This is an informative, well-documented offering about how one mans' novel cancer treatment has tried to be suppressed because it worked, threatening Pharma and the FDA. At present he is having 50-60% of tumours disappear with his gene-targeted treatment. If patients have had radiation or chemo at dangerous levels previous to receiving his treatment, many autopsies show they die of their side effects, while their bodies are cancer-free from Burzynski's treatment. At present, he is also reporting a better relationship with the FDA.
Below article via Mercola.com
Important! The producers of this powerful film are allowing a full and FREE preview through June 13th! Please tell everyone you know to watch this film in it's entirety through June 13, 2011.
Visit the Mercola Video Library
Burzynski, the Movie is the story of a medical doctor and Ph.D biochemist named Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski who won the largest, and possibly the most convoluted and intriguing legal battle against the Food and Drug Administration in American history.
In the 1970’s, Dr. Burzynski made a remarkable discovery that threatened to change the face of cancer treatment forever. His non-toxic gene-targeted cancer medicine could have helped save millions of lives over the last two decades had his discovery not been criminally suppressed by the US government, as his therapy, called “antineoplastons,” have been shown to effectively help cure some of the most “incurable” forms of terminal cancer.
This documentary takes you through the treacherous 14-year journey Dr. Burzynski and his patients have had to endure in order to finally obtain FDA-approved clinical trials of antineoplastons.
His story is yet another testament that fact can be far stranger than fiction, as the film exposes the powerful, unscrupulous forces that work to maintain the status quo of the medical- and pharmaceutical industry at any cost—including the lives of millions of people.
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski was born in the early 1940's in Poland, and was trained as both a biochemist and a physician. He's spent the last 35 years developing and successfully treating cancer patients suffering with some of the most lethal forms of cancer at his clinic in Houston, Texas.
I recently interviewed Dr. Burzynski about his cancer treatment—a gene-targeted approach using non-toxic peptides and amino acids, known as antineoplastons. Here, I will follow up with a review of his recently released documentary, Burzynski, The Movie.
It's an absolute jaw-dropper...
For anyone who has ever been affected by cancer, either directly or indirectly, the facts presented in this film will hit you like a rude slap in the face.
You will learn that not only did the US Federal government spend 14 years actively suppressing a cancer treatment that had a FAR greater success rate than any other treatment available, they also spent well over $60 million of US taxpayer dollars trying to put the inventor of the treatment in jail in order to steal his patents and either suppress or cash in on his discovery.
This film is an absolute MUST-SEE, as the summary I'm about to present below simply cannot do it justice. It's available for purchase at BurzynkiMovie.com, where you can view the first half-hour for free. The site also contains a large number of video clips, as well as a full transcript of the entire film, along with links to all the documentation presented.
What's so Special about Dr. Burzynski's Treatment?
The story begins back in the early 1970's when Dr. Burzynski discovered that people with cancer lacked a certain peptide, while those who were cancer free had a plentiful supply of it.
This finding eventually led him to create a medical treatment referred to as antineoplastons. The drug contains a mixture of peptides and derivatives of amino acids. These were known to act as molecular switches, but as genome research blossomed and science progressed, Dr. Burzynski discovered they also work as genetic switches, and that is why antineoplastons work so well. They're actually able to turn on cancer suppressing genes, while simultaneously turning oncogenes (cancer genes) off.
As explained in the film:
"Our bodies contain two categories of genes that allow cancer to flourish: oncogenes, and tumor suppressor genes. When someone has cancer, they have a higher level of oncogenes switched on, with a higher level tumor suppressor genes switched off.
The goal is to tell the body to both switch back on the tumor suppressor genes, and turn off as many oncogenes as possible."
While other gene targeting cancer drugs now exist, they're only capable of targeting a small number of specific cancer genes. Antineoplastons, on the other hand, targets a wide spectrum of cancer genes—about 100 of them at once. In a very simplistic way, antineoplastons are to cancer what a broad-spectrum antibiotic is to infectious disease.
Success Rates of Chemo and Radiation versus Antineoplastons
The film features several remarkable case stories of people who were successfully cured of cancer, but it's when the clinical trial data of conventional therapies versus antineoplastons are stacked against each other that the benefits of antineoplastons become really obvious:
Radiation or Chemotherapy Only
- -ME5 of 54 patients (9 percent) were cancer free at the end of treatment
- Toxic side effects
- 5 of 20 (25 percent) were cancer free at the end of treatment
- No toxic side effects
Tackling Childhood Brain Tumors
Dr. Burzynski was so confident in his antineoplastons that he even accepted the most difficult and "hopeless" cases, such as childhood brain tumors. Conventional medicine has little or nothing to offer in these cases, and the side effects can be as horrific as the disease itself, if not more. Furthermore, the best outcome conventional treatment can offer is to slow down the growth of the tumor.
Using antineoplastons, however, Dr. Burzynski has been able to successfully cure many of these otherwise hopeless cases, such as Jessica Ressel.
She was 11 years old when she was diagnosed with brainstem glioma—an incurable brain tumor. After learning that she would die no matter what toxic drugs and radiation treatments she underwent, the family decided to not put her through it. When they found Dr. Burzynski, they literally had nothing to lose...
Twelve months later—after having initially been told she had but a few months to live, and given no chance of survival at all—MRI's confirmed she was cancer-free. Her brain tumor was completely resolved. Today, Jessica is a healthy 24-year old woman, pregnant with her second child.
Even more interesting, while some of Dr. Burzynski's patients did eventually die after the five-year mark, most who did NOT undergo chemotherapy prior to getting antineoplastons have gone on to live normal, healthy lives—yet another indication that in many cases, the conventional treatments are more lethal than the disease itself.
Side Effects of Chemotherapy Drugs
Here's just a sampling of the side effects of three conventional chemotherapy drugs:
Another chemo drug, Mitotane, which is derived from DDT, is also used for pediatric patients even though no studies have ever been performed to ascertain its safety or effectiveness in children.
- Doxorubicin (nick-name: Red Death)—leukemia, heart failure, infertility, mouth sores
- Etoposide—leukemia, nerve damage, inability to fight infections
- Cisplatin—kidney damage, hearing damage, nerve damage, infertility
Dr. Burzynski's Troubles Begins...
The legal battle Dr. Burzynski found himself embroiled in over his invention is convoluted to say the least. There are many bizarre twists and turns, and I strongly urge you to watch the documentary to fully appreciate what happened.
Dr. Burzynski had tried to get the FDA to review and approve antineoplastons since 1977, to no avail. To make sure he would not get into trouble for using the experimental therapy in his practice, his legal team reviewed federal and Texas state laws, confirming that he was acting within the laws and could use antineoplastons in his own practice "to meet the immediate needs of patients," since he was a licensed physician. Particularly if no other alternatives were available to the patient. He could not engage in interstate commerce, however, so he had to restrict the use of the drug to his home state of Texas.
But word spread, and patients started traveling to his office from out of state.
Suddenly, in 1984, he found out that agents from the Texas board of medical examiners were traveling to patients across the country trying to convince them to file charges against him.
What followed next truly challenges the rational mind.
Texas Board of Medical Examiners Try to Strip Away his Medical License
In 1988, despite not breaking any laws, and having produced more evidence than was required to show that his treatment was effective and that no harm was coming to his patients from it, the Texas medical board charged him with breaking a law that didn't exist, claiming it was grounds for revoking his medical license.
They didn't have a case, but kept the charges going by continuing to file slightly amended complaints, until finally, in 1993, the case went to trial. By then, 60 of Dr. Burzynski's patients had filed a petition for the medical board to stop harassing their doctor—a petition that the board successfully eliminated from the trial by filing a motion to strike it from the record.
Testifying on Dr. Burzynski's behalf, however, was a leading expert from none other than the National Cancer Institute (NCI), Dr. Nicholas Patronas, MD, a board certified radiologist since 1973, and the founder and chief of Neurology at the NCI. Even he recognized the absurdity of the board's case, and put his own career on the line to testify.
