"" Ralph Moss—Cancer Consultant

Wednesday, November 23, 2016

Gala Event

SaturdayDecember 3, Holiday Party with a purpose! Join the legendary show band, Joe D’Elia and The Allstar Band at the St. Lawrence Society in Cos Cob, CT and support Orchids of Life, a Greenwich based non-profit raising funds to research non-toxic cancer therapies.  Non-toxic therapies, such a nutritional and dietary supplements support a person’s natural immunity and overall health, and funds raised support research and clinical studies on integrative approaches to cancer treatment, so that safe and beneficial approaches become an approved and viable choice for all. The evening will begin at 6:30 p.m. with a champagne toast, followed by a three-course meal with vegetarian and gluten-free choices, a cash bar and live music. There will also be a silent auction on items provided by local businesses. Featured speakers include Geo Espinosa, ND, L.Ac, C.N.S.,  founder and director of the Integrative and Functional Urology Center at New York University Langone Medical Center (NYULMC) and author of Thrive – Don’t Survive: Dr. Geo’s guide to living your best life Before & After Prostate Cancer, and Shannon Malkin Daniels, MA, CHC, wellness coach and author of Water Yourself: A Practical Guide to Weed Out the Bad, Get More Good & Live Your Dreams. Tickets can be purchased at www.orchidsoflife.org. For more information call Linda, 203-989-3909.

https://www.orchidsoflife.org/news--events.html


Thursday, October 27, 2016

Article about me from the Northern Mariana Islands!

Nice to be talked about in a newspaper (Saipan News) from the Northern Mariana Islands!


No cure for cancer

By  

Posted on Oct 27 2016
http://www.saipantribune.com/index.php/no-cure-cancer/
Cancer is almost never cured. Instead, it is “managed.”
Yes, there have been remissions, but a remission is not a cure. This is part of the agendas of the FDA and the big pharmaceutical companies.
If a cure were made available—and there are some—a multi-billion dollar industry would grind to a halt. Cancer patients would become well and there would no longer be a need for costly pharmaceuticals.
More than a dozen years ago I interviewed a man named Ralph Moss, Ph.D. At the time, he was fairly unknown in the cancer world. Since then, however, he has become the foremost expert on cancer treatments and methodology in the world. He’s brilliant.
In the mid 197s, Dr. Moss was hired by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. Although he was formerly a scholar of ancient Greek, he was hired to do two things: to write a weekly newsletter about the goings-on at the center, and to answer letters sent in by cancer patients.
Some of the letters he received asked about unorthodox cancer treatments, such a laetrile or essiac tea.
Dr. Moss would always respond that there has been no scientific proof that these protocols had any effect on cancer. Then he thanked them for writing to the center.
One day, as part of his duties, he visited Walker Labs in upstate New York. Walker Labs was the research component to Sloan Kettering’s anti-cancer initiatives. They were looking for a cure.
Quite by accident Dr. Moss encountered the head of the research department, Dr. Kanematsu Sugiura—“the father of chemotherapy.”
Moss asked him, “What are you working on now?”
Sugiura replied, “I am working on amigdalyn (laetrile).”
“Why would you study something that doesn’t work?” asked Moss.
“But it does,” replied Sugiura.
Sugiura’s research confirmed that not only did amigdalyn prevent cancer, it also prevented metastases (spreading) 80 percent of the time. It was a potent anti-cancer substance, which occurs naturally in fresh apricot (and other) seeds.
Excited, Moss shared Sugiura’s findings with the head officers of Sloan Kettering, and they shared his excitement.
They went to Washington, D.C., to petition the FDA to allow clinical trials of amigdalyn on people.
Not only did the FDA say no, they threatened to cut Sloan Kettering’s funding if they pursued this course of research.
Disheartened, the heads of Sloan Kettering returned to New York.
The FDA then issued an edict to the head doctors: the research was to be re-done according to their guidelines.
This was accomplished by another research team. In the end, it showed that amigdalyn (laetrile) was worthless as a cancer treatment.
Baffled, Dr. Moss called up Dr. Sugiura to report the findings.
“What was the dosage?” asked Dr. Sugiura.
It turns out that the new research was one-tenth the dosage of Sugiura’s initial treatment. And yet, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center published the new research, claiming that amigdalyn was worthless.
Enraged, Dr. Moss held a press conference and told the truth: that the research and its findings were manipulated by the FDA, and that a viable treatment option for cancer was being discarded.
Moss was fired, and he burst into tears. Then he rallied and said, “You haven’t heard the last of me. I am going to write a book about this.”
Moss’s book, The Cancer Industry (still in print) became a best seller. It also put Dr. Moss on a path of finding the best and most reliable treatments for cancer, including amigdalyn.
Since then, Dr. Moss has appeared in numerous videos, and a feature film, Second Opinion. He has also been on many radio programs, including coast-to-coast AM with George Noory.
Although his primary focus is on the curative properties of amigdalyn (laetrile), he discusses other treatment options—options which the FDA has banned here.
Why would the FDA ban treatment options?
Because, as I stated above, if cancer were cured, the pharmaceutical industry would lose billions of dollars and the funding they receive from the FDA.
However, amigdalyn is legal and available in Mexico, and many cancer patients drive down to Tijuana to buy the drug. It is also widely available in Europe, but not here.
However, there is a loophole, so a cancer patient can get amigdalyn by buying and eating fresh apricot seeds.
They are only available from a Website: Rainrocknutritionals.com A one-lb bag, containing approximately 660 apricot “kernels,” costs around $20.
The cancer-preventive dose is eight kernels per day. If you have cancer, you can eat more, up to 60 per day. Apricot seeds are less toxic and far cheaper than chemotherapy.
World Without Cancer is a book and audio series by a man named G. Edward Griffin. Although he is not a physician, he is a wise researcher, who had many consultations with cancer doctors prior to publication. If you search for World Without Cancer on YouTube, you will find Mr. Griffin’s video, which was made in 1974.
Griffin’s thesis is that amigdalyn (laetrile) is also known as vitamin B17, and that cancer is actually a deficiency disease.
Griffin cites that animals in the jungle, such as apes, will seek out this vitamin by eating certain foods and nuts.
Griffin based his findings on the research of Dr. Ernst Krebs, who found that people who were deficient in vitamin B17 increased their risk of cancer significantly.
Dr. Krebs also found that people who ate fresh (not sun-dried or roasted) apricot seeds were not only able to prevent cancer, but to halt its progression if someone had the disease.
There are other effective treatments for cancer, as I have previously written. Foremost among them is baking soda. You dissolve ½ teaspoon of baking soda (not baking powder!) in a glass of water and drink it.
An Italian physician, Dr. Simoncini, claims to have cured cancer patients with baking soda. Although I never met the man or any of his patients, he is obviously sincere in his online videos.
In fact, there are dozens of reported cancer cures on YouTube if you take the time to find and watch them.
But as I have stated often, the best remedy is prevention. By preventing cancer in the first place, you spare yourself the heartache—and great expense—of a terrible disease.
Therefore, if you eat 8 or more fresh apricot seeds every day, and drink the baking soda solution, you have cut your risk of getting cancer significantly.
The FDA would prefer that you do not know this; because they, along with big pharma, want everyone to have a nice, long, expensive illness.


