Patrick Quillin PhD RDIn order to know where we are going in cancer treatment, it is important
to know where we have been and how we got where we are. This chapter looks
at both conventional and alternative cancer treatment methods to give you
a better understanding of our “roots” in cancer treatment options.
For a more thorough discussion of conventional therapies, read CANCER THERAPY
by Mallin Dollinger, MD; for alternative therapies, read CANCER THERAPY
by Ralph Moss, PhD.
Conventional Therapies
Chemotherapy is a spin-off product from the chemical warfare of World
Wars I and II and is now given to 75% of all American cancer patients. Yale
University pharmacologists who were working on a government project during
World War II to develop an antidote for mustard gas noted that bone marrow
and lymphoid tissue were heavily damaged by these poisons. That observation
led to experiments in which mustard gas was injected into mice with lymphomas
(cancer of the lymph glands) and produced remission. In 1943, researchers
found that mustard gas had a similar effect on human Hodgkins disease.1
Chemo has also become a useful agent against testicular cancer, which is
now 92% curable. Most proponents of chemo now recognize the limitations
of using chemo as sole therapy against many types of cancer.
Shortly after these initial exciting discoveries, progress on chemo cures
quickly plateaued and forced the innovative thinkers into creative combinations
of various chemo drugs, which is now the accepted practice. In the 1980s,
oncologists began using chemo by “fractionated drip infusion”
in the hospital rather than one large (bolus) injection in the doctor’s
office. The fractionated method was not only more effective against the
cancer but also less toxic on the patient. Think of the difference in toxicity
between taking 2 glasses of wine with dinner each night, or guzzling all
14 glasses at one time at the end of the week. Also, fractionated drip infusion
is more likely to catch the cancer cells in their growth phase, while bolus
injections are a random guess to coincide with the growth phase of cancer.
In the next evolutionary step, borrowing from technology developed for heart
disease, oncologists began using catheters (thin tubes) that could be inserted
into an artery (called intra-arterial infusion) to deliver chemo at the
site of the tumor, once again improving response and reducing overall toxicity.
Radiation therapy is given to about 60% of all cancer patients. In
1896, a French physicist, Marie Curie discovered radium, a radioactive metal.
For her brilliance, Madam Curie was eventually awarded two Nobel prizes
and was considered one of the founders of radiation therapy and the nuclear
age. For her unprotected use of radioactive materials, she eventually died
while still young of leukemia. Cancer patients were soon being treated with
a new technique developed by the German physicist, Wilhelm Roentgen, called
radiation therapy. This technique relies on regional destruction of unwanted
tissue through ionizing radiation that disrupts the DNA of all bombarded
cells. Radiation therapy can be externally or internally originated, high
or low dose and delivered with uncanny computer-assisted precision to the
site of the tumor. Brachytherapy, or interstitial radiation therapy, places
the source of radiation directly into the tumor, as an implanted seed. New
techniques use radiation in combination with heat therapy (hyperthermia).
Surgery is the first treatment of choice for about 67% of cancer
patients. By 1600 B.C., Egyptian physicians were excising tumors using knives
or red-hot irons.2 By physically removing the obvious tumor,
physicians feel that they have the best chance for overall success. Unfortunately,
many tumors are so entwined with delicate body organs, such as brain and
liver, that the tumor cannot be resected (cut out). Another concern is that
partial removal of a cancer mass may open the once-encapsulated tumor to
spread, like opening a sack of dandelion seeds on your lawn.
Biological therapies, as with most other discoveries, were the product
of accidents being observed by a bright mind. William B. Coley, MD, a New
York cancer surgeon scoured the hospital records around 1890 looking for
some clue why only a minority of patients survived cancer surgery. He found
that a high percentage of survivors had developed an infection shortly after
the surgery to remove the cancer. This observation led Dr. Coley to inject
a wide variety of bacteria, known as Coley’s cocktail, into his cancer patients,
who then underwent the feverish recovery phase, with noteworthy cancer cures
produced. Infections were found to induce the immune system into a higher
state of activity, which then helped to destroy tumors. From this crude
beginning, molecular biologists have found brilliant ways of producing injectable
amounts of the immune factors that can theoretically fight cancer.
