"" Ralph Moss—Cancer Consultant: 2016-07-03

Saturday, July 9, 2016


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


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!


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.


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. 


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 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.)