The judge ruled in Dr. Burzynski's favor, confirming that no laws had been broken.
You'd think that would be the end of it. But not so in this case. Instead of accepting defeat, the Texas medical board filed charges against Dr. Burzynski with the Texas Supreme Court.
The Method Behind the FDA's Madness
It eventually came to light that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had pressured the Texas medical board to revoke Dr. Burzynski's medical license—despite the fact that no laws were broken, and his treatment was proven safe and effective.
It's been stated many times that a crime can be solved simply by following the money, and this case is no exception. The FDA and the pharmaceutical industry had realized that if Dr. Burzynski's discovery—which he owned the patent for—received a fair review, chemotherapy and radiation would rapidly dwindle into obscurity, effectively crippling the industry. Not only that, but if antineoplastons were approved, billions of dollars of cancer research funds would get funneled over to one single scientist who had exclusive patent rights...
Dr. Richard Crout, Director of the FDA Bureau of Drugs, once wrote in a 1982 newsletter:
"I never have and never will approve a new drug to an individual, but only to a large pharmaceutical firm with unlimited finances."
It became clear that ever since 1977, when Dr. Burzynski first tried to get antineoplastons approved, the FDA had begun scheming to eliminate the threat he and his discovery posed to the entire cancer industry...
The Harassment Continues Unabated
The FDA, under the direction of Commissioner Dr. David Kessler, called no fewer than FOUR different grand jury investigations into Dr. Burzynski's practice, despite the fact that none of the grand juries ever found him to be at fault, and no indictment ever came from any of the investigations.
But the FDA did not let up.
Finally, in 1995, just days after the final grand jury investigation, which also had found no fault, Dr. Burzynski was inexplicably indicted on charges of fraud, and 75 counts of violating federal law. If found guilty, he now faced 290 years in federal prison, and $18.5 million in fines.
A year later, in a bizarre twist brought about by congressional and public pressure, the FDA agreed to accept all of Dr. Burzynski's patients into a series of 72 FDA-supervised phase 2 clinical trials.
A 1996 article in The Washington Post noted:
"The prosecution marks the first time the FDA has tried to jail a scientist for using a drug on which he is conducting FDA authorized clinical trials."
Federal Government Spent $60 Million Trying to Bury Dr. Burzynski
This second trial cost American tax payers a whopping $60 million just in legal fees alone—that's not counting the cost of continually harassing him (including several raids on his office) and his patients over the preceding 11 years. Dr. Burzynski spent $2.2 million on his own defense, $700,000 of which was raised by Dr. Julian Whitaker through requests for donations in his newsletter Health & Healing.
On March 4, 1997, the judge declared it a mistrial, due to a deadlocked jury. However, after stating the government had not presented sufficient evidence in its case, he ordered that Dr. Burzynski be acquitted of 42 of the 75 counts.
But the FDA wasn't done yet. They took him to court AGAIN!
Third Time's the Charm...
At this point, many were becoming increasingly aware that something very bizarre and unusual was going on. Jurors from the first trial even joined patients in protests outside the court house. One clear-headed juror from the previous trial stated:
"Please don't waste my money abusing the system to make sure that you maintain your power!"
On May 28, 1997, after three hours of deliberation, the jury came back with their final verdict: Not Guilty.
By now you're probably thinking that this victory surely must mark the end of the wrongful harassment of Dr. Burzynski.
But no. It gets worse.
Secret Dealings Hide True Intents
While this ongoing drama unfolded over the course of more than a decade, something even more sinister was taking place behind the scenes, unbeknownst to Dr. Burzynski and his legal counsel.
In 1989, Dr. Burzynski had retained Dr. Dvorit Samid as a research consultant, and she did a lot of work with the antineoplaston ingredients. At the time, Dr. Samid worked at the Uniformed Services Medical School in Baltimore. She later transferred to the National Cancer Institute.
By 1990—while the Texas medical board kept filing one amended complaint after the other against Dr. Burzynski, in an effort to revoke his license—he had decided that the easiest way to keep the government from putting him out of business or in prison, was to partner with a pharmaceutical company. As luck would have it, he'd treated the sister-in-law of the Chairman and CEO of Élan Pharmaceuticals, and Élan eagerly drafted a letter of intent stating they would aggressively pursue the filing of the necessary protocols with the FDA for approval and marketing of antineoplastons.
Dr. Samid began working closely with Élan on the project. But once the financing, licensing agreements and royalties had been negotiated and agreed upon, Élan suddenly changed its tune, stating they had significant doubt as to whether the active substances could be patented, which would render an agreement meaningless.
As it turns out, Élan had instead partnered with the National Cancer Institute (NCI), where Dr. Samid got the position of section chief. They then co-sponsored laboratory research and clinical trials on just one of the antineoplastons' ingredients—an ingredient that Dr. Burzynski had NOT been able to patent due to the fact that it was already known. However, he had also already determined it to be very limited in terms of effectiveness on its own, over a decade ago.
Élan and the NCI spent tens of millions of dollars testing this single ingredient... Not surprisingly, it failed. Dr. Burzynski had already established that the ingredients must be used in combination in order to be effective. After realizing they could not duplicate the effectiveness of Dr. Burzynski's antineoplastons, the NCI finally agreed to conduct his clinical trials under the direction of Dr. Michael Friedman.
Sabotaging Trials—Par the Course for the National Cancer Institute
How do you sabotage a clinical trial?
It's actually easier than you might think. You'll have to watch the film to get all the details, but in summary, the trials were closed prior to completion, and were written off with the statement that "no conclusion can be made about the effectiveness or toxicity of antineoplastons." But it was clear, based on the study data, that seven of the nine patients enrolled received NO antineoplastons whatsoever! The others received dosages that were far lower than recommended.
Adding insult to injury, in 1999, about a year after Dr. Burzynski had been acquitted a third and final time, the NCI published these invalid trials in the medical literature, citing antineoplastons as a complete failure. So sure, Dr. Burzynski was a free man; cleared of all charges and free to practice medicine, but now the National Cancer Institute had effectively undermined the credibility and commercial viability of his medical discovery...
What the film reveals next, truly boggles the mind.
After the National Cancer Institute intentionally violated all protocols of their own antineoplaston trials, and after all state and federal agencies had failed in their 14-year campaign to remove Burzynski from society—after all of the dust settled—a profound truth began to emerge.
Theft and Patent Infringement—All in a Day's Work
In October 1991—while the Texas medical board kept filing amended complaints against him in an effort to revoke his license, due to pressure from the FDA—the National Cancer Institute (NCI) had conducted a site visit to Dr. Burzynski's clinic, and verified that "anti-tumor activity was documented by the use of antineoplastons."
As it turns out, a mere 17 days after this visit, the United States of America as represented by "The Department of Health and Human Services," filed a patent for antineoplastons AS2-1... one of the two antineoplastons Dr. Burzynski had already patented.
The inventor listed?
"Dr. Dvorit Samid," Dr. Burzynski's former research consultant. The patent states:
"The invention described herein may be manufactured, used and licensed by or for the government, for governmental purposes, without the payment to us of any royalties thereon."
Over the next four years, while the witch hunt to put Dr. Burzynski behind bars was in full swing, the US Government filed 10 more patents antineoplastons.
By the summer of 1995, around the time that Burzynski was indicted for fraud and 75 counts of violating federal law, Dr. Michael Friedman—who sabotaged the NCI antineoplastons trials—had left the NCI and become Deputy Commissioner of Operations for the FDA, working directly under FDA Commissioner Dr. David Kessler—the man responsible for dragging Dr. Burzynski in front of no less than four different grand juries a few years earlier.
