include patients with Crohn's disease or of childhood abdominal malignancies, such as Wilms' tumor or neuroblastoma.Up to now, MRI has often been thought of as an alternative to CT investigation, either in patients who have contraindications to CT (allergy to contrast agents or poor renal function) or in whom CT findings are considered inconclusive. The prudent approach for the future may be a change in the paradigm of imaging investigation to less harmful techniques, with the preferential use of ultrasound (US) or MRI when accuracy of these techniques is approximately equivalent to CT, and CT reserved as a problem-solving modality and for those indications in which CT is clearly superior. CT is clearly superior for the evaluation of primary lung disease, eg, interstitial lung disease, the majority of chest and abdominal trauma, the evaluation of tubes and catheters in postoperative or intensive care patients, and the search for renal calculi.The majority of benign, malignant, and inflammatory diseases are well shown on MRI, and in the hands of experienced practitioners are better elucidated than on CT, including diseases of the spleen, adrenals, kidneys, pancreas, and male and female pelvis. Patients should undergo CT for indications in which CT is clearly superior, including primary lung disease, acute chest and abdomen trauma, the evaluation of tubes and catheters in postoperative and intensive care patients, and the evaluation of urinary tract calculi.Putting Patients FirstPatients should be made aware of the potential harmful effects of CT, including cancer death, allergic events and renal functional impairment with contrast agents, and possible complications of subcutaneous injection and discomfort with large-bore intravenous catheter insertion. Furthermore, they should be made aware that there are safer alternatives, especially MRI, which may in fact be more accurate for the evaluation of many disease processes.[15,16] Image investigation should also be thought of in terms of and categorized as single-use situations, in which exposure to one CT study may not have substantial deleterious health effects, and those circumstances of which serial use is anticipated, in which case effort should be made to using an alternative imaging strategy, such as MRI. In my opinion, one of the greatest potential harms that exists in patient care today is the injudicious use of CT by many physicians, as they unwittingly subject patients to the untoward effects of ionizing radiation. This is especially unfortunate because often MRI may be employed instead, with greater diagnostic accuracy and greater patient comfort. In diagnostic situations in which the diagnostic information of CT is superior to MRI at the present moment, eg, coronary vessel imaging, CT should be treated as the temporary imaging method of choice, until technical improvements in MRI result in an image quality that approaches the consistent accurate information of CT, and at that time replacing CT with MRI as the primary tool for these imaging indications.If we as healthcare workers are truly effective in our roles as protectors and healers of patients, then we have the obligation to inform them of the risks of radiation exposure and other adverse aspects of CT, and provide them with the information that there are alternative imaging modalities that provide comparable or superior diagnostic information. A common sentiment expressed to me by radiologists is that they would do more MRI examinations for various indications, such as liver investigation, but that they do not have enough MRI scanners to serve all of their patients. My response to them is simple: Invest in more MRI systems for the benefit of patients.In summary, although the exact risks of radiation exposure are difficult to accurately quantify, it is inarguable that radiation exposure is dangerous and undesirable. The use of CT should be used judiciously, especially when safer alternatives, namely, MRI or US, exist for the diagnosis of certain disease processes.Whether MRI or US can replace CT for various indications should be continuously reevaluated, including circumstances in which CT is diagnostically more accurate. US or MRI may evolve to achieve similar diagnostic accuracy. For many neurologic and musculoskeletal applications, the evolution of MRI to replace CT has largely taken place. This same effort should be undertaken in other anatomic regions. In my opinion, the superiority of MRI has already been well established in the liver,[15] to the extent that there is very little indication for the use of CT in liver investigation. In experienced radiologists' hands, many other abdominal and pelvic disease procedures are also better studied by MRI.[2,15,16]Toward a New Way of ImagingIn the present healthcare system, it is ironic that considerable energy and financial investment have been directed toward patient-protection practices, such as HIPPA, with little measurable benefit to the health of the patient, while the health risks of radiation from CT proceed unchecked and a lack of guidelines for physicians and information for patients goes unnoticed.
Medscape Radiology 6(1), 2005. © 2005 Medscape

Monday, December 19, 2005

Prayer Vigil for Katie on December 24th Across the Land

A prayer vigil for the healing of Katie Wernecke is being held on December 24th at 6:00pm 7:00pm 8:00pm and 9:00pm across this country. New York to California and Wisconsin to Texas and Utah to Florida. Ohio, North and South Carolina, and Texas. Join us for prayer for the complete healing of Katie Wernecke on Christmas Eve. We are united in prayer with one voice and one purpose. Thanks to Arthur and Sharon Raiche in South Carolina for making this happen and the many gifts.