Sunday, September 11, 2016

DOES INSULIN POTENTIATED THERAPY WORK?


“Insulin potentiation therapy” (IPT) is a very popular form of cancer treatment. Also called insulin-potentiated targeted low-dose (IPTLD) therapy, it is very attractive to patients, since it promises to attain the beneficial effects of full-strength chemotherapy, but with virtually no toxicity. The efficacy of the chemotherapy is allegedly greatly enhanced by co-administration of the hormone insulin. The dose of “chemo” given in IPT is typically in the 10 to 15 percent of normal range, sometimes with shorter-than-normal intervals between treatments.

According to proponents:

“Insulin is truly a ‘magic bullet’ cancer treatment, meaning it allows chemotherapy to target cancer cells and results in far less side-effects.” (http://www.cancertutor.com/ipt/)
The administration of insulin will lower blood sugar. Depending on the dose, this will put some people at risk of hypoglycemia. In the worst case scenario, this cut cause insulin shock, in which case the patient becomes unconscious due to a too low blood sugar level. You may think this is unlikely to happen, but in 2000 I actually saw patients being put into insulin shock at a Tijuana cancer clinic. Thankfully, within days the Mexican health authorities permanently shut down that clinic. 

All sorts of claims are made for the efficacy of IPT or IPTLD, but where is the proof? I was on the NIH panel (the Cancer Advisory Panel on Complementary and Alternative Therapies, or CAPCAM) to which the proponents of IPT submitted some of their best cases on September 18, 2000. In my opinion, the presentation was a failure, since they did not present a single case in which a remission from cancer could reasonably be ascribed to IPT. At the time I pointed out that I, and the other members of the panel, had every reason to want them to give a successful presentation, but that they had failed to do so. 

According to the theory, insulin makes cancer cells responsive to small doses of chemotherapy because of the presence of insulin-like receptors on the cells. This does not necessarily follow. In general, the presence of elevated insulin levels in the body is not a good thing. Insulin levels, for instance, are generally elevated in cases of type 2 diabetes and pre-diabetes. Yet diabetes and pre-diabetes correlate with an increased risk of cancer, probably because cancer cells thrive in a high-glucose environment. If you are unaware of this connection, let me quote from “The Diabetes-Cancer Connection,” from the American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR):

“A growing body of evidence is finding that having diabetes or signs of insulin resistance may lead to an increased risk of certain cancers. The connection is strongest among certain types of cancers, including kidney, pancreatic and colorectal.

“The trend emerging [in this area] is that the type 2 diabetes associated with high insulin levels is the biggest problem relating to cancer risk,” said Michael Pollak, M.D., a professor at the Department of Oncology and Director of the Cancer Prevention Research Unit at McGill University. But it’s not just type 2 diabetes, he added, this link is evident for everyone with pre-diabetes, which is a much larger group.”
(http://preventcancer.aicr.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=13631&news_iv_ctrl=0&abbr=res_)

It is true (as proponents say) that cancer cells frequently have insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) receptors on their cell surfaces. But why would one assume that it is a good thing to stimulate these receptors? Again to quote the AICR article:

“High levels of insulin, independent of body fat, are linked to increased production of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). And IGF-1, which shares a similar structure to insulin, plays a key role in cell growth, proliferation and inhibiting apoptosis” [none of which are good things!]