In November of 1995, a month into Dr. Burzynski's trial, where he faced 290 years in prison, the US Patent office approved the first US Government patent for antineoplastons. Between 1995 and 2000, the US Patent office approved all 11 copycat patents on antineoplastons AS2-1....
Who Pays for Their Crimes?
By now your head is probably spinning, so let's recap.
Dr. Burzynski developed a cancer treatment that surpassed all other treatments on the market, and the FDA, the pharmaceutical industry, and the National Cancer Institute all knew it. They also knew he was the sole owner of the patents for this therapy, and these two facts combined, threatened the entire paradigm of the cancer industry.
The cancer paradigm is based on very expensive machines and toxic drugs. There's an enormous amount of money to be made in this paradigm, and Dr. Burzynski single-handedly threatened to overturn it.
So they tried to copy his invention using a single non-patented ingredient. It failed. The next step was to steal the whole thing right from under him. There was just one problem. They knew they couldn't use the stolen patents as long as Dr. Burzynski walked free and had the ability to defend his rights to them... So they concocted 75 fraudulent charges to tuck him away in jail for the rest of his life.
Fortunately for us, they failed in that too.
Dr. Whitaker sums it up nicely when he says:
"How can the US Patent office be corrupted to the point they issue patents for a medical treatment that's already been patented and issue them to someone who had nothing to do with their discovery or use? And how can the Patent office then assign these fraudulent patents to some of the most powerful institutions in the American government? And, imagine, all of this was done while these same agencies were spending millions of taxpayer dollars trying to put Dr. Burzynski in jail, so he could not fight the criminal theft of his discovery!"
As I said in the beginning, the facts of this case challenge the mind of any sane and rational person, but make no mistake about it: These things did happen, and Dr. Burzynski has all the documentation to back it up.
The US Government did harass and intimidate, and they did try to falsely imprison a brilliant scientist, simply because he'd discovered an effective cancer therapy, while simultaneously engaging in patent infringement.
Now, while this was an enormous personal hardship for Dr. Burzynski, the US Government also, through their enormous greed, in a very direct way prevented millions of cancer patients to receive a non-toxic therapy that could have saved their life. Remember, Dr. Burzynski has been trying to get antineoplastons reviewed and approved since 1977, to no avail. It's absolutely heartbreaking to consider the cost of this criminal behavior in terms of human life, including young children.
The Deadly, But Highly Profitable, Cancer Paradigm
While the stolen patents are filled with useful information about the benefits and efficacy of antineoplastons, one statement in particular sums up the problem with the current cancer paradigm:
"Current approaches to combat cancer rely primarily on the use of chemicals and radiation, which are themselves carcinogenic and may promote recurrences and the development of metastatic disease."
Dr. Burzynski's therapy, as you may recall, is non-toxic, giving patients the option to at least not suffer more grievous harm from the treatment itself, in addition to a significantly greater chance of being cured.
I'm sure that whenever someone donates their hard-earned money or participates in a pink-ribbon walkathon, they believe they're doing a good thing. They believe they're helping fund vital cancer research that will hopefully, some day, find a cure for cancer. Little do they know that much of this money goes toward perpetuating the status quo of cancer treatment, namely highly toxic drugs and expensive machines—the same old paradigm centered around profit.
As of 2010, the National Cancer Institute's annual budget is $5.2 billion. Dr. Burzynski cannot get a single dime of it. All of his research into antineoplastons over the past 35 years has been self-funded.
Think about that for a moment. Not one dime has been funneled toward developing one of the most promising cancer therapies to emerge in the past three decades... Are you still convinced they have your best interest at heart, and are diligently working to "find a cure for cancer".
Cancer Breakthrough: 50-60% Success Rate, Cures the Incurable
The Cancer Treatment So Successful - Traditional Doctors SHUT it Down
Is it Time to Boycott This 'Anti' Cancer Charity?
Posted By Dr. Mercola | May 24 2011
The 130-page document linked below explains in detail why the American Cancer Society may be far more interested in accumulating cash than curing any disease. The ACS has close ties to the mammography industry, the cancer drug industry, and the pesticide industry.
It is riddled with conflict of interest.
And in fact, according to the report, the ACS has a reckless, if not criminal record on cancer prevention. Over and over again, they have promoted drugs and screening while ignoring environmental causes.
The report states, in part:
"The ACS ... [has] long continued to devote virtually exclusive priority to research on diagnosis and treatment of cancer, with indifference to prevention, other than faulty personal lifestyle, commonly known as 'blame the victim,' ... Not surprisingly, the incidence of cancer over past decades has escalated".
Prevent Cancer (pdf)
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
The American Cancer Society (ACS) is:
"[A] nationwide community-based voluntary health organization dedicated to eliminating cancer as a major health problem by preventing cancer, saving lives, and diminishing suffering from cancer through research, education, advocacy, and service."
That sounds all well and good, and a lot of people put their faith in this organization and dutifully participate in its highly publicized National Breast Cancer Awareness Month campaign each year, which includes the widespread promotion of mammography screening.
Little do they realize that the ACS is doing precious little to combat cancer, at best, and may actually hinder real progress, at worst…
Rampant Conflicts of Interest
In the report titled AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY—More Interested In Accumulating Wealth Than Saving Lives, Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, plainly lays to bare the many conflicts of interest that hamper the effectiveness of this organization.
For example, the ACS has close financial ties to both makers of mammography equipment and cancer drugs. But that's just for starters. Other conflicts of interest include ties to, and financial support from, the pesticide-, petrochemical-, biotech-, cosmetics-, and junk food industries—the very industries whose products are the primary contributors to cancer!
Once you realize that these conflicts of interest are there, it becomes quite easy to understand why the ACS never addresses the environmental components of cancer, and why information about avoidable toxic exposures are so conspicuously absent from their National Breast Cancer Awareness campaigns.
"This is no accident," Dr. Epstein writes. "Zeneca Pharmaceuticals--a spin-off of Imperial Chemical Industries is one of the world's largest manufacturers of chlorinated and other industrial chemicals, including those incriminated as causes of breast cancer.
Zeneca has also been the sole multimillion-dollar funder of the National Breast Cancer Awareness Month since its inception in 1984, besides the sole manufacturer of Tamoxifen, the world's top-selling anticancer and breast cancer "prevention" drug, with $400 million in annual sales.
Furthermore, Zeneca recently assumed direct management of 11 cancer centers in U.S. hospitals. Zeneca owns a 50 percent stake in these centers known collectively as Salick Health Care."
It's no small irony that Tamoxifen has been found to cause cancer and increase risk of death, while several top-notch preventive strategies and many safe and effective cancer treatments are ignored.
The ACS, along with the National Cancer Institute, virtually exclusively focus on cancer research and the diagnosis and the chemical treatment of cancer. Preventive strategies, such as avoiding chemical exposures, receive virtually no consideration at all.
"Giant corporations, which profited handsomely while they polluted air, water, the workplace, and food with a wide range of carcinogens, remain greatly comforted by the silence of the ACS. This silence reflected a complex of mindsets fixated on diagnosis, treatment, and basic genetic research, together with ignorance, indifference, and even hostility to prevention."
"Not surprisingly, the incidence of cancer over past decades has escalated, approximately parallel to its increased funding," Dr. Epstein writes.
Many also do not realize that when they donate money to the American Cancer Society, the majority of it may never go further than the bank accounts of its numerous well-paid executives.
Cancer Recommendations Based on Profit, Not Superior Science and Results
The two major cancer "prevention" strategies that the ACS continuously pushes, regardless of what the science says, are:
Unfortunately, they're DEAD wrong on both accounts. Mammography has been shown to be an avoidable potential cause of breast cancer itself, and sun exposure has in recent years been proven to be essential for the prevention of cancer, including skin cancer. Why would they advocate what could be cancer-promoting behavior?
- Sun avoidance
Follow the money!