Sunday, December 18, 2005

Chemotherapy and Supplements

When Katie was in our care during chemotherapy the first five months we gave her nutritional supplements.

When CPS and M.D. Anderson had control of my daughter Katie for the next five months they wouldn't allow her to have any nutritional supplements.

There was a lot of damage done to Katie mentally and physically by the chemotherapy without the supplements during the last five months. Consider the following article:

If You're on Chemotherapy, You Should Avoid Supplements, Right? Wrong!


I don't want you to be the victims of junk science, and especially if you have cancer. Take the recent "report" published by the American Cancer Society (ACS). This organization dares to suggest that taking antioxidants might hurt cancer patients.

However, report is nothing more than unsupported opinion. It's the ACS that has given us the horrific slash (surgery), burn (radiation), and poison (chemotherapy) approach to cancer. Amazing! They dare to assert that antioxidants might interfere with therapies that kill. What an oxymoron.

Truth is, this attack on supplements is nothing new. In fact, Kenneth Conklin published a fine review on the subject five years ago.

Conklin reviewed several antioxidants including vitamin C, glutathione, vitamin E, NAC, selenium, and more. He did give a few precautions for specific antioxidants when taken with chemo agents. In particular, glutathione and NAC shouldn't be administered simultaneously with platinum agents.

However, the general report not only suggested protection from the ravages of chemo. The report went on to say that antioxidants actually increase the effectiveness of it!

Some agents, such as adriamycin and its family of chemicals, have well known and irreversible cardiac toxicity. CoQ10 can likely protect your heart against destruction wrought by this feared complication. I wonder how many chemo-induced heart attacks could have been prevented by CoQ10.

In scores of my own cancer patients, I consistently find a far higher quality of life in my patients who take antioxidants - with or without chemo. I've witnessed miraculous cancer reversals. Patients with even stage-4 cancer who undergo a major metabolic program of detoxification and nutritional supplementation have recovered!

As far as the alleged scientific studies showing antioxidants fail at expectations, we need to look at the methods of study. Typically, they're conducted with synthetic or refined nutrients. For example, most vitamin E studies are conducted with purified alpha tocopherol, not the more beneficial gamma tocopherol. Alpha tocopherol may actually displace what little good gamma tocopherol you have in your body.

I say you can't beat nature. So your best bet to prevent cancer is to eat an organic diet as fresh and living as possible. Supplements are just that - supplements. And you should buy only quality brands. Even some supplements are synthetic and devoid of the biological cofactors God put together in a whole living food.

Robert J. Rowen, MD

Ref: Conklin, Kenneth A. "Dietary Antioxidants During Cancer Chemotherapy: Impact on Chemotherapeutic Effectiveness and Development of Side Effects," Nutrition and Cancer 37(1):1-18, 2000

Friday, December 16, 2005

Attacking Cancer's Secret Weakness

There are other ways to fight cancer other than surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation. It's time for doctors and the cancer industry to wake up and see that traditional cancer treatments have been a failure and search for new promising cures. Occassionally we run across an article like this:


Article from Second Opinion Health Alert:

Herbal "Smart Bomb" Tricks Cancer
into Self-Destructing

Donald, a 47-year-old mechanic, had just been
diagnosed by an oncologist with an ugly egg-sized
tumor on the left side of his head.

I gave him a new cancer-fighting supplement derived
from a plant that grows in Southeast Asia.

After two weeks, there was a slight depression in
the center of the lump. And a month later, the tumor
was totally gone! The skin where it had been was
completely smooth.

Donald was one of my first cases using this new
therapy. After many more, I now believe this may be
the future of cancer treatment - and the breakthrough
of our lifetime.

It works by attacking cancer's secret weakness.

You see, most doctors attack cancer head-on. They
poison it with chemotherapy. Burn it with radiation.
Cut it out with surgery. Any of which can have a
devastating effect on the patient's health.

But I prefer to take advantage of cancer's hidden
weaknesses - like its need for iron.