There are scientific studies on the effects of “exogenous” insulin (that is, insulin injected to control the patient’s hyperglycemia) and insulin-like drugs (analogs) on cancer. None of this is good for the IPT argument:

  • Studies have shown an increase in cancer-related mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) treated with insulin. Bowker concluded: “Patients with type 2 diabetes exposed to…exogenous insulin had a significantly increased risk of cancer-related mortality….”
    (Bowker SL, Majumdar SR, Veugelers P & Johnson JA. Increased cancer-related mortality for patients with type 2 diabetes who use sulfonylureas or insulin. Diabetes Care 2006;29 254–258)
  • Currie reported that patients treated with insulin had an increased risk of colorectal and pancreatic cancers compared with patients treated with metformin.
    (Currie CJ, Poole CD & Gale EA. The influence of glucose-lowering therapies on cancer risk in type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia 52 1766–1777; Yang Y-X, Hennessy S, Lewis JD. Insulin therapy and colorectal cancer risk among type 2 diabetes mellitus patients. Gastroenterology 2004;127:1044–1050)
  • A German study showed increased cancer risk in patients treated with insulin analogs. There was a a dose-dependent increase in cancer risk in patients treated with the insulin analog, glargine, compared with human insulin.
    (Hemkens LG, Grouven U, Bender R, Gunster C, Gutschmidt S, Selke GW & Sawicki PT. Risk of malignancies in patients with diabetes treated with human insulin or insulin analogues: a cohort study. Diabetologia 2009;52 1732–1744)
  • There was a positive association with breast cancer incidence in Swedish women using the insulin analog glargine.
    (Jonasson JM, Ljung R, Talback M, Haglund B, Gudbjornsdottir S & Steineck G. Insulin glargine use and short-term incidence of malignancies – a population-based follow-up study in Sweden. Diabetologia 2009;52 1745–1754; Others have disputed that there is a greater risk with glargine than with human insulin.)
This hardly covers the full extent of the evidence of an increased risk of cancer associated with the use of insulin and insulin-like factors. Why then would one suppose that insulin administered alongside chemotherapy would exert a beneficial effect on cancer?

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?

If we take insulin out of the equation, what evidence is there that giving, say, 15 mg of the drug cisplatin will be as effective as 150 mg? 

Leaving aside all theoretical considerations, what clinical data exists to support the safety and efficacy of IPT? If we put the phrase “insulin potentiation therapy” into the PubMed index of 26 million medical journal articles, we come up with four ‘hits.’ 

The first of these was a theoretical article in the journal Medical Hypotheses, dated June 1986, in which the late Steven G. Ayre, MD, the late Donato Perez Garcia y Bellon, and Dr. Donato Perez Garcia, Jr. put forward the concepts of IPT. Over the intervening 30 years this article has only been cited once—by the Damyanov article below.
(Ayre SG, Perez Garcia y Bellon D, Perez Garcia D Jr. Insulin potentiation therapy: a new concept in the management of chronic degenerative disease.   Med Hypotheses. 1986 Jun;20(2):199-210)

A second study, of a bladder leiomyoma from Turkey, contains a passing mention of IPT, but then says nothing further about it.
(Goktug, Goksel Hasan, Ufuk Ozturk, Nevzat Can Sener, Can Tuygun, Hasan Bakirtas, and Abdurrahim Muhammet Imamoglu. “Transurethral Resection of a Bladder Leiomyoma: A Case Report.” Canadian Urological Association Journal = Journal De l’Association Des Urologues Du Canada 8, no. 1–2 (February 2014): E111-113)

There is an article on IPT from Christo Damyanov, MD, of the “Medical Center ‘Integrative Medicine,’” on Deliiska Vodenitza Street, Sofia, Bulgaria. Dr. Damyanov appears to be a urologist affiliated with the University of Sophia, who has been practicing IPT since 2006. His medical center is otherwise unknown to me. This study involved a total of 16 patients with advanced,  “castration-resistant,” prostate cancer. However, this paper only compares two different low-dose chemotherapy regimens. There were objective responses in about one-third of patients, and some improvement in quality of life, but there was no comparison of low-dose vs. normal dose treatments. Thus I cannot see how this helps solve the question of whether or not low-dose IPT chemotherapy is really effective in such situations. 
(Damyanov C, Radoslavova M, Gavrilov V. Stoeva D. Low dose chemotherapy in combination with insulin for the treatment of advanced metastatic tumors. Preliminary experience. J. BUON. 2009;14:711–715; Damyanov C, Gerasimova D, Maslev I, Gavrilov V. Low-dose chemotherapy with insulin (insulin potentiation therapy) in combination with hormone therapy for treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer. ISRN Urol. 2012;2012:140182; see also: See http://www.whatclinic.com/doctors/bulgaria/sofia/medical-center-for-integrative-medicine)

The most recent of these articles is a description of the practice of James Forsythe, MD, but contains no abstract and does not even provide a contact email for the doctor. The article has yet to be cited by a single other study.
(Forsythe J, Gustafson C. James Forsythe, MD, HMD: the success of integrative cancer therapy based on chemosensitivity testing and insulin potentiation therapy. Altern Ther Health Med. 2015 Mar-Apr;21(2):54-9)

There is also a single trial listed at clinicaltrials.gov of IPT that was initiated in 2015 by the Best Answer for Cancer Foundation. It is scheduled to run until 2020. The title of the trial is self-explanatory:

“A Quality of Life Study Using Insulin Potentiation Targeted LowDose (IPTLD) Chemotherapy and Nutrition Therapy in the Treatment of Cancer (IPTLDAZCAM).”