"Indeed, despite promises to the public to do everything to "wipe out cancer in your lifetime," the ACS has failed to make its voice heard in Congress and the regulatory arena," Dr. Epstein writes.
"Instead, the ACS has consistently rejected or ignored opportunities and requests from Congress, regulatory agencies, unions, environmental and consumer organizations to provide scientific evidence critical to efforts to legislate and occupational, environmental, and personal product carcinogens."
The Two Myths of Cancer
Dr. Epstein also points out two glaring myths perpetuated by the American Cancer Society:
Meanwhile, global cancer rates have doubled in the last three decades, and their "war on cancer" strategy completely ignores, and oftentimes denies the obvious links between cancer and toxic exposures through pesticide-laden foods, toxic personal care products, cancer-causing medical treatments and drugs, and industrial pollution.
- Dramatic progress has been made in the war against cancer, and
- Rising cancer mortality statistics are primarily due to smoking and an aging population
This despite the fact that we know far more about these influences today than ever before in history—in fact, there is evidence suggesting that cancer is a recent man-made disease caused primarily by toxic overload.
Cancer is on the Rise, and Toxic Chemicals are MAJOR Factors
According to the latest statistics compiled by the American Heart Association, cancer surpasses heart disease as the top killer among Americans between the ages of 45 to 74. The odds are very high that you or someone you know has cancer or has died from it.
Environmental/lifestyle factors are increasingly being pinpointed as the culprits, such as:
Pesticide- and other chemical exposures
Processed and artificial foods (plus the chemicals in the packaging)
Wireless technologies, dirty electricity, and medical diagnostic radiation exposure
Poor sleeping habits
Lack of sunshine exposure and use of sunscreens
Genetics have more or less been ruled out as a primary factor, although diet, lifestyle and toxic exposures have been found to turn genes on or off that contribute to the development and malignancy of cancer.
Still, focusing on research into the genetic underpinnings of cancer along with screening methods that can also cause harm cleverly avoids the obvious, which is finding the underlying contributing factors so that people can avoid them!
The "problem" with that solution is that it would put tremendous financial strain on all the industries that support the ACS…
American Cancer Society has Financial Interests in Mammography
The health risks of mammography have been discussed since the early 1990's when Dr. Epstein began speaking out about them. As for how these misguided mammography guidelines came about,
Epstein has previously said:
"They were conscious, chosen, politically expedient acts by a small group of people for the sake of their own power, prestige and financial gain, resulting in suffering and death for millions of women. They fit the classification of "crimes against humanity.""
As Dr. Epstein points out in his report, ACS' role in the promotion of mammography is far from altruistic as the Society has numerous ties to the mammography industry, which includes but is not limited to:
Unfortunately, what the American Cancer Society is not making clear in their heavy mammography marketing materials are the risks involved, some of which may actually raise your risk of breast cancer, particularly if you follow the ACS' recommended regimen of yearly mammograms starting at the age of 40.
- Five radiologists have served as presidents of ACS
- ACS commonly promotes the interests of mammogram machine and film manufacturers, including Siemens, DuPont, General Electric, Eastman Kodak and Piker
- The mammography industry not only conducts research for the ACS and its grantees, its representatives also serve on ACS advisory boards, and donates considerable funds.
- DuPont, who makes mammogram film, is also a substantial backer of the ACS Breast Health Awareness Program; produces educational films; and aggressively lobbies Congress for legislation promoting the nationwide availability of mammography services.
In 2009, revised mammogram guidelines were issued by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF); a group of health experts that makes preventive health care recommendations based on their review of published research.
They found that the benefits of mammogram screening do not outweigh the risks for women under the age of 50. Therefore, they recommend that women wait to get regular screenings until the age of 50, and only get one every other year thereafter. The ACS did not modify their recommendations however, and still recommend yearly mammograms starting at 40.
There ARE Safer Screening Options
Many still believe that mammography is the only breast cancer screening method out there. This is highly unfortunate, and I urge you to educate yourself and your female friends and family members on this matter.
The reason you may not have heard about this option is because it's not financially tied to the ACS or any other public health agency. It's called thermographic breast screening, and works by measuring the radiation of infrared heat from your body and translating this information into anatomical images.
Thermography uses no mechanical pressure or ionizing radiation—the two factors that can contribute to the creation of breast cancer.
It detects the potential for cancer by imaging the early stages of angiogenesis -- the formation of a direct supply of blood to cancer cells, which is a necessary step before they can grow into tumors of size. This early diagnostic power is yet another major benefit of thermography.
Breast Cancer Prevention Tips
"The verdict is unassailable. The ACS bears a major decades' long responsibility for losing the winnable war against cancer," Dr. Epstein writes.
Reforming the ACS is, in principle, relatively easy and directly achievable. Boycott the ACS. Instead, give your charitable contributions to public interest and environmental groups involved in cancer prevention. Such a boycott is well overdue and will send the only message this "charity" can no longer ignore."
I agree. It's profoundly sad that one of the so-called leaders against cancer simply will not spread the word about the many ways women can help prevent breast cancer in the first place, and ignores research into safer alternative screening methods and treatment of cancer, choosing instead to protect the financial interests of the biggest contributors to the toxic overload that's at the root of this growing problem.
Cancer Advancements that Need to Become Mainstream Knowledge
In the last 30 years the global cancer burden has doubled, and is estimated to nearly triple by 2030. We must begin to take cancer prevention seriously. Three cancer advancements in particular merit special mention. These advancements have not yet been accepted by conventional medicine, and they must be.
Number 1: Radically Reduce Your Sugar Intake—Normalizing your insulin levels is one of the most powerful physical actions you can take to lower your risk of cancer. Unfortunately, very few oncologists appreciate or apply this knowledge today. The Cancer Centers of America is one of the few exceptions, where strict dietary measures are included in their cancer treatment program.
Chronic insulin resistance will cause major damage in your body. The most recognized of these is diabetes, but that is far from the only one. As Ron Rosedale, M.D. said in one of my most popular articles, Insulin and Its Metabolic Effects:
"It doesn't matter what disease you are talking about, whether you are talking about a common cold or cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis or cancer, the root is always going to be at the molecular and cellular level, and I will tell you that insulin is going to have its hand in it, if not totally control it."
The good news is that controlling your insulin levels is relatively straightforward. First, limit your intake of processed foods, grains and sugars/fructose as much as possible to prevent your insulin levels from becoming elevated in the first place.
Number 2: Vitamin D—There's overwhelming evidence pointing to the fact that vitamin D deficiency plays a crucial role in cancer development. Researchers within this field have estimated that about 30 percent of cancer deaths could be prevented each year simply by optimizing the vitamin D levels in the general population. Countless people around the world have an increased risk of cancer because their vitamin D levels are too low due to utter lack of sun exposure...
On a personal level, you can decrease your risk of cancer by MORE THAN HALF simply by optimizing your vitamin D levels with sun exposure. And if you are being treated for cancer it is likely that higher blood levels—probably around 80-90 ng/ml—would be beneficial.
The health benefits of optimizing your levels, either by safe sun exposure (ideally), a safe tanning bed, or oral supplementation as a last resort, simply cannot be overstated. In terms of protecting against cancer, vitamin D has been found to offer protection in a number of ways, including:
To learn the details on how to use vitamin D therapeutically, please review my previous article, Test Values and Treatment for Vitamin D Deficiency.
- Regulating genetic expression
- Increasing the self-destruction of mutated cells (which, if allowed to replicate, could lead to cancer)
- Reducing the spread and reproduction of cancer cells
- Causing cells to become differentiated (cancer cells often lack differentiation)
- Reducing the growth of new blood vessels from pre-existing ones, which is a step in the transition of dormant tumors turning cancerous
Number 3: Exercise—If you are like most people, when you think of reducing your risk of cancer, exercise doesn't immediately come to mind. However, there is some fairly compelling evidence that exercise can slash your risk of cancer.