Even amidst our polluted, overstressed and poorly nourished society, most
people do not die of cancer–due to the protection afforded by our immune
systems; which is a well-orchestrated army of specialized cells that kill
invaders, like cancer, bacteria and viruses. An over-reactive and out of
balance immune system creates auto-immune diseases, such as allergies, asthma,
Crohn’s disease and arthritis. An under-reactive immune system leaves the
person open to cancer, infections and premature aging.
Biological therapies attempt to fine tune and focus the immune system into
a more vigorous attack on the cancer. Lymphokines are basically “bullets”
produced by the immune system to kill invading cells, such as cancer. Lymphokine
activated killer cells (LAK) are incubated in the laboratory in the presence
of a stimulator (interleukin-2) and then injected back into the cancer patient’s
body for an improved immune response.3 In some lab tests, LAK
cells swarm on the tumor like ants on honey.
Interferon, interleukin, monoclonal antibodies and tumor necrosis factor
are among the leading contenders as biological therapies against cancer.
The downside of biological therapies is that most forms have extremely toxic
side effects, and none can be legally used even in approved experiments
unless that patient has been considered untreatable by the other three conventional
means. The National Cancer Institute is beginning to place more emphasis
on researching biological therapies.
Heat Therapy (hyperthermia). Cancer cells seem to be more vulnerable
to heat than normal healthy cells. Since the time of Hippocrates and the
Egyptian Pharoahs, heat therapy has been valued. Experts have shown that
applying heat to the patient elevates immune responses. Temperatures of
42 degrees Celsius or 107 degrees Fahrenheit will kill most cancer cells,
but can be quite stressful on the patient also. Could it be that exercise
induces regular “hyperthermia” to kill off cancer cells before
they can become a problem?
Whole body hyperthermia involves a very sophisticated hot tub device, general
anesthesia and medical supervision. Regional hyperthermia can involve either
a miniature waterbed-like device applied to the tumor or focused microwaves.
Major cancer research centers, including Stanford and Duke, have found this
therapy useful by itself, or used synergistically to improve the response
to chemo and radiation therapy.
Alternative Therapies
If you need emergency medical care, reconstructive surgery, orthopedic surgery
or critical life support, then an American hospital is where you will get
the world’s best care. That’s why alternative emergency care does not exist,
because our current system is working just find, thank you very much. Unfortunately,
not all areas of American medicine have such an impressive track record
of success. Many patients with cancer, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, arthritis,
AIDS, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s, mental illness and muscular dystrophy
find little help from traditional medicine. When the accepted approach does
not work, the grounds are fertile for “alternative” approaches
to develop.
Among the many advantages of living in America, we are blessed with abundant
individual liberties as guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
And we fight viciously to preserve these rights. The controversy of alternative
cancer treatment basically centers around the question “Which is more
important: the patient’s right to choose whatever health care they want,
or the responsibility of the government to protect the unwarey consumer
from fraudulent practices?” This question is heated, polarized and
regularly doused with the emotional testimonies of someone who was cured
through alternative therapy after conventional therapy told he or she to
“go home and get your affairs in order.”
Studies now show that up to 50% of all cancer patients use some form of
unconventional cancer therapy, with most of these people being of above-average
income and education.4 A newer study reported in the New England
Journal of Medicine from David Eisenberg, MD of Harvard Medical School shows
that Americans make more visits to alternative therapists than to family
physicians. Since the patient usually pays for alternative therapists while
insurance pays for most expenses in a family physician visit, these numbers
are quite astonishing. People don’t keep going back and paying out of pocket
expenses unless they are getting some relief for their health problem. This
information somewhat debunks the theory that the government is protecting
poor uneducated minority consumers from predatory, dangerous and unproven
health care specialists.
While critics brand alternative cancer therapies as “unproven, questionable,
dubious, quackery and fraudulent”; proponents prefer the labels “complementary,
comprehensive, innovative, nontoxic, holistic, natural and noninvasive.”
Meanwhile, the American Cancer Society has kept a list of about 100 cancer
therapies that the ACS calls “unproven”. This blacklist has become
the “gatekeeper” in cancer treatment in America. Insurance companies
will not reimburse for “unproven or experimental” therapies.
Yet, are we using dual standards in judging our health care options? According
to the Office of Technology Assessment, only 10-20% of all surgical procedures
practiced in the United States have been “proven” to be effective
by controlled clinical trials.5 Much of what Americans do throughout
medicine, law, education and even business are more based on a “Grandfather
clause” or tradition, rather than being the best way to do things.