All cells need iron to reproduce. But since cancer
cells multiply very rapidly, they need lots of iron.
In fact, they actually hoard iron.

That's the key to this amazing cancer-fighting
supplement. Called artemisinin (from Artesmesia annua),
it has an amazing effect on iron. When it comes in
contact with it, the iron releases a huge burst of
highly reactive free radicals - a "smart bomb" that
literally blows up the deadly cancer cell.

In laboratory experiments, the doctor who first
reported this phenomenon documented an amazing 100%
kill rate in cancer cells in just hours.

Just as importantly, artemisinin left normal cells
completely unharmed!

Recently, a study published in a major cancer journal
found artemisinin showed significant anti-cancer
activity against many different types of cancer cells.
And even cancers resistant to chemotherapy drugs
showed no such resistance to this herb!

Take Diane for example. She was 47 years old when she
came to me with breast cancer that had spread to her

All doctors could offer her was full dose chemotherapy -
but not a drop of hope.

She even tried various alternative therapies. But the
cancer refused to budge. Yet after being treated with
artemisinin, she felt totally well. Her latest CT scan
indicates she may well be cancer free.

One physician I know has been using this amazing
supplement for over a decade. He tells me he has seen
hundreds of long-term remissions - including many
patients who had been declared "terminal."

In fact, with the exception of patients who were
already very near death, artemisinin has stabilized,
improved, or cured every cancer patient I have
personally followed.

Unfortunately, most health food stores do not sell
the concentrated form of artemisinin that stopped
cancer in clinical trials.

In fact, most artemisinin products usually contain
less than 10 to 20 percent of the anti-cancer

The only artemisinin product I recommend is distributed
by Allergy Research Group. It's a high-grade product,
and its potency is confirmed by independent lab

Artemisinin is truly a revolution in the treatment of
cancer. In studies, it's been shown to be nontoxic
and free of side effects.

However, if you or a loved one intends to use it, I
strongly suggest supervision by a medical professional
familiar with its use. Please have your blood count
and liver function monitored while on the therapy
to be as safe as possible.

Yours for better health and medical freedom,

Robert Jay Rowen, MD

Thursday, December 15, 2005

Any One Have Experience With Cancer Metabolic?

Blvd. Playas # 401 Playas
619 251 7233

• Metabolic Therapy -First described by Dr .Manner at Harold Manner Memorial Hospital, this, along with the Manner Cocktail, forms the foundation of our approach. Essentially, Metabolic Therapy is a re- balancing of the entire body's system through the use of natural and nutritional approaches (including vitamins, minerals, supplements and herbs). Once the body's system is re-balanced, the body is capable of a stronger and more effective immune response.
• The Manner Cocktail -Dr. Harold Manner designed what has been called the "Manner Cocktail". It contains 9 to 18 grams of Laetrile, 25 to 50cc of DMSO, and up to 25 to 50 grams of Vitamin C. The Cocktail is administered by intravenous drip over a period of three to four hours every day during the patient's stay at Manner Hospital. The Cocktail's major ingredients are:
1. Laetrile: Also called amygdalin or Vitamin B 17, its function is to attack malignant cells specifically without hurting healthy, normal cells. Laetrile also has an analgesic effect, but it does not depress the immune system.
2. Macrodoses of Vitamin C: Vitamin C is well known as an antioxidant but in macrodoses is also an excellent way of stimulating our body's production of interferon a strong immune system stimulant.
3. DMSO: This has no specific action against cancer, but it is used as a carrier for laetrile, due to its ability to cross all of the body's tissue barriers (including the central nervous system).

I emailed this center and got this reply below and information above from Dr. Julian Mejia:

Please find attach files which explain in more details all of he treatments we offer at our hospital, All of this therapies has demonstrated to be successful and non-toxic, with very minimum side effects.

In my personal experience we have treated over 500 cases of lymphomas on different stages, we have been successful in over 90% stages I-III and 75-80% on stage IV with bone marrow or liver metastasis.

Please read carefully our program on attach file and if further questions please do not hesitate to contact us again.

Your in health
Dr Julian Mejia
Medical Director
Cancer Metabolic

If you have had any personal experience with Cancer Metabolic than please email me and tell me about it at or leave a comment below. I would like to reseach other alternative cancer treatments available. And I want to know people who have used them. Thanks, Edward.