One of the primary ways exercise lowers your risk for cancer is by reducing elevated insulin levels, which creates a low sugar environment that discourages the growth and spread of cancer cells.
Controlling your insulin levels and optimizing your vitamin D level are two of the most powerful steps you can take to reduce your cancer risk. For example, physically active adults experience about half the incidence of colon cancer as their sedentary counterparts, and women who exercise regularly can reduce their breast cancer risk by 20 to 30 percent compared to those who are inactive.
Additionally, exercise improves the circulation of immune cells in your blood. Your immune system is your first line of defense against everything from minor illnesses like a cold right up to devastating, life-threatening diseases like cancer.
The trick about exercise, though, is understanding how to use it as a precise tool. This ensures you are getting enough to achieve the benefit, not too much to cause injury, and the right variety to balance your entire physical structure and maintain strength and flexibility, and aerobic and anaerobic fitness levels. This is why it is helpful to view exercise like a drug that needs to be carefully prescribed to achieve its maximum benefit.
It's important to include a large variety of techniques in your exercise routine, such as strength training, aerobics, core-building activities, and stretching. Most important of all, however, is to make sure you include high-intensity, burst-type exercise, such as Peak 8. Peak 8 are exercises performed once or twice a week, in which you raise your heart rate up to your anaerobic threshold for 20 to 30 seconds, and then you recover for 90 seconds.
These exercises activate your super-fast twitch muscle fibers, which can increase your body's natural production of human growth hormone. For detailed instructions, please see this previous article.
Additionally it is likely that integrating exercise with intermittent fasting will greatly catalyze the potential of exercise to reduce your risk of cancer and stimulate widespread healing and rejuvenation.
Additional Anti-Cancer Strategies
Additional lifestyle guidelines that will help protect you against cancer include:
- Get appropriate amounts of animal-based omega-3 fats.
- Eat according to your nutritional type. The potent anti-cancer effects of this principle are very much underappreciated. When we treat cancer patients in our clinic this is one of the most powerful anti-cancer strategies we have.
- Eat as many vegetables as you are comfortable with. Ideally, they should be fresh and organic. Cruciferous vegetables in particular have been identified as having potent anti-cancer properties. Remember that carb nutritional types may need up to 300 percent more vegetables than protein nutritional types.
- Have a tool to permanently erase the neurological short-circuiting that can activate cancer genes. Even the CDC states that 85 percent of disease is caused by emotions. It is likely that this factor may be more important than all the other physical ones listed here, so make sure this is addressed. My particular favorite tool for this purpose, as you may know, is the Emotional Freedom Technique.
- Maintain an ideal body weight.
- Get enough high-quality sleep.
- Reduce your exposure to environmental toxins like pesticides, household chemical cleaners, synthetic air fresheners and air pollution.
- Reduce your use of cell phones and other wireless technologies, and implement as many safety strategies as possible if/when you cannot avoid their use.
- Boil, poach or steam your foods, rather than frying or charbroiling them.
The use of mammograms has dropped following recommendations by a medical task force that women in their 40s may not need to get breast cancer screenings every year. Studies suggest that fewer physicians are recommending annual mammograms for women in their 40s, and that fewer patients in that age group are getting screened.
In November of 2009, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a federal advisory board, said that yearly mammograms should not necessarily be automatic at age 40. They did recommend routine mammography screenings every two years for women ages 50 to 74.
"Mammograms are less effective in detecting growths in younger women, whose breasts may be denser. The screening gets better with older women because breast tissues change over time. As a result, some women experience false positives, anxiety and unnecessary biopsies because of mammograms, according to data."
Meanwhile, more and more clinical studies are showing that an alternative, noninvasive breast cancer screening test – thermography – could soon become the initial breast screening tool for pre-menopausal women.
Dr. Mercola's Comments: When the 16-member U.S. Preventive Services Task Force said annual mammograms weren't necessary for women under age 50, and that screenings were recommended only every two years after that, the breast cancer community all but fell apart. Protests erupted from surgeons and radiologists to cancer advocacy groups like the American Cancer Society and Susan G. Komen for the Cure.
Since two of the task force's members represent the insurance industry, and since the industry looks to the task force for guidance in what tests insurance will cover, critics claimed that money and conflicts of interest swayed the decision to reduce mammography screening recommendations.
I agree. Money and conflicts of interest probably are involved here – but not the way you might think.
Breast Cancer Screening is a Booming Business
According to a 2008 report by market analysts Medtech Insight, breast cancer screening is a $2.1 billion-a-year business that is projected to compound by 5.4 percent a year through 2013 as Baby Boomers start regular breast cancer screening.
The core of this market, Medtech said, centers on mammography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and ultrasound. Anticipating the surge years ago, imaging providers started spending hundreds of thousands of dollars – and in some cases, millions – on new breast radiology equipment, specialty services, and clinics.
The outlook was so good that Imaging Economics, an online economic adviser to radiologists and health care executives, was already reporting in 2003 that breast cancer screening was a "booming business." And it was: with annual mammograms recommended for everybody over age 40, the bottom line was absolutely guaranteed in the breast imaging department, from mammography, to ultrasound, to MRIs, to stereotactic biopsies, to radiographic-guided lumpectomies.
And then the Preventive Services Task Force had to go and "ruin everything." With the task force's new guidelines paradigm, the breast screening bull market was about to bust. Naturally, the imaging industry was furious:
"If the USPSTF guidelines were followed to the letter, then imaging centers would face a dramatic decrease in mammography volume across the entire age spectrum of women," Imaging Economics reported in January 2010. "For centers that focus on women's health and breast imaging, especially, this could be a devastating blow."
Of course, as is all too frequently occurs, the concern and emphasis is on loss of personal income NOT on what best serves the patient or how to adjust their business model to make it a win-win for them and the patient. When it comes to business decisions, it seems what is best for the patient nearly always is factored out of the equation.
So what happened?
They urged breast screening specialists to work harder to keep their volume up, Imaging Economics advised them to talk to their patients and tell them about women in their 40s and 50s who have been affected by breast cancer. For example, a center in New Jersey sent out letters to all its patients stressing the importance of annual screening, despite the task force's recommendations – and it worked.
The key to keeping radiologists' doors open, Imaging Economics said, was to emulate this New Jersey center, and continually educate patients, referring physicians and the public at large about "the value of mammography as a screening tool for breast cancer."
Beware -- The Price You Pay Could be Your Life
I've shared with you on many occasions my concerns about the safety and effectiveness of mammograms. Time and again, studies published in prestigious medical journals are progressively showing that mammography isn't all it's made out to be – and the task force indicated that this is what they were thinking when they changed the screening guidelines.
I'm sure it also knew that mammograms miss up to a third or more of all breast cancers, as reported by Medscape, depending on the composition of your breast tissue and the type of cancer that might be lurking in there. And secondly, the task force certainly found that mammography and its subsequent tests, such as MRIs and stereotactic biopsies – actually can CAUSE cancer.
The task force also had to have known that false positives from mammograms – a diagnosis of cancer when it turns not to be cancer – are notorious in the industry, causing women needless anxiety, pain and, often, invasive and disfiguring surgical procedures.
What the Imaging Industry Doesn't Want You to Know
What the imaging industry doesn't want you to know, but what the U.S. Preventive Task Force evidently saw, is that mammography not only is sadly lacking in accuracy, but it can be dangerous as well.
If you're new to the Mercola website, I urge you to click on the links above, and read this information for yourself, to get some background on what I'm talking about. You may be asked to register to read the Medscape link, but it's free and the information is priceless.
Then take a peek at some of these other sites, which show that the imaging industry is definitely downplaying the downside of mammography:
Of course, mammography proponents will argue that these findings are only theoretical. But the bottom line is they're only trying to protect their bottom lines by denying the truth – and the price you pay may be your life, if you're one of the women whose mammograms miss the cancer, or if you end up being one of those whose cancer could have been caused by the procedure itself.