The Best Answer for Cancer Foundation (whose founding director is Ms. Annie Brandt), has expanded their focus beyond IPT or IPTLD, but still promotes this treatment concept at their website. Their slogan is “IPTLD: Targeting the Cancer Cells… Not the Patient!™”

Their website contains some statements about the action of IPT that I do not find to be supported by any of scientific articles on the topic:

“IPTLD, however, penetrates easily through the cell membrane because it goes in hand-in-hand with sugar (glucose). Cancer cells, unlike healthy cells, need lots of glucose for fuel. Without it, they die. The membrane of a cancer cell is designed to take in a lot more glucose than healthy cells. In medical parlance we say cancer cells are equipped with many more insulin receptors. So, what if we pair a small dose of chemo drugs with the glucose? Yes, the cancer cell takes in the chemotherapy drugs in its effort to get at the sugar. Using insulin allows us to differentiate the cancer cells from the normal cells. This is a significant advantage.”

This is a simplification of the relationship of insulin and glucose to cancer. It is true that cancer cells in general consume much more glucose than normal cells. That is because they utilize fermentation for much of their energy needs. But cancer cells also generally retain about 40 to 50 percent of their mitochondria and of their normal energy-generating capacity, per a lifetime of scientific work of Peter L. Pedersen, PhD, of Johns Hopkins Medical Institution, Baltimore, and many others. 

Thus when cancer cells are deprived of the excessive amount of glucose that “aerobic glycolysis” (fermentation even in the presence of oxygen) requires, they do not die, but become more dormant. Incidentally, healthy cells also need glucose to generate energy, although they use it more efficiently than most cancer cells (per the citric acid, or Krebs, cycle). But what evidence is there that when one co-administers insulin with chemotherapy one is “pairing” the drug with glucose, or that “the cancer cell takes in the chemotherapy drugs in its effort to get at the sugar”? (One wonders why you need insulin to allegedly do that? Why not just co-administer glucose?)

IPT and IPTLD are interesting ideas, but I am unaware of any experimental evidence that co-administering insulin makes chemotherapy so much more effective that it can be given at 10 to 15 percent of the normal dose. 

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON CANCER TREATMENT OPTIONS, SEE WWW.CANCERDECISIONS.COM








Friday, August 5, 2016

MANY 2016 MOSS REPORTS ARE READY!

As of August 5, the following 2016 updates are available to the Moss Reports:

001_PROSTATE_2016-1.1
002_NSCLC_LUNG_2016-1
007_BLADDER_2016-1
009_MELANOMA_2016-1
010_ESOPHAGUS_2016-1
011_KIDNEY_RCC_2016-1
013 PANCREAS_2016-1
014_BREAST_2016-1
015_ENDOMETRIUM_2016-1
016_OVARIAN_2016-1
018_BRAIN_2016-1
019_HCC-LIVER_2016-1
020_STOMACH_2016-1
021_THYROID_2016-1
022_THYMUS_2016-1
038_SARCOMA_2016-1
065_ANAL_2016-1

If you previously purchased any of these Moss Reports you are entitled to a free update. You need to email marthabunim@gmail.com and explain when and under what name you purchased it and we will supply you with a pdf version of the same.

What remains to be done?

003_SMALL_CELL_LUNG_2016-1
005_COLON_2016-1
006_RECTAL_2016-1
008_NON-HODGKIN'S LYMPHOMA_.2016-1
017_HODGKIN'S LYMPHOMA
023_CERVICAL_2016-1
027_HEAD_AND_NECK_2016-1
033_MULTIPLE_MYELOMA_2016-1
056_MESOTHELIOMA_2016-1
012_ACUTE_LEUKEMIAS_2016-1
017_CHRONIC_LEUKEMIAS_2016-1

These Moss Report revisions should be done by the fall, bringing the total to 28. We will announce their availability via www.ralphmossblog, so please sign up there to be sure to get an announcement.


Sincerely,

RWM






Saturday, July 9, 2016

SOME 2016 UPDATES ARE READY!

As of the end of day, Monday, July 11, we will have the 2016 updated editions of the following Moss Reports available at our Web site (www.cancerdecisions.com):

001 Prostate cancer, version 2016-1
002 Non-small cell lung cancer, version 2016-1
016 Ovarian cancer, version 2016-1
021 Thyroid cancer, version 2016-1
022 Thymus cancer, version 2016-1

Other reports will be coming within the next few weeks.

If you previously purchased a Moss Report, you are entitled to an update of that specific report. There is never a charge for these updates. Please send a note to my associate, Martha Bunim, marthabunim@gmail.com to request your updated report.

New orders for Moss reports (or requests for phone consultations) can be placed via our Web site, www.cancerdecisions.com

Thank you,

Ralph W. Moss, PhD





Tuesday, July 5, 2016

RIFE WITH IRONY

Raymond Royal Rife


In 2015, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved an electrical device, called Optune (formerly NovoCure), along with the standard drug temozolomide (Temodar) for the primary treatment of a kind of brain cancer called glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). 

Optune is described as “ a portable, non-invasive device that delivers low-intensity, intermediate frequency, alternating electric fields—referred to as Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields)—that inhibit cancer cell replication and cause cancer cell death.”