Monday, December 12, 2005

Katie Is Doing Well - Keep Her in Your Prayers

Just a short note to let everyone know Katie is doing well. She continues to receive the IVC treatments three times a week. Doses were adjusted last Friday based on test results. Baseline MRI was done and another will be done in early January to compare results and progress. A blood test CBC will be done tomorrow. Please keep her in your prayers. Expenses are piling up. Please leave a donation at

God Bless You,


Texas CPS Admits to Using Phony Story to Boost Holiday Donations

Texas caseworkers admit to using phony story to boost holiday donations

Updated Dec. 9, 2005, 4:56 p.m. ET

HOUSTON (AP) — It was a heart-wrenching story: A 10-year-old boy named John, separated from his mother since the hurricane, was living with other foster children in an emergency shelter, and he had one Christmas wish — to go home.

"But there's no way I'll get gifts for Christmas. I don't even believe in Santa anymore," he was quoted as saying.

The Brazosport Facts ran the profile on its front page Nov. 29 as part of its Fill-a-Stocking series, which features a different foster child each day from Thanksgiving through Christmas and solicits donations for a local charity to help fulfill the child's holiday wish.

But the story was a work of fiction.

State caseworkers apparently made it up to tug at readers' heartstrings.

Dan Lauck, a reporter with KHOU-TV in Houston, discovered the story was phony after calling state officials to request an interview with the child. He believed that if the boy's story was told on television, the youngster might find his mother.

Lauck said his requests were repeatedly denied because of what he was told were privacy concerns. Eventually he was told that the boy was living with relatives. Finally, an agency spokesman told him the profile had been made up.

Caseworkers with state Child Protective Services in Brazoria County, outside Houston, were responsible for writing the profiles for the newspaper's charity drive, which has been a holiday fixture in the 19,000-circulation paper since 1982.

CPS has apologized to the paper, which immediately suspended its series and returned the $1,070 collected so far this year from donors.

Bill Cornwell, publisher of The Facts, said the newspaper trusted the agency to present accurate stories, and believed only minor changes — such as names and ages — were made to protect the children's privacy. Given privacy issues related to foster children, Cornwell said there was only so much verification the newspaper could do.

CPS is investigating how it all happened, spokesman Patrick Crimmins said.

Lauck said it does not appear the CPS caseworkers had any bad intentions.

"They were just trying to tell stories that would clearly tug at the heart, capture the emotions of the readers and inspire them to give more money," the TV reporter said. "But they did it in a way that misled the public."

Bob Steele, a former TV news director who teaches ethics at the Poynter Institute, a school for journalists, said the problem could have been averted if the profiles had been done by reporters rather than caseworkers.

"The integrity of the paper is damaged, the good cause that was intended is eroded and those in need are then not served as they should be," Steele said.

Cornwell said his newspaper is now trying to determine whether previous stories were falsified, too. He said he does not understand why a caseworker would resort to fiction, since foster children's real stories that are compelling enough.

Meanwhile, he said some readers are frustrated with the newspaper for canceling the series and think The Facts abandoned the children.

"We are not going to walk away from the kids' needs monetarily," Cornwell said. But he said: "We are out to get to the bottom of the situation so people can trust what they read."

Article URL:

Saturday, December 10, 2005

When Life is Too Much To Handle


When things in your life seem almost too much to handle, when 24 hours in a
day are not enough, remember the mayonnaise jar and 2 cups of coffee.

A professor stood before his philosophy class and had some items in front of
him. When the class began, wordlessly, he picked up a very large and empty
mayonnaise jar and proceeded to fill it with golf balls. He then asked the
students if the jar was full. They agreed that it was. The professor then
picked up a box of pebbles and poured them into the jar. He shook the jar
lightly. The pebbles rolled into the open areas between the golf balls. He
then asked the students again if the jar was full. They agreed it was. The
professor next picked up a box of sand and poured it into the jar. Of
course, the sand filled up everything else. He asked once more if the jar
was full. The students responded with a unanimous "yes."

The professor then produced two cups of coffee from under the table and
poured the entire contents into the jar, effectively filling the empty space
between the sand.

The students laughed.

"Now," said the professor, as the laughter subsided, "I want you to
recognize that this jar represents your life. The golf balls are the
important things - God, family, children, health, friends, and favorite
passions -- things that if everything else was lost and only they remained,
your life would still be full.