We oftentimes “pave cow paths” which are usually inefficient routes
from point A to point B, then consider these sacred and inviolable. If 50%
of cancer patients this year will seek alternative cancer care, which is
non-reimburseable, imagine the stampede toward alternative cancer treatment
if people could choose their own therapies.
Improvement in cancer treatment options may be coming soon. Retired Iowa
Congressman Berkley Bedell could only find cures for his Lyme disease, then
advanced and untreatable prostate cancer from alternative therapists. Mr.
Bedell told his powerbroker friends on Capitol Hill of his experiences.
Senator Tom Harkin, chairman of the subcommittee on health issues, then
convinced his colleagues to allocate $2 million to form the Office of Alternative
Medicine as a branch of the National Institutes of Health. Many insurance
companies are awakening to the profitability of alternative cancer therapy
because: 1. the public wants it and is willing to pay for it, 2. alternative
cancer therapy costs about 10% of conventional cancer care and therefore
can be more profitable. Some pioneering insurance companies now reimburse
for alternative cancer treatment.6
The medical freedom advocates argue that a person afflicted with a terminal
disease deserves a chance at whatever therapies offer hope. Meanwhile, the
Food and Drug Administration cites examples in which premature permission
to use newly discovered therapies ended in disaster–like the Thalidomide
situation. However, lets compare the risk to benefit ratio of Thalidomide
and alternative cancer treatment:
It is unconstitutional to think that protecting the end-stage and otherwise
untreatable cancer patient from inexpensive and non-toxic therapies is a
government obligation. AIDS patients have become models of political activism
and have won this logic debate as the Food and Drug Administration now allows
many “compassionate use” variances for otherwise unapproved drugs
in AIDS therapy. Cancer patients, also, need a broader scope of treatment
options. To quote Hippocrates, the father of modern medicine, 2400 years
ago: “Extreme diseases call for extreme measures.” Nutrition therapy,
surely, is no more extreme than chemo, radiation therapy or surgery.
Alternative cancer therapies would best be categorized as:
It is clear that humans are a complex interplay of physical and metaphysical
forces. Many documented cases of paranormal psychology have shown that people
can alter autonomic bodily functions by entering suspended animation, walking
on hot coals without any burns, reading minds and living outside the laws
of nutrition. As humans become more spiritual or metaphysical, we tend to
transcend physical laws. Hence, the ultimate cancer cure may come from this
relatively untapped area of healing.
Pioneers and Their
Alternative Cancer Therapies
The alternative therapists are at a serious disadvantage in the battle of
documentation. Even after $35 billion spent on government-funded research
and thousands of researchers working for decades, scientists are hard pressed
to prove efficacy in the assortment of conventional cancer treatment. Alternative
therapists don’t publish results for a number of reasons:
- poorly financed and cannot support research efforts
- poorly organized and shy away from cooperative pooled data
- outlawed in the U.S. and ineligible for government research grants
- leery of reporting their data in the U.S. for fear of medical license
revocation and/or imprisonment.
There have been efforts recently to examine certain alternative cancer therapies.
Harold Foster, PhD at the University of British Columbia showed some rather
promising results from alternative cancer treatment. “Spontaneous regression”
is that elusive miraculous cure that comes to a few cancer patients after
traditional therapists have given up. It seems wise to study these “winners”
and see if there is something that they have in common. Of the 200 cancer
patients that Foster studied who had experienced “spontaneous regression”,
87% made serious dietary changes which were mostly vegetarian in nature,
and many others underwent some detoxification program or used nutritional
supplements.
All of the following alternative cancer therapies are practiced somewhere
in the world. My most humble apologies to the pioneers or therapies that
have been left out of this brief overview. For more information, read:
- THIRD OPINION by John Fink, Avery Press, NY, 1988
- UNCONVENTIONAL CANCER TREATMENTS by the Office of Technology Assessment
of the U.S. government printing office, 1990
- CANCER THERAPY by Ralph Moss, PhD, Equinox Press, 1992
- OPTIONS by Richard Walters, Avery, 1993.
Max Gerson, MD emigrated from Europe to the United States in 1936
and began practicing medicine in New York. Gerson was labelled by the famous
missionary doctor, Albert Schweitzer, as “I see in Gerson one of the
most eminent geniuses in medical history.” Gerson was treating cancer
patients with a diet and toxin purgative approach. Gerson’s program included
a diet that was high in raw unprocessed plant food, low in fat, included
raw liver injections, thyroid extract, pancreatin (digestive aids), and
supplements of minerals and vitamins, especially high doses of vitamin C.