I cannot help but note some similarities between Optune and the infamous Rife Machine. In the 1930s, an eccentric inventor named Royal Raymond Rife created a "Buck Rogers"-style device called a “Frequency Generator.” Rife claimed that his machine could kill cancer cells using particular frequencies of radio waves. As one proponent Web site put it, 

“As an inventor and scientist, [Rife] dedicated his life to study the relationship between frequency and disease. His research helped him to discover that all microorganisms, including cancer cells, viruses, and bacteria, have their own unique resonance frequency.” (http://energyfanatics.com/2014/03/04/rife-frequency-healing-machine-scam-or-real/)


It is a wonderful story. Rife was either a great inventor in the mold of Nicholas Tesla or else an exceptionally clever fraud (or perhaps a bit of both). His story would make an exciting movie, along the lines of Matthew Broderick’s The Road to Wellville (1994). I cannot solve the puzzle of whether Rife’s machine worked or whether the current crop of “Rife Frequency Generators,” selling for $2,500 apiece are scams. I can say this: in my 40 years in this field I have never reviewed a single documented case of a patient whose remission from cancer could reasonably be ascribed to use of a Rife machine

But it is hard to miss the irony of the FDA, which joined in harassing Rife and his acolytes for decades, now approving the Optune device, which enables doctors to alter the radio frequency depending on the type of cell being treated. I’m no physicist, but that sounds an awful lot like Rife to me!




THE STRANGE CASE OF GcMAF

GcMAF is another "alternative" cancer treatment that has gotten a great deal of attention in the past few years. 

There is a very complete discussion of GcMAF at the Web site of the Anticancer Fund (formerly called Reliable Cancer Therapies) and so I do not need to reinvent the wheel. Interested readers can go to their Web site and read the details of their very thorough investigation. (http://www.anticancerfund.org/therapies/gcmaf

When Nobuto Yamamoto, PhD, first announced the discovery of his “cure” for stage IV cancer in 2008 I was excited. Yamamoto was a biology researcher in Philadelphia for many years. But since his retirement about 20 years ago he has been the director of something called the Socrates Institute for Therapeutic Immunology. There is no Web site nor Internet listing for this institute. The address that appears in his papers, 1040 66th Avenue, Philadelphia, seems to be a private house in a residential neighborhood. I finally got Dr. Yamamoto on the phone, but he was unable to arrange a time for me to meet him. Frankly, he sounded very frail and forgetful (He is now over 90 years old.)

The Anticancer Fund authors also tried to track down the various contributors to Yamamoto’s papers:
“After months of trying to get additional information on the patients and scientists involved in this research we came to the conclusion that these data should not be relied on since there are important issues in the methodology and procedures. The same group has also presented their results to different scientific conferences and we could confirm that one co-author’s participation was denied by the person himself, while we could not contact others besides Nobuto Yamamoto.” (Ibid.)
It should be noted that most of the articles claiming that GcMAF is an effective treatment of breast and colorectal cancer have been retracted by the journals in question. In the opinion of the Anticancer Fund authors, 

“GcMAF has not been properly studied in clinical trials and its laboratory results still need to be confirmed independently. So far, all claims on the efficacy of this product have no solid scientific basis.”
I have visited with the Anticancer Fund in Belgium and know some of the main people there. They are not motivated by a bias against complementary treatments. Quite the opposite. They simply want such treatments to be realistically presented and based on genuine science. In the case of GcMAF, to put it mildly, they came up empty handed.




BX PROTOCOL

A popular Web site, www.cancertutor.com, contains the following statements by Mr. Webster Kehr about the “BX Protocol”:

“Researched and studied for about eighteen years, BX Energy Catalyst has been found to resolve any type of cancer at any stage….The percentage rate of resolve is very favorable, far more than any chemotherapy/radiation treatment plan could give; in fact, hospice patients are resolved with a 40 percent cure rate, whereas mainstream gives them 0 percent. Because of the BX Energy Catalyst mode of spreading throughout the body, it will easily find cancer cells anywhere they are, and will reach the brain where many tumors are not able to be treated with conventional therapies….BX Energy Catalyst is non-toxic, with no side effects.”(Read More http://www.cancertutor.com/bx_energy_catalyst/)

As the same “Cancer Tutor” site explains: 

“The up-front cost of this protocol is $16,995 (this may change from time to time), but by selling life insurance policies this amount is easy to obtain.” 
I had to read this over a few times to make sure my eyes weren’t deceiving me. That’s right—a popular Web site promoting the use of complementary and alternative (CAM) treatments for cancer suggests that you sell the life insurance policy that you probably have been paying off for decades, and that your family might need to survive after you are gone. They also have very specific ideas about how you should liquidate that policy. They write (the exclamation marks are in the original):

“DO NOT CASH IN YOUR LIFE INSURANCE POLICY!!!!, work with experts who can sell your policy and they can frequently obtain 50 percent of the face value of the policy to pay for cancer treatments, travel with the family, go to natural medicine cancer clinics anywhere in the world, etc.”(http://www.cancertutor.com/bx_energy_catalyst/)

“Experts” who themselves take up to 50 percent of the face value of your life insurance policy!

And where is the documentation for the claim that “BX Energy Catalyst” can “resolve” any type of cancer at any stage, including brain cancers, or that it can cure 40 percent of people who are already in hospice? After all, if you will pay them $16,995 for this alleged “cure,” you certainly deserve some proof beyond a few testimonial videos. 

The Web site of the “BX Protocol” company is permeated with what we might call “secret science.” The authors of the site flatly reject the scientific method. Far from collaborating with the rest of the research community, as the best CAM clinics eagerly do, they have hidden themselves away from it. Their Web site states:

“Much of Dr. Smith’s scientific work has been conducted at the Delta Research Labs, whose location remains undisclosed to the public for security reasons” (emphasis added).
That’s a first for me. A secret laboratory hidden away “for security reasons.” Sounds like something out of a super-hero comic book, not a serious discussion of life-and-death issues. 