The pebbles are the other things that matter like your job, house, and car.

The sand is everything else -- the small stuff.

"If you put the sand into the jar first," he continued, "there is no room
for the pebbles or the golf balls. The same goes for life. If you spend all
your time and energy on the small stuff, you will never have room for the
things that are important to you.

Pay attention to the things that are critical to your happiness. Play With
your children. Take time to get medical checkups. Take your partner out to
Play another 18. There will always be time ! to clean the house and fix the
"Take care of the golf balls first -- the things that really matter. Set
your priorities. The rest is just sand."

One of the students raised her hand and inquired what the coffee
represented. The professor smiled. "I'm glad you asked. It just goes to show
you that no matter how full your life may seem, there's always room for a
couple of cups of coffee with a friend."

Tuesday, December 06, 2005

Parents of Kids Have No Choice of Medical Care in Texas

Young cancer patients actively participate in end-of-life decisions

Wise Child

Kids today - what are they thinking?

According to researchers at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital, kids come up with some pretty impressive and surprising ideas when faced with life and death decisions about their own cancer care.

Pamela Hinds (the head of nursing research at St. Jude) lead a recent study of terminally ill children. Describing the results to ABC News she said her team was "stunned" to find that children are not only up to the task of participating in end-of-life decisions, they're also good at it.

This is in stark contrast to how it's done in Texas. Consult with children? Not a chance. Consult with parents? Sure, as long as the parents completely surrender their right to have any say at all in their own child's course of treatment. Otherwise, Texas parents should prepare to be treated like criminals.
Can kids participate?

Pamela Hinds' St. Jude team recruited twenty patients who ranged in age from 10 to 20 (the average age of the group was 17). All of the young subjects had advanced stages of cancer, and all of them participated in three types of end-of-life decisions: initiation of terminal care, agreeing to a do-not-resuscitate order, or enrollment in a cancer drug trial.

Each of the subjects was interviewed one week after meeting with parents and doctors to decide on a course of action. Eighteen patients accurately recalled all of the treatment options available to them, and each of the patients in this group recognized that the decision they made would most likely result in their own death.

According to child developmental theories, children in this age group should be somewhat narcissistic about their personal desires. But the St. Jude research found that the children were primarily concerned for others. For instance, the ABC report notes that a patient named Samantha agreed to participate in a trial for a new drug because it might lead to a cure for someone else. Another patient - 17-year-old Jaleesa - also signed on for a drug trial. "I would want someone to do the same for me," she said.

Ironically, it's the prospect of death that seems to give these kids a positive perspective. St. Jude Chaplin Lisa Anderson told ABC that the young patients have "a very strong sense of finding meaning in this experience."

Stacking the deck

Imagine how comforting the feeling of support must be when a child with a life-threatening disease participates with doctors and parents in making treatment decisions.

Now imagine just the opposite. Imagine what the negative health consequences might be if an adolescent cancer patient was given no say at all, forcibly removed from her home and family, and given a treatment she and her parents were adamantly opposed to.

That's exactly what happened to 12-year-old cancer patient Katie Wernecke of Agua Dulce, Texas. (You can read the details about Katie's case in the e-Alert "Heart of Texas" 10/17/05.) In October, Katie was finally returned to her parents after months of separation. The Wernecke's immediately took their daughter to a Kansas clinic where she underwent intravenous vitamin C therapy.

Last month, the Texas Supreme Court dismissed the Wernecke's request to absolve them from charges of medical neglect. Edward Wernecke responded with a powerful and angry statement posted on the Wernecke's blog ( Written as an open letter to all parents in Texas, it also serves as a sort of Amber Alert regarding Texas Child Protection Services (CPS).

Mr. Wernecke insists that the issue put before the Texas Supreme Court was not just an attempt to clear himself and his wife of medical neglect charges. The larger issue is "the right of fit parents to make the medical decisions for their children." In chilling detail, Mr. Wernecke describes the broad powers of CPS - powers for which he says there is no oversight or accountability.

Mr. Wernecke writes: "We didn't sign anything refusing treatment. The next thing we knew CPS was knocking on our door with two police officers to take our daughter Katie. There was no discussion, no hearing before a judge, nothing at all."