One of the more intriguing aspects of Dr. Gerson’s therapy was an emphasis
on foods and supplements high in potassium. Realize that we evolved on a
“caveman” diet which was high in potassium from fresh plant food
and low in sodium (pre-salt shaker era). Our modern American diet reverses
this ratio from an ideal of 4 to 1 (potassium to sodium) to our current
1 to 4, a full 16 fold deterioration in this crucial balance of electrolytes.
All of your cells are bathed in a salty ocean water, with higher concentrations
of potassium inside the cell to create the “battery of life.”
Birger Jansson, PhD at the University of Texas finds a strong link between
dietary sodium to potassium ratio and cancer.7 Stephen Thompson,
PhD researcher at the University of California San Diego, found that increasing
sodium content could accelerate the metastasis of colon cancer in animals.
Maryce Jacobs, PhD, former research director of the American Institute of
Cancer Research, has written an extensive technical chapter on the link
between the sodium to potassium ratio and cancer progression.8
When the National Cancer Institute reviewed Gerson’s book which illustrated
his 30 years of clinical experience with 50 patients who recovered from
end-stage cancer, the NCI felt that the evidence was inadequate. The American
Cancer Society heavily criticized Gerson for several decades and did not
recognize a nutrition cancer link until the 1980s. The modern ACS anti-cancer
diet looks remarkably similar to Dr. Gerson’s diet.
William D. Kelley, DDS was a dentist who claimed to have healed himself
of pancreatic cancer with his own therapy in 1964. Kelley’s program included
metabolic typing to provide a patient-specific dietary program, detoxification
(coffee enemas, etc.), neurological stimulation through chiropractic adjustment
and supplements of vitamins, minerals and enzymes. Until 1977, the MERCK
MEDICAL MANUAL, considered the “bible of physicians”, included
coffee enemas as an accepted means of detoxification and constipation relief.
Yet coffee enemas became the focal point of critics who considered the Kelley
program unscientific.
Meanwhile, there has been an abundance of scientific studies in Europe showing
that enzymes (protease, amylase, lipase) can improve the general course
of the cancer patient.9 Kelley’s work is carried on by a Sloan-Kettering
trained oncologist, Dr. Nicholas Gonzales, in New York City. In his 1970s
trial, Kelley was ordered by a federal judge never to speak or write about
cancer again. Kelley has since become a recluse.
Macrobiotics. This program is based on the writings of a Japanese
physician, Sagen Ishizuka (1850-1910) who cured himself of cancer by abandoning
the refined diet of affluent Japan and reverting back to the unpurified
Japanese diet of brown rice, soybeans, fish, miso soup, sea vegetables and
other traditional Oriental foods. When you read the “laws of nutrition”
later in this book, you will notice the importance of consuming one’s ancestral
diet. Some proposed mechanisms why the macrobiotic diet helps some cancer
patients:
- low in fat
- high in fiber
- high vegetable intake
- improved sodium to potassium ratio
- ability to change an acid (cancer) environment back toward alkaline
(healthy)
- potent anti-cancer agents found in soybeans, sea vegetables and other
fresh produce
- thyroid stimulating substances found in sea vegetables.
Macrobiotics includes an Eastern philosophy of balancing yin and yang, which
are opposing forces. Michio Kushi established a macrobiotic center in Boston
in 1978 and has gained a noteworthy following. Kushi has publicly encouraged
cancer patients to continue with conventional care.
There are varying levels of intensity in complying with macrobiotic principles,
with the ultimate level (+7) being a diet of 100% whole cereals. An American
physician, Anthony Sattilaro, cured himself of advanced prostatic cancer
with the macrobiotic diet and wrote a book to further popularize this approach.
While the macrobiotic lifestyle is certainly a major improvement over the
typical American diet, certain aspects of this program are a bit mystifying:
- unlimited access to miso and pickles, which are high in sodium
- limited intake of fruit and fish
- potential for protein and B-12 malnutrition.
This program includes cotton clothes, fresh air and exercise.
Herbal Therapies. Plant extracts are mankind’s oldest medicines.
One third of all prescription drugs in the U.S. are based on plant extracts.