Let me therefore state the obvious: experimental science is based on transparency, reproducibility and a full disclosure of data. It includes such qualities as openness, communication and accountability. As a 2014 Nature Geoscience editorial stated:

“Two ingredients are essential for reproducibility in any field in science: full disclosure of the methods used to obtain and analyze data, and availability of the data that went into and came out of the analysis.”
(Anon. Towards transparency. Nature Geoscience 7, 777 (2014) doi:10.1038/ngeo2294. Published online 30 October 2014; Aleksic, Jelena, Adrian Alexa, Teresa K. Attwood, Neil Chue Hong, Martin Dahlö, Robert Davey, Holger Dinkel, et al. “An Open Science Peer Review Oath.” F1000Research 3 (2014): 271. doi:10.12688/f1000research.5686.2)

But the “Dr. Smith” who is behind the BX Protocol, if he is a scientist, is alone in thinking that peer review, the methodology that led to the publication of 26 million journal articles in the PubMed database, are part of a scheme to defraud the public. The BX Protocol site reads:

“[Dr. Smith] is adamantly opposed to the peer review process, which he describes as a flawed process at the heart of journalistic pseudoscience.” (www.bxprotocol.com, emphasis added)

I agree with the Open Science Peer Review Oath (2014): 

“Peer review is the lynchpin of the [scientific] publishing system.” 

Scientific articles are generally not published without other scientists in the same or related fields have a chance to offer input, criticism or suggestions. Of course it is "flawed"--almost everything worthwhile in life is flawed to some degree. But it is also indispensable.

To be clear, there are zero references to the “BX Protocol” or “BX Energy Catalyst” among the 26 million articles in PubMed. When the BX authors cite a laboratory study in China, they do not state where in that giant country the alleged work took place. How then is one supposed to question the researchers about their results or see if the BX Web site's interpretation of their findings is correct. Without transparency, we cannot be sure that this “study” ever really took place. When there is so much money at stake, people have been known to do worse things than fabricate false studies. 

DELTA DIET?

In addition, the BX Protocol authors urge patients to eat a so-called “Delta Diet,” which from their description is composed almost entirely of grains and vegetables. 

“It is expected that 50-60 percent of your daily food consumption be derived from whole grains and 25-30 percent from fresh vegetables. Of the 25 to 30 precent required for vegetables, you can achieve this through a mix of cooked, raw and juiced vegetables daily.”
Are they unaware that over 50 percent of the US population is now either diabetic or pre-diabetic? Related to this is the fact that two-thirds of the US population is also overweight or obese. Together these add up to the "diabesity" epidemic.
(Menke A, Casagrande S, Geiss L, and Cowie CC. “PRevalence of and Trends in Diabetes among Adults in the United States, 1988-2012.” JAMA 314, no. 10 (September 8, 2015): 1021 29.doi:10.1001/jama.2015.10029; (http://stateofobesity.org/rates/)

Grains, even so-called 'healthy' whole grains, are a major dietary source of carbohydrates, and thus will lead to elevated blood sugars in people who are susceptible. Fruit and vegetable juices are also particularly high in carbohydrates (sugars). The same is true of root vegetables, like carrots and beets. This also impacts the growth of cancer, since most cancers are fueled by a process called "aerobic glycolysis," which requires an abundance of glucose in the blood. So diets for cancer patients that are high in carbs are defying the most basic fact about cancer metabolism--it's avidity for glucose. Otto Warburg won the Nobel Prize for this work in 1931, but apparently the word has not reached some people who write about cancer.










RIGVIR

Rigvir is a form of viral therapy

A form of viral therapy that is available to today’s patients is Rigvir® short for “Riga virus.” (Riga is the capital of Latvia, where this treatment was first developed.) It has been approved as a cancer treatment in Latvia since 2004.
(Doniņa, Simona, Ieva Strēle, Guna Proboka, Jurgis Auziņš, Pēteris Alberts, Björn Jonsson, Dite Venskus, and Aina Muceniece. “Adapted ECHO-7 Virus RigVir Immunotherapy (oncolytic Virotherapy) Prolongs Survival in Melanoma Patients after Surgical Excision of the Tumour in a Retrospective Study.” Melanoma Research 25, no. 5 (October 2015): 421–26. doi:10.1097/CMR.0000000000000180)

Rigvir was an offshoot of polio virus research in the 1950s. After the development of Jonas Salk’s effective killed polio vaccine, many virologists turned their attention to cancer viruses. One of these groups was led by Prof. Aina Muceniece of the August Kirchenstein Microbiological Institute at Rīga Stradiņš University. The Institute is an associate member of the International Union Against Cancer (UICC)
Chumakov PM, Morozova VV, Babkin IV, Baikov IK, Netesov SV, Tikunova NV. Oncolytic enteroviruses. Molecular Biology 2012;46(5): 639–50)

Rigvir is a cancer-killing virus called ECHO-7, which stands for “Enteric Cytopathic Human Orphan” virus no. 7. It is found in the intestines, especially of children. “Human Orphan” means that the virus in question is not associated with any known disease.

 Rigvir contains live ECHO-7 viruses that have both immune-modulating and cancer cell-killing properties. It has not been genetically modified. In Latvia, it is approved for use against “secondary immunodeficiency,” such as may occur following chemotherapy. Medically, it is prepared for intramuscular injections and must be stored and transported in a frozen state (minus 20º C = -4.0 F).

A company representative told me that all the scientific documentation on Rigvir could be found at their Web site. Indeed, I counted 53 publications, but 42 of these were in Latvian or Russian. (I read neither of these languages). Some of these articles did contain English-language abstracts. A 1992 review article, in Acta Medica Lituanica, is interesting. In it, Muceniece and her colleagues reported on 40 years of studying ECHO viruses.