"Just so wrong"

The Werneckes have accumulated more than $150,000 in legal expenses, most of it unpaid. "Here we are with a child with cancer," he says, "and every dime should have went into caring for and finding a cure for that child's cancer."

Could it get any worse? It almost did, according to the Wernecke's attorney. He told them that at one point CPS filed for complete termination of the Wernecke's parental rights over Katie.

In addition to their daughter's cancer care and mounting legal and medical bills, the Werneckes now have another concern. In the wake of the Texas Supreme Court decision refusing to clear them of medical neglect, Mr. Wernecke anticipates that he and his wife could be vulnerable to prosecution if Katie dies in their care. He writes: "This is just so wrong and just so unnecessary and just makes me sick to my stomach."

I feel sick to my stomach too when I read the St. Jude study and think of how different this situation would be if Katie and her parents had been allowed to participate in treatment decisions right from the beginning.

An organization called Compassion Children's Foundation has set up a special fund to help Katie's family pay medical and legal expenses:
From: Health Science Institue e-Alert

From Our E-Mail

Dear Edward,

Greetings. That is great news to hear that Katie is doing well. Thanks for the information on IVC.

If Intavenous Vitamin C is as worthless as M.D. Anderson says it is, then you wonder why the National Institutes of Health are currently running clinical trials on it.

I am sorry to hear that MD Anderson and CPS are still harassing you, but with that much money and ego involved it doesn’t surprise me. I think they realize they are in a win/win situation if they take Katie. If she survives they can claim credit, if she dies in their care, they simply blame you and the Bright Spot Clinic. Insidious, to say the least. If worst comes to worst you may seriously want to consider moving to Utah. When the Parker Jensen fiasco finally played itself out, the Utah Legislature passed a law (SB 83) to protect parents in your situation, not to mention the fact that Utah DoCS took such a beating over the Jensen case that it’s unlikely they would attempt anything like it again.


Sunday, December 04, 2005

Children With Cancer Can Plan Own Treatment

Children with Cancer Can Plan Own Treatment
'They Tell Me Everything,' 13-Year-Old Says, 'And I Tell Them What I Think'
Nov. 20, 2005 — - Samantha Weber knows what she's missing. She is 13. Her friends are starting to talk about boys, about school, to worry about the future.

"I'm supposed to be there," she says.

Instead, she is at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital in Memphis, Tenn.

A year ago, she learned the pain in her knee was cancer. She wears a brace that doctors hope will save her leg. She carries an intravenous feeding device in a bag on her shoulder, trying to regain some of the 20 pounds she has lost.

But she is smiling and sunny, even when she talks about the chemotherapy.

"The last chemotherapy I had, it just knocked me down," she says. "It was horrible."

Samantha just learned the cancer has spread to her lungs. She is realistic about what that means.

"It can kill me and I know that," she says. "This might be my last year or so here with my family. You just have to live it day by day."

'Tell Me Everything'
Samantha's mother traveled with her to Memphis, but it is Samantha herself who is making the decisions with her doctors about her care.

"They tell me everything," she says. "They're not keeping anything from me, and I tell them what I think."

Samantha is not unusual. Researchers at St. Jude say even very young children can understand and participate in difficult end-of-life decisions.

Pamela Hinds, head of nursing research at St. Jude, was the first to ask the question, and she authored a study that appeared in the Sept. 19 online issue of Journal of Clinical Oncology.

Hinds says existing research in pediatric oncology focused on caregivers and on parents. She decided clinicians needed to understand more about the patients themselves.

Her study followed 20 terminally ill children between 10 and 20 years old to find out just how much they understood and how much they could participate in their own care.

"It's very common in health care for us to worry that a child would be too burdened by being involved in such serious decision making," she says. "We were stunned in this study to learn [that] not only are they quite able to participate, they're good at it. They know the options they have to consider, and they know the consequences."

Concern for Others
The most striking finding, says Hinds, is that the main concern of the children was for others.

Children, "particularly adolescents, are thought to be quite narcissistic -- self-centered -- about their own desires," she says. "But our findings clearly counter that, and suggest that children and adolescents who have been ill for quite a while are making decisions in consideration of others, and at times at their own personal expense."

Samantha, for example, has agreed to try an experimental chemotherapy drug, even though she knows it will not cure her.

"They may not find a cure for me just yet with that," she says, "but they might find it for somebody else, save somebody else."