- Radiation risks from routine mammography pose significant cumulative risks (over time) of causing breast cancer , according to the Cancer Prevention Coalition
- Lower-energy X-rays provided by mammography result in substantially greater damage to DNA than would be predicted, and suggests that risk of breast cancer caused by exposure to mammography radiation may be greatly underestimated, the BreastCancerFund.org reports
- The slightest scratch can cause cancer cells to crawl to the wound – for example, the spot where a stereotactic biopsy or lumpectomy is performed, Science News Magazine writes
- Several researchers have argued that trauma to the breast – including compression from a mammogram -- can rupture cysts that can disseminate invasive cancer cells – Bnet.com
The Imaging Industry Admits that Thermography is a Viable, Safe Alternative
Interestingly, in 2003, at the same time it was heralding the radiology boom in breast cancer screening, Imaging Economics also talked about thermogaphy as a safe, viable, noninvasive, pain-free alternative to mammography.
Admitting that thermography isn't a new kid on the block – the FDA approved its use in 1982 – Imaging Economics announced that several companies had new thermography products in the pipeline. "By itself, thermography is 86 to 90 percent effective for detecting breast cancer," the agency quoted one of the owners of this "new" technology. When you consider that the task force said that mammography alone can misdiagnose up to 56 percent of women ages 40 to 49, those statistics are pretty impressive.
Adding to the proof, Imaging Economics added:
"Clinical Thermography of Colorado opened its doors in July 2002 and uses Meditherm's (Lake Oswego, Ore.) Digital Infrared Thermal Imaging system. Scans (thermography) are non-invasive and complete in 15 minutes; physicians trained to read thermograms read the scans offsite.
"Marshall notes, "Physician acceptance has been higher than I anticipated." In fact, some local physicians are referring patients for thermography. One surgeon recognized the value of thermography after a patient elected a double mastectomy based on her thermogram, which revealed abnormal patterns in both breasts. After the surgery, the surgeon found that the patient's thermogram matched the pathology report.
"A number of patients are women who have had mastectomies and need to monitor remaining breast tissue, but don't want to be compressed during a mammogram. Other patients have cancer and want to monitor their condition."
And this comes from the very industry that is quaking in its shoes about mammograms going by the wayside! When you add the fact that some radiologists are now training in thermography in anticipation that in the future it may be the "first signal" for finding a developing tumor, and that thermography has become a college unto itself, it shows that maybe the U.S. Preventive Task Force knows more than the industry would like you to think.
As Usual, the FDA Stands in the Way
Aside from trade associations like the AMA, the Society for Breast Imaging, and the American College of Radiologists (ACR) – people who have lots to lose in the way of mammogram dollars – the FDA, as usual, is taking its time reviewing thermography's new evidence as a first-line defense against breast cancer. Currently the FDA classifies thermography only as a Class I medical device that can be used as an adjunct to mammography.
As a result, insurance companies and Medicare have refused to endorse and pay for thermography for breast cancer screening. They all cite numerous studies showing a presumed low effectiveness of the procedure – but those studies ARE MORE THAN 10 YEARS OLD.
When you review more recent studies, you'll find that the thermography has well-known benefits.
In fact, a study published in 2009 in the Journal of Medical Systems and the National Institutes of Health's PubMed reported that thermography aided by the latest analytical software sensors is 94.8 percent accurate – or nearly twice as effective as mammography! With more and more recent studies supporting these numbers, it has to make you wonder what the FDA is thinking by refusing to admit the good that it is.
Thus, the FDA is denying women – and men, because men get breast cancer too – this potentially life-saving procedure!
What You Can Do to Protect Yourself
I don't have to recite another litany of studies that show that thermography is an extremely safe and useful tool, particularly in women with dense breasts. The point is that thermography is a safe, viable alternative that can help you get reliable, accurate information for diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of breast cancer.
Not only that, it can detect inflammation of other kinds in other places in your body, from your heart to your teeth to your circulatory/vascular system, and more – all in a procedure that doesn't involve touching or invading your body in any way. It's cost-effective in that it can help you make lifestyle and treatment choices you might not have with other procedures, including mammography.
And, it's risk-free and provides you with instant feedback – in other words, no need for a return appointment just to hear the results.
The important thing is that it still is an FDA-approved procedure, and you still have the choice to consider it as part of your annual health prevention plan.
Why Mammography is NOT an Effective Breast Cancer Screen
Breast Cancer Breakthrough – Cut Your Risk of Breast Cancer in Half
Avoid Routine Mammograms if You Are Under 50
The Breast Cancer Screening Mistake Millions Make
The Cancer Treatment So Successful - Traditional Doctors SHUT it Down
Posted By Dr. Mercola | April 23 2011 | 74,760 views
Download Interview Transcript
Visit the Mercola Video Library
Dr. Nick Gonzalez is a physician focused on alternative cancer treatment using a three-pronged nutritional approach. Located in New York City, he’s had remarkable success treating patients with some of the most lethal forms of cancer that conventional medicine cannot effectively address.
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Alternative cancer treatments are a kind of "forbidden area" in medicine, but Dr. Gonzalez chose to go that route anyway, and has some remarkable success stories to show for his pioneering work.
He didn't set out to treat cancer at ficrst however, let alone treat patients. His originalal plan was to be a basic science researcher at Sloan-Kettering; a teaching hospital for Cornell Medical College. He had a chance meeting with William Kelley, a controversial dentist who was one of the founders of nutritional typing. Dr. Kelley had been practicing alternative- and nutritional approaches for over two decades at the time, led him to begin a student project investigation of Kelley's work, in the summer of 1981.
"I started going through his records and even though I was just a second year medical student, I could see right away there were cases that were extraordinary," he says. "Patients with appropriately diagnosed pancreatic cancer, metastatic breast cancer in the bone, metastatic colorectal cancer… who were alive 5, 10, 15 years later under Kelley's care with a nutritional approach."
This preliminary review led to a formal research study, which Dr. Gonzalez completed while doing his fellowship in cancer, immunology and bone marrow transplantation.
The "Impossible" Recoveries of Dr. Kelley's Cancer Patients
After going through thousands of Kelley's records, Dr. Gonzalez put together a monograph, divided into three sections:
According to Dr. Good, the president of Sloan-Kettering who had become Gonzalez' mentor, if Kelley could produce even one patient with appropriately diagnosed pancreatic cancer who was alive 5-10 years later, it would be remarkable. They ultimately tracked down 22 of Kelley's cases. Ten of them met him once and didn't do the program after being dissuaded by family members or doctors who thought Kelley was a quack.
- Kelley’s theory
- 50 cases of appropriately-diagnosed lethal cancer patients still alive five to 15 years after diagnosis, whose long-term survival was attributed to Kelley’s program
- Patients Kelley had treated with pancreatic cancer between the years 1974 and 1982
The average survival for that group was about 60 days.
A second group of seven patients who did the therapy partially and incompletely (again, dissuaded by well-intentioned but misguided family members or doctors), had an average survival of 300 days.
The third group consisting of five patients, who were appropriately diagnosed with advanced pancreatic cancer and who completed the full program, had an average survival of eight and a half years! In Dr. Gonzalez' words, this was "just unheard of in medicine."
One of those patients included a woman diagnosed by the Mayo Clinic with stage four pancreatic cancer who had been given six months to live. She'd learned about Kelley's program through a local health food store. She completed his treatment and is still alive today, 29 years later.
The Truth about Medical Journals: Why Gonzalez's Book Was Never Published
However, despite—or rather because of—the remarkable success of the treatment, Gonzalez couldn't get his findings published.
"We tried to publish case reports in the medical journals; the whole book, parts of the book, individual case reports—with no success," he says.
This is an important point that many fail to realize.