They actually compared the use of ECHO-7 to Newcastle Disease Virus Vaccine (q.v.), which is another viral treatment that at least is better documented in the English-language literature. They reported on five-year survival in patients treated with RigVir for both skin and ocular melanoma. Patients with regional lymph node metastases had 75 percent survival compared to 21 percent who received conventional therapies alone. RigVir also reputedly increased five-year survival of rectal cancer patients from 41 percent by surgery alone to 77.5 percent.
(Glinkina, L. S., R. Zh Bruvere, D. R. Venskus, R. R. Garklava, and A. J. Muceniece. “[The cellular immunity indices of patients with malignant melanoma using the viral immunomodulator rigvir].” Voprosy Onkologii 38, no. 5 (1992): 540–47)

An English abstract (of a Russian article) claimed that in stage I melanoma, the average progression-free survival was 51.2 months with RigVir vs. 35.2 months for non-vaccinated patients. No side effects were observed in those using this innovative treatment.
(Holodnyuk O, Proboka G, Shapovalova E. Virotherapy—new in the treatment of melanoma. At: http://eoncosurg.com/viroterapiya-novoe-v-lechenii-melanom)

There are a total of four articles on Rigvir indexed in PubMed. Three of these pertain to the immunological effects of Rigvir, without mentioning clinical effects. The fourth appeared in 2015 and is clinical in nature. The patients had had melanoma but were free of detectable cancer after surgery. Rigvir significantly prolonged survival in stages IB, IIA, IIB and IIC melanoma. Treated patients were compared to those who were under observation alone:

“[T]he patients treated with Rigvir had a 4.39 to 6.57-fold lower mortality than those under observation. In this study, there was no untoward side effect or discontinuation of Rigvir treatment…. Rigvir significantly prolongs survival in early-stage melanoma patients without any side effect.” 
(Doniņa, Simona, Ieva Strēle, Guna Proboka, Jurgis Auziņš, Pēteris Alberts, Björn Jonsson, Dite Venskus, and Aina Muceniece. “Adapted ECHO-7 Virus RigVir Immunotherapy (oncolytic Virotherapy) Prolongs Survival in Melanoma Patients after Surgical Excision of the Tumour in a Retrospective Study.” Melanoma Research 25, no. 5 (October 2015): 421–26. doi:10.1097/CMR.0000000000000180: emphasis added)

The Bottom Line: To anyone who appreciates the potential of cancer viral therapy, as I do, Rigvir looks promising. Nevertheless, caution is strongly advised. First, even if we accept at face value the published study, it only pertains to melanoma. At their Web site, the company states that there is “clinical experience of Rigvir effectivity” against “melanoma, stomach cancer, colorectal cancer, pancreatic cancer, kidney cancer, bladder cancer, lung cancer, prostate cancer, uterine cancer and various types of sarcoma.”

But I find nothing, at least in the English-language literature, to justify these sweeping claims. One should also note that the single clinical study (discussed above) concerned various substages of stage I and II melanoma. There is no mention of any effect on the more serious stages III or IV of melanoma, much less any other kinds of cancer. 

The Hope4Cancer clinic (directed by Antonio Jimenez, MD, or “Dr. Tony” in Playas de Tijuana, Mexico) is making big claims for Rigvir. The Hope4Cancer Web site claims that: 

    • Rigvir is supported by a legacy of over 50 years of research that includes numerous clinical trials on thousands of patients.
    • Rigvir has a demonstrated selective efficacy against a variety of tumors as well as powerful immune system modulating properties that make the cancer vulnerable to further attack. 

These statements are unsupported in the standard medical literature. No such clinical trials are listed in clinicaltrials.gov, PubMed or ASCO.org In a booklet on the topic, Dr. Jimenez and a colleague cite three clinical trials, whose references are given in a bibliography. But of the three, two are book citations, not peer-reviewed journal articles, while the one journal article does not in fact mention Rigvir. Viral therapy is very promising. But I would avoid this treatment, until proponents produce more credible documentation of its effects.
(Garklava, R.; Priedīte, I.; Muceniece, A. (1981) Long-term Results of Surgical Treatment of Patients with Gastric and Rectal Cancer after Immunostimulating Them with Nonpathogenic Enterovirus. In: Immunocompetence and Immunotherapy of Cancer Patients. Kemerovo, pp. 77-91. (not in PubMed); Janushkevich, V.Y.; Popena, B.A.; Priedīte, I.Y. (1988) Postoperative Immunostimulation Patients With Rectal Cancer. In: Modulation of Postoperative Anti-tumor Immunity (Postoperative Immunostimulation of Patients with Rectal Cancer. In the Book: Modulation of the Postoperative Antitumor Immunity). Riga. Zinatne, pp. 95-101. (In Russian?) Liu, T-C.; Galanis, E.; Kim, D. (2007) Clinical Trial Results with Oncolytic Virotherapy: A Century of Promise, A Decade of Progress. Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology, 4:101-117 (this article contains no mention of Rigvir.)



Saturday, June 4, 2016

THE HOXSEY TREATMENT



Some years ago, I had a strange experience at the Hoxsey “Biomedical" clinic in Tijuana, Mexico. In my 40 years of visiting foreign cancer clinics, I have had many wonderful experienced and met caring doctors, who were eager to share their methods and experiences….Then there was the Hoxsey clinic. This clinic, which was located in an unmarked building in Tijuana, remains the only clinic that I have been kicked out of! In 1999, I was making site visits to various Mexican cancer clinics. This naturally brought me to so-called Biomedical Center of Tijuana (No relation to the BioMed hospital in Bad Bergzabern, Germany.) 