There is a desperate scramble among drug companies and even the National
Cancer Institute to develop patentable variations of the many anti-cancer
agents found in plants. Many of the people listed below have staked their
claim to herbal cures of cancer, including Caisse, Hoxsey, Winters, and
others. Periwinkle plant is now the very acceptable cancer drug, vincristine.
Undoubtedly, plant extracts will become a major source of cancer drugs in
the future. James Duke, PhD, a well respected botanist with the United States
Department of Agriculture, has written textbooks on the anti-cancer ingredients
in many plants. If you have seen the movie “Medicine Man”, then
you can appreciate the complexities of trying to find the active ingredient(s)
in plant extracts. Botanicals used to fight cancer include Pau D’Arco (LaPacho),
ginseng, green tea, mistletoe, polyphenols, carotenoids, bioflavonoids,
echinecea, astragalus, chaparral, blood root, garlic and various mushroom
extracts.
Rene Caisse, a Canadian public health nurse, was told by a patient
in 1922 that an Indian herbal tea had saved her life from breast cancer.
Caisse obtained the recipe, reportedly used it successfully on a few of
her patients and then named the therapy “Essiac”, or Caisse spelled
backward. Her troubles with the government waxed and waned for the coming
decades until 1978, shortly before her death, when she signed over the rights
to her secret formula to a Canadian manufacturing firm.
Harry Hoxsey (1901-1974) popularized his great-grandfather’s herbal
formula which had reputedly cured horses of cancer. Harry Hoxsey’s father
was a veterinary surgeon who also used the formula on both animals and people
with cancer. Yet Harry is the man who made the formula famous. Hoxsey’s
flamboyant and controversial style led to many encounters with federal officials
and the American Medical Association. At his zenith in the U.S., Hoxsey
had thousands of very happy cancer patients going to his 17 clinics across
the country. After uncountable arrests, he closed his Dallas clinic in the
late 1950s and moved to Mexico to continue practicing. Hoxsey’s formula
included bloodroot, burdock, buckthorn, cascara, barberry, licorice, red
clover, pokeroot, zinc chloride and antimony trisulfide. Hoxsey’s general
formula has ended up in many escharotics, or topically applied ointments
that successfully burn away surface cancers.
Rudolph Steiner, PhD popularized the use of mistletoe in the early
20th century. A certain lectin in mistletoe has been found to inhibit the
growth of proliferating cells. By the 1980s, about 40,000 patients worldwide
were receiving Iscador, a fermented form of mistletoe that is injected.
Iscador and its variations are licensed in Germany as drugs.
Stanislaw R. Burzynski, MD, PhD theorized that certain anti-neoplastons,
or naturally occurring peptides, could inhibit the growth of tumor cells
without interrupting normal cell growth. Burzynski first isolated his anti-neoplastons
from human urine and later synthesized these compounds in the laboratory.
Dr. Burzynski uses about 10 types of anti-neoplastons in both oral and intravenous
fashion. Government authorities have restricted Burzynski to administering
his cancer therapy only in his clinic in Houston, Texas, and now even that
narrow scope of practice is in jeopardy.
Paul Niehans, MD developed his “cell therapy” techniques
in Switzerland in the 1930s. The principle is that “something”
in young tissue is able to regenerate old and sick tissue. Hence, injecting
cells derived from whole fetuses is supposed to make old people feel younger
and sick people get well. Cell therapy has been used for a wide range of
otherwise untreatable conditions, most notably for aging wealthy people
to feel younger.
Joseph Gold, MD of the Syracuse Cancer Research Institute reported
good results in the 1970s using hydrazine sulfate to inhibit the growth
of tumors in animals. While there certainly are some less effective approaches
among alternative cancer therapies, hydrazine sulfate has been found in
human clinical studies at the University of California at Los Angeles to
reduce lean tissue wasting (cachexia) and improve the abnormal glucose and
insulin levels which are common among end stage cancer patients.10
Hydrazine sulfate, for some unknown reason, has become a tainted subject
among traditional cancer researchers, which is a real travesty for millions
of cancer patients worldwide.
Ernst Krebs, Sr., MD, and Ernst Krebs, Jr. were the developers of
laetrile, which is amygdalin, a cyanide-containing compound first isolated
from the seeds of pit fruit, like apricots. The ancient Egyptians, Chinese,
Greeks, and Romans all used seed pits, or amygdalin, as their “sacred
seeds” against cancer. Since the 1970s, 70,000 people have used laetrile
to treat cancer. Laetrile has become an irrational “head butting contest”
between the conventional and unconventional cancer communities.