Those of us who practice natural medicine are frequently criticized for not publishing our findings. My justification for that is that it's not going to be published anyway, and Dr. Gonzalez' anecdotal story confirms this view.
His mentor and supporter, Dr. Good, was one of the most published authors in the scientific literature at that point, with over 2,000 scientific articles to his name. He'd been nominated for the Nobel Prize three times, and yet he was refused because the findings were "too controversial," and flew in the face of conventional medical doctrine.
If the cream of the crop is refused, how does a general primary care physician get an article published?
"Robert Good was at the top of his profession: President of Sloan-Kettering, father of modern immunology, and did the first bone marrow transplant in history. Yet, he couldn't get it published," Gonzalez says. "He couldn't even get a single case report published.
In fact, I have a letter from one of the editors, dated 1987, who wrote a blistering letter to Good saying "You've been boondoggled by a crazy quack guy. Don't you see this is all a fraud?"
It was just the most extraordinary, irrational letter... [Because] the patients' names were there, the copies of their pertinent medical records were there… Any of them could have called these patients, like Arlene Van Straten who, 29 years later, will talk to anyone… But no one cared. They wouldn't do it; they didn't believe it.
They couldn't believe it.
It was very disturbing to me because I say, "It is what it is." I come out of a very conventional research orientation, and it was astonishing to me—I had assistance; I had the president of Sloane-Kettering who couldn't get this thing published because it disagreed with the philosophy that was being promoted in medicine; that only chemotherapy, radiation, or immunotherapy can successfully treat cancer, even though the success rate was abysmal.
The idea that medical journals are these objective and unbiased repositories of the truths about science is total nonsense. Most of them are owned by the drug companies. They won't publish anything that disagrees with their philosophy."
By the end of 1987, it was clear that the work would never get published, and since Dr. Good had retired from Sloan-Kettering, they no longer had the power-base to conduct clinical trials.
Dr. Kelley, realizing his work would never be accepted, let alone get published, "went off the deep end," in Dr. Gonzalez' words, and stopped seeing patients altogether.
"When I last spoke to him in the summer of 1987, he accused me of being part of a CIA plot to steal his work, and I knew that I had to move on," Dr. Gonzalez says.
"To this day, of course, I give him credit for his brilliant innovation. It's kind of like Semmelweis, who ended up going crazy during the 19th century after showing doctors should wash their hands before delivering babies and no one accepted that. Semmelweis just went off the deep end, and that's what kind of what happened to Kelley, I say with great sadness."
Starting the Alternative Cancer Treatment Practice
Dr. Gonzalez set up a practice in New York together with his associate, Dr. Linda Isaacs, and started seeing patients using Kelley's three-pronged approach. The results were impressive.
One of his remarkable success stories includes a woman diagnosed with inflammatory breast cancer, which is the most aggressive form. She'd been given a death sentence.
Today, over 23 years later, she's still alive and well, and cancer free.
"Here's a woman that was given six months to a year to live AND developed metastases while getting aggressive multi-agent chemotherapy, yet 23 and a half years later, she's alive and well, enjoying her life and just doing so well.
We could see that Kelley's approach really worked and when I report these cases I'm giving Kelley the credit because he developed this treatment," Dr. Gonzalez says.
Recognition from the National Cancer Institute
In 1993, as part of a legitimate effort to reach out to alternative practitioners, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) invited Dr. Gonzalez to present 25 of his cases in a closed-door, invitation-only session. On the basis of that presentation, the NCI suggested he conduct a pilot study with patients diagnosed with advanced pancreatic cancer, which in conventional medicine is known to be an untreatable, highly lethal form of cancer.
Interestingly, Nestle stepped in to finance this pilot study. It may seem an odd choice, but the business motivation was the same then as it is today—making junk food appear healthier is a good business move, even if it's only in theory.
Supervised directly by Dr. Ernst Wynder, a premier cancer researcher, the study was completed in early 1999 and published in June that year. According to Dr. Gonzalez:
"It showed the best results for the treatment of pancreatic cancer in the history of medicine."
Chemo Therapy vs. the Kelley Treatment
To put his results in perspective, the chemo drug, Gemzar, approved for pancreatic cancer dates back to 1997, and the major study that led to its approval had 126 patients. Of those, 18 percent lived one year. Not a single patient out of the 126 lived beyond 19 months.
Dr. Gonzalez' study had 11 participants, of which:
Based on these results, the NCI decided to fund a large scale clinical trial, to the tune of $1.4 million, to test his nutritional approach against the best chemo available at the time.
- Five survived for two years
- Four survived three years
- Two survived five years
"My friends say "Why did you get involved with something like this? How could you trust the NCI?"
Well, the NCI had been very fair, up to that point, and the then-director, Richard Klausner, in face-to-face meetings with him said he thought I was doing something really interesting and needed to be properly supported," Dr. Gonzalez says.
But that goodwill soon disappeared.
How to Sabotage a Clinical Study 101
About a year after the study was approved, Klausner left the NCI and was replaced by new management with a wholly different attitude.
"[F]rom our first meeting, we knew something has changed significantly," Dr. Gonzalez says, "and all the people that had initially been assigned to the study, who were supportive and believed we were doing something useful, were taken off it. In fact one of them couldn't even talk to me. She said she'd be fired if she talked to me; if she took my phone call.
I was told by another person who had supported me at the NIH that I shouldn't call him at his office; that he was afraid his line was tapped, and I should only call him at home.
That's how insane the politics over this clinical study got. I couldn't believe it! I thought this was just something you'd read about or see on TV, or that some paranoid or crazy person would make up. But here I was living it. Coming out of Robert Good's group, I don't say that to impress people, but my background is so pure and conventional! It was unbelievable to see that the profession I respected and wanted to join could behave like this."
Unfortunately, the study was, in the end, sabotaged.
"Turned out the principal investigator at Columbia, who's supposed to be completely neutral, had helped develop a chemo regimen that was being used against us—a conflict of interest that was never declared," Dr. Gonzalez explains.
"[T]here are specific requirements for entry into a clinical study. Ours is a nutritional program, and when the first protocol version was written, we had a list of specified criteria… They have to be able to eat…Ours is a nutritional program, so patients have to be able to eat. If they can't eat, they can't do the therapy. They have to be able to take care of themselves…
This is a program the patients have to follow at home.
… Initially, the patients could do it and responded to the treatment. Then, there was a sudden change, around 2000-2001, when the Columbia group took total control of the entry of patients in the study. We were excluded from that process, except during the initial months. The thinking was that if we were involved in the admission process, we'd enter the dreaded bias, whereas if conventional doctors were in control, they couldn't possibly be biased.
Of course, the chief investigator helped develop the chemo regimen used in the study. That's virtually the definition of a 'potential bias'!
He started sending us patients that couldn't eat. We had patients that were so sick we would never have accepted them into our private practice. That were so sick, they died before they got the treatment.
Whether it was a trick to the protocol or not, the Columbia team, the NCI, and the NHI insisted that we had an "intent to treat provision into protocol". This means that the minute a patient is accepted into the trial, they're considered treated, even if they never do the therapy. So the chief of the study at Columbia would enter patients that were so sick, several died before they could pursue their treatment. But because of this intent to treat provision into protocol, they were considered treatment failures.
Ultimately, 39 patients were entered for treatment. Maybe at best, being kind and optimistic, maybe five or six actually did it, the great majority were so sick they couldn't do it."
As a result, the chemo treatment appeared to be a clear winner in this head-to-head evaluation of treatments against incurable pancreatic cancer.
In 2006, Dr. Gonzalez and his partner filed a complaint with the Office of the Human Research Protection (OHRP), which is a group responsible for making sure federal-funded clinical trials are run properly. After a two-year investigation, the OHRP determined that 42 out of 62 patients had been admitted inappropriately. Unfortunately, this never made it to the media, and the Columbia team was able to publish the research findings without mentioning the results of the OHRP review.