My friend Kenny Ausubel made a fine documentary about Hoxsey.
I was having a pleasant conversation with one of the American-born doctors when the owner/director interrupted with in a note saying, “Do not talk to that man!” Apparently, she had gotten word that I was an advisor to the Office of Alternative Medicine of the National Institutes of Health. To her, I believe this meant that I was a spy for the enemy. The interview was abruptly terminated and I was told to leave the building. I never went back.

In fact, this attitude represents the antithesis of everything I believed about how CAM could fit into a treatment philosophy now called "integrative oncology." The people involved with it tended to be paranoid, secretive and anti-science. Nevertheless, I will try to give the Hoxsey method a fair and unbiased evaluation. It isn't easy, because there are no reliable studies of the effect 

For many years, Harry Hoxsey promoted his internal cure for cancer. It consisted of a solution of cascara (Rhamnus purshiana) and potassium iodide. Rhamnus purshiana is a plant also known as cascara buckthorn, whose bark is a powerful laxative. Native Americans taught this use to the Europeans settlers. To this, Hoxsey added most or all of the following plant substances: poke root (Phytolacca americana); burdock root (Arctium lappa); barberry root (Berberis vulgaris); a different type of buckthorn bark (Rhamnus frangula); Stillingia root (Stillingia sylvatica); and prickly ash bark (Zanthoxylum americanum).

Hoxsey was not a medical doctor, yet he ran clinics that treated innumerable cancer patients. He can generously be described as an unlicensed and uneducated folk practitioner. (Some people applied less generous names.) Not surprisingly he was vehemently opposed by almost the entire medical profession and by the state and US governments. After a great deal of difficulty, the FDA put out of business in 1960. His one time nurse, Mildred Nelson, RN, took refuge in Tijuana in 1963, to continue Hoxsey's work within a safe haven across the border. Hoxsey himself reputedly died of prostate cancer, which could not be cured with his own medications. (Even if true, this is not irrefutable proof that his treatment was worthless.)

There are many testimonials of people claiming to be helped, or even cured, by taking this internal medication. There are an equal number of statements from conventional experts stating that the treatment does or cannot work. Both kinds of statements are difficult to evaluate, since often we don't really know the exact details of the individual's cases.

So for the scientifically minded, inquiries into the effectiveness of treatments usually starts with PubMed. There we get an idea of what the science itself actually shows. But while there are a few dozen articles that reference Hoxsey and his methods, there is not a single scientific paper that objectively evaluates this combined herbal formula through standard scientific methods! You read that right. The Hoxsey controversy goes back 90 years, yet not a single laboratory study has been done of the combined ingredients in this infamous formula. 

Conversely, a fair amount is known about the individual ingredients in the formula and it presents a disturbing picture. As the late medical historian of the University of Illinois, Patricia Spain Ward, PhD, once wrote:

“More recent literature leaves no doubt that Hoxsey’s formula, however strangely concocted by modern scientific standards, does indeed contain many plant substances of marked therapeutic activity. In fact, orthodox scientific research has now identified anti-tumor activity in all but three of Hoxsey’s plant ingredients. But whether there is therapeutic merit in Hoxsey’s particular formula for internal use remains as much a question today as it was in the 1920s, despite provocative findings of anti-tumor properties in many of the individual herbs he used. Hoxsey's treatment has never actually been tested, either in animals or in humans.”

These words were written in 1987, but they are as true 30 years later as they were when they were written.

(Patricia Spain Ward, "History of the Hoxsey Treatment," contract report to the Office of Technology Assessment,” 1987, republished in Townsend Letter for Doctors & Patients, 5.97, pp. 68-72; Unconventional Cancer. Treatments, OTA report to Congress, 1990, (GPO #052-003-01203-3), pp. 75-80; Kupchan, S. M., and A. Karim. “Tumor Inhibitors. 114. Aloe Emodin: Antileukemic Principle Isolated from Rhamnus Frangula L.” Lloydia 39, no. 4 (August 1976): 223–24; Maness, L., I. Goktepe, H. Chen, M. Ahmedna, and S. Sang. “Impact of Phytolacca Americana Extracts on Gene Expression of Colon Cancer Cells.” Phytotherapy Research: PTR 28, no. 2 (February 2014): 219–23. doi:10.1002/ptr.4979; Su, Shan, Xinlai Cheng, and Michael Wink. “Natural Lignans from Arctium Lappa Modulate P-Glycoprotein Efflux Function in Multidrug Resistant Cancer Cells.” Phytomedicine: International Journal of Phytotherapy and Phytopharmacology 22, no. 2 (February 15, 2015): 301–7. doi:10.1016/j.phymed.2014.12.009; Huang, Ke, Li-an Li, Yuan-guang Meng, Yan-qin You, Xiao-yu Fu, and Lei Song. “Arctigenin Promotes Apoptosis in Ovarian Cancer Cells via the iNOS/NO/STAT3/survivin Signalling.” Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology 115, no. 6 (December 2014): 507–11. doi:10.1111/bcpt.12270; Saedi, T. A., S. Ghafourian, M. Jafarlou, M. N. Sabariah, P. Ismail, R. M. T. Eusni, and F. Othman. “BERBERIS VULGARIS FRUIT CRUDE EXTRACT AS A NOVEL ANTI-LEUKAEMIC AGENT.” Journal of Biological Regulators and Homeostatic Agents 29, no. 2 (June 2015): 395–99;