Ralph Moss, PhD was the science writer for the Sloan-Kettering cancer hospital
in New York when research was being conducted by a celebrated scientist,
Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura, on laetrile. Dr. Moss writes of a disturbing coverup
that basically ended any legitimate assessment of laetrile.11
Dr. Sugiura found that laetrile did not destroy primary tumors in animals,
but did inhibit the growth of tumors and signficantly retarded lung metastases.
A San Antonio physician, Dr. Eva Lee Sneak wrote a letter to the editor
printed in a publication of the American Medical Association: “Laetrile,
properly used, has had, in my hands at least, as good a success as chemotherapy
with far fewer side effects.”12
In 1982, the National Cancer Institute funded a laetrile cancer study conducted
by Charles Moertel, MD of the Mayo Clinic. Dr. Moertel’s results, published
in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, played “Taps”
for laetrile, claiming that it neither helped cancer nor the symptoms of
cancer. About 21 states still allow the use of laetrile in cancer treatment,
while other states have revoked medical licenses for the same.
A curious footnote to laetrile is that young plants develop their own naturally
occurring pesticides to provide some protection against insects and rodents.
This “pesticide” is rich in nitrilosides, which are similar in
chemical structure to laetrile. Could it be that a diet high in young fresh
plants, like alfalfa sprouts, is like having continuous non-toxic chemotherapy
to kill pockets of cancer cells before they can flourish?
Virginia Livingston-Wheeler, MD felt that cancer was caused by a
specific pathogen, Progenitor cryptocides (PC), a cousin of the bacteria
that causes leprosy and tuberculosis. Treatment includes immunologic vaccines
of PC, pharmacologic therapies and nutritional components. Dr. Livingston
helped many cancer patients with her nutritional approaches, which included
avoidance of foods that contain PC, like chicken and eggs. However, most
cancer patients are immune suppressed and subject to nearly every opportunistic
infection that comes along, including PC.
While this bacteria and many others are present in most cancer patients,
linking cause and effect is another matter. For instance, fire engines are
present at most fires, but they do not cause fires. Yet, other researchers
are equally intrigued with the theory that cancer is caused by a bacteria.13
It is known that older people are at greater risk for both developing cancer
and experiencing a reduced output of stomach acid. Since the acid bath of
the stomach is supposed to destroy many invading organisms, the theory of
“cancer caused by a pathogen” would help to explain the prevalence
of cancer in older adults.
I. William Lane, PhD has been the forerunner in the use of shark
cartilage to inhibit angiogenesis and stop tumor growth. Dr. Lane’s use
patent on cartilage, bestselling book, Sharks Don’t Get Cancer, and
appearance on the TV series “60 Minutes” have heralded a modern
champion for non-toxic cancer therapy.
Hans Nieper, MD is a European physician who uses conventional and
unconventional drugs, vitamins, minerals (many of his own design), plant
and animal extracts, a certain diet, and avoidance of “geopathogenic
zones” which may incite disease.
Otto Warburg, PhD was awarded two Nobel prizes and first discovered
the link between low oxygen levels and cancer growth. Other scientists have
proven that cancer becomes more resistant to therapy as the tumor mass becomes
more acidic and anaerobic.14 Warburg’s theories provided the
foundation for ozone and hydrogen peroxide therapies, which are given intravenously,
orally and rectally. While the efficacy of these therapies is controversial,
experts caution against drinking hydrogen peroxide, since it is such a potent
free radical generator.
Emmanuel Revici, MD based his treatment on correcting an imbalance
between fatty acids and sterols in the cancer patient; called “biological
dualism”. Revici was considered a very dedicated physician and developer
of selenium as an anti-cancer agent.
Ewan Cameron, MD, a Scottish surgeon first popularized the use of
high dose vitamin C in terminal cancer patients. Linus Pauling, PhD, twice
Nobel laureate, furthered this cause with studies and writings. While vitamin
C is far from a “magic bullet” against cancer, many cancer patients
have been found to have clinical scurvy. Both in studies and my experience,
high dose vitamin C does improve the quality and quantity of life for most
cancer patients.
J.H. Lawrence, a British scientist during World War II, found that
something in urine seemed to have anti-tumor activity in animals. His work
has since been refined and carried on by numerous disciples throughout the
world.
Lawrence Burton, PhD developed Immuno-Augmentative Therapy by injecting
various blood products into cancer patients to stimulate the immune system.