"So the study was a total boondoggle; a waste of $1.4 million," Dr. Gonzalez says. "Even though I won the grant, all the money went to Columbia. It's all gone. The data, as far as I'm concerned, is worthless, and the NIH and NCI are using it to show that my therapy doesn't work.
So that's how this long journey of 30 years, from when I first met Kelley, has gone.
"I tell people now regarding the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), I wouldn't send a dog to that group.
They're not there to help you objectively investigate alternative therapies; they're there to undermine them. It gives the illusion that the government's interested in alternative therapies, when in fact that office is being used, as it was in my case, to help undermine promising useful alternative therapies."
Gonzalez's Three-Pronged Approach to Cancer Treatment
Although most of the studies done on this approach were done on pancreatic cancer, Dr. Gonzalez uses it to treat ALL cancers, from brain cancer to leukemia. His treatment, which is based on Kelley's work, consists of three protocols: diet, supplements and enzymes, and detoxification.
The Dietary Protocol:
The cornerstone of the treatment is a personalized diet based on your nutritional- or metabolic type.
Dr. Kelley originally had 10 basic diets and 90 variations that ranged from pure vegetarian and raw food, to heavy-protein meals that included red meat three times a day.
"In terms of diet, Kelley… found that patients diagnosed with the typical solid tumors: tumors of the breast, lungs, stomach, pancreas, liver, colon, uterus, ovaries, and prostate needed a more vegetarian diet," Dr. Gonzalez explains. "But he had all gradations of a vegetarian diet; one that was 80 percent raw, one that was 80 percent cooked. So even on the vegetarian side, there were all different variations.
Some had minimal animal protein, some had fish, some had also red meat.
A patient with immune cancer (leukemia, lymphoma, myeloma, and sarcomas,( which are connective tissue cancers that are related to immune cancers) tended to do best on a high-fat, high meat diet.
… Then there are balanced people that do well with a variety of foods, both plant foods and animal products, but they don't tend to get cancer.
Cancer tends to occur on the extremes, in the extreme vegetarians—those that tend to be too meat—or in the extreme meat eaters, who tend to be too alkaline. Balanced people don't tend to get cancer too much. So we continued the individualized approach, as did Kelley."
Individualized Supplementation and Enzyme Protocol:
The second component is an individualized supplement protocol, designed for your particular metabolism.
"For example, our vegetarian patients need completely different supplements from our meat eaters. The vegetarians do very well with most of the B vitamins, while the meat eaters don't. The vegetarians don't do well with vitamin A, but the meat eaters do. The vegetarians do well with vitamin D; the meat eaters not so well with large doses, and so on," Dr. Gonzalez explains.
"The meat eaters do well with calcium ascorbate as a vitamin C source, while the vegetarians do well with large doses of ascorbic acid. So the supplement protocols are very individualized and very precisely engineered."
Omega-3 fats are also prescribed, but even here Dr. Gonzalez prescribes different types of omega-3's depending on the patient's nutritional type. In his experience, vegetarians, or carbohydrate types, tend to fare better on flaxseed oil, which contains alpha linoleic acid (ALA) – a plant-based omega 3.
"It is thought that the conversion of the plant-based ALA into the fish-oil based eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) is not that efficient," he says, "But we find that our vegetarian patients actually do it very well and don't use the fish oil or animal-based omega-3 fatty acids as effectively."
Chia and hemp seed oils can also be used.
Protein types, on the other hand, appear to need the EPA and the DHA and do better on animal-based omega-3 such as krill oil.
"They don't do well with flaxseed," he says. "Those are the people who can't make the conversion."
In addition to vitamins, minerals and trace elements, he also prescribes large doses of pancreatic enzymes.
"The essence of Kelley's work was based on the work of Dr. Beard, which goes back to the turn of the last century, about 110 years ago. Beard was a professor at the University of Edinburg, an embryologist actually, not a medical researcher, who first proposed that pancreatic proteolytic enzymes are the main defense against cancer in the body and are useful as a cancer treatment," he explains.
When treating cancer, however, he found it's important to take the right ratio of active and inactive enzymes. The inactive precursors are particularly active against cancer. They also have far longer shelf life, and are more stable.
"That would be my advice – get an enzyme that isn't completely activated," Dr. Gonzalez says. "More active isn't better when it comes to pancreatic enzymes, just like more and more D isn't better than getting the right dosage. You want the right proportions of activated and inactive—most of it as an inactive precursor."
His proprietary enzyme formula is manufactured by NutriCology. According to Dr. Gonzalez, pancreatic enzymes are not only useful as treatment for active cancer but are also one of the best preventive measures.
Antioxidants, such as astaxanthin, are also very helpful, both in the prevention and treatment of cancer.
The Detoxification Protocol:
The third component is a detoxification routine. Coffee enemas are used to help your liver and kidneys to mobilize and eliminate dead cancer cells that have been broken down by the pancreatic enzymes.
Coffee enemas, although often scoffed at today, were actually used as part of conventional medicine all the way up to the 1960s, and were included in the Merck Manual, which was a handbook for conventional medical treatments into the 1970s.
"They fell out of favor not because they didn't work, but because the drug industry took over medicine, so things like coffee enemas were kind of laughed at," Dr. Gonzalez says. "So Kelley learned about coffee enemas from conventional literature and incorporated them into his program and found them extremely helpful."
When you drink coffee, it tends to suppress your liver function, but when taken rectally as an enema, the caffeine stimulates nerves in your lower bowels, which causes your liver to release toxins as a reflex. Other detox strategies include colon cleanses and liver flushes developed by Kelley.
It's important to realize, however, that conventional coffee should NOT be used for enemas. The coffee MUST be organic, naturally caffeinated coffee, and were you to do this at home, you'd also want to use non-bleached filters to avoid introducing toxins into your colon.
"[Organic coffee] is loaded with antioxidants," Dr. Gonzalez says. "In fact, there are recent studies showing that coffee loaded with antioxidants can have an anti-cancer effect and that coffee may actually help suppress cancer.
But you have to use organic coffee, it has to have caffeine, and you have to use a coffee maker that doesn't have aluminum, and preferably no plastic."
Dr. Gonzalez also relies on sodium alginate as a detoxifying agent.
"We have a preparation that we put together and it's very effective... It's an algae and it chelates heavy metals and halides. I never use intravenous chelation; we just use sodium alginate."
He recommends taking three capsules three times a day, away from meals, for six weeks to detoxify your body of heavy metals, such as mercury, and halides.
This is one of the most fascinating interviews I've ever done, and it is chock full of information—far more than I can summarize here. So please, I urge you to take the time to listen to the interview in its entirety.
In addition to expounding on the subjects mentioned above, Dr. Gonzalez also reviews the benefits of optimizing vitamin D during cancer treatment, and how iodine supplementation can benefit breast cancer—not to mention help protect against thyroid cancer, in light of the current nuclear crisis in Japan.
We discuss the benefits of juicing and chiropractic adjustments, and the importance of regular exercise for cancer patients. We also review the dangers of electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure, in terms of how it may aggravate cancer growth and hinder cancer recovery, and the benefits, along with some surprising precautions, of Earthing or grounding.
For more information about Dr. Gonzalez and his practice, see www.dr-gonzalez.com. He's also working on a series of books, two of which have already been published and received five-star reviews: The Trophoblast and the Origins of Cancer, and One Man Alone: An Investigation of Nutrition, Cancer, and William Donald Kelley , which is the original monograph of Dr. Kelley's work that he couldn't get published 23 years ago.
This written summary is only a small glimpse of the insights that were shared in our interview. If you or anyone you know struggles with cancer I would strongly encourage you to listen to the entire interview
Thankfully Dr. Gonzalez is still on the front lines and actively engaged in helping people by helping coach them with natural alternatives to toxic drugs and radiation. His office is in Manhattan and he can be reached at 212-213-3337.