Jaleesa Williams, a 17-year-old patient at St. Jude, has made the same decision.

"I'm really glad to be able to help somebody," she says, even though the drug makes her sick. "Because if it was me, I would want somebody to do the same for me."

Lisa Anderson, the chaplain at St. Jude who knows Samantha and Jaleesa and countless other children like them, thinks she understands something of what drives their altruism.

"They have a very strong sense of finding meaning in this experience," she says, "and sometimes that meaning comes from being able to help others, in research especially."

In other words, children have as much desire to leave a legacy as the rest of us. These children are simply forced to learn that too early.

Correspondent Laura Marquez and producer Nils Kongshaug originally reported this story for "World News Tonight."

Copyright © 2005 ABC News Internet Ventures

Thursday, December 01, 2005


The following is a letter from TDFPS closing case received about 3pm:

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services

December 1, 2005

James A. Pikl
Attorney at Law
McKinney, Tx 75070

RE: Katie Wernecke

Dear Mr. Pikl:

Enclosed please find the information you requested regarding the closure of the referal involving Katie Wernecke.


Kathleen Phillips
Managing Attorney.

Attached was a case file coversheet showing the dispostion of the case as below:

Administrative Closure:

In accordance with CPS Handbook Policy Section 2224.42 regarding closure of preliminary investigations, this case will be closed adminstratively. Based on the information gathered from collateral witnesses, including the letter signed by Dr. XXXX, Ph.D., M.D., stating that he is involved in Katie's cae, there is information that refutes the allegations.

(I deleted the Dr.'s name for privacy issues. Edward)

Attorney's Letter Requesting Closure of Case

1 December 2005

Ms. Kathleen Phillips
Managing Attorney
CPS - Corpus Christi, Tx

RE: Concerning:Katie Wernecke Closing of Case

Dear Ms. Phillips:

In accordance with your letter of today, enclosed is the letter from Dr. XXXX regarding Katie Wernecke. Also in accordance with our conversations, please be advised that we consider the recent referral to your office to be frivolous, in bad faith, and done for purposes of harassment. There is absolutely no merit to it, as shown by the attached letter. ...

I think your office should do a much better job exercising its discretion in these matters before you hassle any family about such a hopelessly-frivolous complaint, especialy a family like the Werneckes who have just been though 5 months of hell at the hands of the DFPS. If I worked for your department, I would be ashamed of myself.

Please fax to me, no later than 2:00 p.m. TODAY, a copy of the document showing this referral is now closed. As you know, I only have until tommorrow to petition Judge Hunter for his assistance should that be necessary. so I do not have the luxury of waiting any additional time to receive your formal notice of dismissal. Unless I receive the dismissal confirmation by this time, I will have to file a motion with Judge Hunter for modification of the November 2, 2005 judgment latter this afternoon. I trust you understand my positon on this.

Very truly yours,

James A. Pikl

CPS Wants Letter From Oncologist Treating Katie

CPS's attorney, Ms. Kathleen Phillips, wanted proof Katie was under another oncologists care. Katie was also being seen by another radiation oncologist. He has asked that his name be kept confidential as this case is high profile and he did not have time for the press. A phone request and this doctor faxed a letter to our attorney Mr. Pikl for delivery to CPS. Mr. Pikl wanted assurance that they would close the case upon delivery of the letter.



Who made the rule that only an oncologist is qualifed to treat cancer? Yes, an oncologist is specially trained to treat cancer with chemotherapy and/or radiation, but there are other effective treatments out there. An oncologist limits his treatments to chemotherapy and radiation. I believe that as long as Katie is being treated by a licensed physican that should suffice. Who is to say that one doctor is more qualified than another as both pass the same state exam. Advances in medicine would never happen if it weren't for free thinking and researching doctors who think outside of the box and find solutions and cures for disease. Again we see the bureaucracy limiting the choices of doctors we can choose for our kids in fighting cancer to oncologists only. And when standard treatments do not hold the answer or provide a cure for the child's cancer parents are faced with watching their child die in front of their face and feel hopeless, while there are alternative treatments out there that might have provided some hope and maybe that cure. Many children before ours have died needlessly because the courts and hospitals refused to allow them the freedom to seek alternative cures for their child. This must stop. WE NEED MEDICAL FREEDOM FOR OUR CHILDREN!