Once a well-respected researcher, Burton was ridiculed by his colleagues
and forced to practice in the Bahamas.
714X & Gaston Naessens. Naessens was driven out of France in
the 1950s when he developed a treatment for leukemia called Anablast. He
settled in French Quebec in Canada and developed a microscope that supposedly
has a much better resolution than other conventional microscopes. Naessens
claims to have found “somatids” or “elementary particles
endowed with movement and possessing a variable life cycle of many forms.”
Pleomorphism is the theory that inanimate objects can change into living
pathogens and back again. If this principle is true, then traditional microbiologists
will have to add a new axiom to their texts: “Ignore all previous axioms.”
Naessens invented 714X, a compound of camphor and nitrogen, which is injected
directly into the lymph system of the cancer patient to bring nitrogen to
starving cancer cells.
CanCell (Entelev) was developed by an analytical chemist and patent
attorney, Jim Sheridan. The basics of this formula came to Sheridan in a
dream, in which he visualized interrupting the respiratory energy chain
of cancer cells. Cancell contains a catechol, a natural chemical that can
inhibit respiration. By 1942, Sheridan claimed to be getting better than
70% tumor response in mice studies. In 1953, human clinical trials with
Cancell were blocked by the American Cancer Society. In 1961, Sheridan tried
proving his theories to the government, which needed to see results in 5
days, while Cancell supposedly takes 28 days to show effect. In 1982, Cancell
was put into “handcuffs” when the Food and Drug Administration
gave Sheridan an Investigative New Drug (IND) number, then put the project
on “clinical hold”. By then, Sheridan gave up and turned the formula
over to Ed Sopcak, a foundry owner, who has since given away 20,000 bottles
of Cancell.
Where do we go from here?
As you can see, alternative therapists have been busy developing their own
versions of cancer remedies. There is a serious problem with this long menu
of alternative therapies for cancer: the gatekeepers of the Food and Drug
Administration, the insurance industry, the American Medical Association
and the American Cancer Society have been quick to “throw out the baby
with the bathwater”. That is, some of these approaches warrant further
study, yet they have all been lumped together under the tainted reputation
of “fringe” and either discouraged or outlawed. We need to separate
the chaff from the grain in these therapies and expose them to some much
needed research scrutiny.
It is obvious that no unqualified cure for cancer exists, either in conventional
or unconventional circles. Given the disappointing results of traditional
cancer therapy, it only makes sense to expand our horizons and look at other
possibilities. As cancer is about to become the primary cause of death in
Western society and as the “war on cancer” drags into its third
decade, we need to ponder the inspirational words from one of history’s
greatest minds, Benjamin Franklin: “If everyone is thinking alike,
then no one is thinking.”
References
1. Romm, S, Washington Post, p.Z14, Jan.9, 1990
2. Herman, R., Washington Post, p.Z14, Dec.3, 1991
3. Boly, W, Hippocrates, p.38, Jan.1989
4. Family Practice News, vol.10, Sept.1990
5. Office of Technology Assessment, ASSESSING THE EFFICACY AND SAFETY OF
MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, U.S. Govt. Printing Office,Washington, DC, 1978
6. American Western Life, 100 Foster City Blvd, Foster City, CA 94404-1166;
ph. 415-573-8041; see also Sidha National Insurance Group, Box 122, Fairfield,
IA 52556; ph. 800-383-9108; see also Alternative Health Insurance, Box 9178,
Calabasas, CA 91372; ph. 818-509-5742
7. Jansson, B., Cancer Detection and Prevention, vol.14, no.5, p.563, 1990
8. Jacobs, MM (ed.), VITAMINS AND MINERALS IN THE PREVENTION AND TREATMENT
OF CANCER, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1991
9. Wrba, H., Therapie Woche, vol.37, p.7, 1987
10. Chlewbowski, RT, et al., Cancer Research, vol.44, p.857, 1984
11. Moss, RW, THE CANCER INDUSTRY, Paragon, NY, 1989
12. American Medical News, Jan.15, 1982
13. White, MW, Medical Hypotheses, vol.32, no.2, p.111, June 1990
14. Newell, K, et al., Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA,
vol.90, no.3, p.1127, Feb.1990; see also White, MW, Medical Hypotheses,
vol.39, no.4, p.323, Dec.1992
Jim Strohecker
Daniel Redwood DC