Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez, M.D.

By Nicholas Gonzalez, M.D.

The embryologist Dr. John Beard proposed in 1906 that pancreatic proteolytic digestive enzymes represent the body's main defense against cancer, and that enzyme therapy would be useful as a treatment for all types of cancer. (1) Particularly during the first two decades of the twentieth century, Dr. Beard's thesis attracted some attention in academic circles, and several case reports in the medical literature documented tumor regression and even remission in terminal cancer patients treated with proteolytic enzymes. (2-6) In 1911, Dr. Beard published a monograph entitled The Enzyme Therapy of Cancer and Its Scientific Basis, which summarized his therapy and the supporting evidence. (7) In my book The Trophoblast and the Origins of Cancer (co-authored with Dr. Isaacs), I review Dr. Beard's work from the perspective of contemporary molecular biology.

After Dr. Beard's death in 1923, the enzyme therapy was largely forgotten. Periodically, alternative therapists have rediscovered Dr. Beard's work, and used pancreatic proteolytic enzymes as a treatment for cancer. (8)
Dr. Beard believed the enzymes had to be injected, to prevent destruction by hydrochloric acid in the stomach. However, recent evidence demonstrates that orally ingested pancreatic proteolytic enzymes are acid stable (9), pass intact into the small intestine, and are absorbed through the intestinal mucosa into the blood stream as part of an enteropancreatic recycling process. (10,11)

I began researching the use of oral pancreatic proteolytic enzyme therapy as a treatment for cancer after completion of my second year at Cornell University Medical College in 1981. At that time, I had the opportunity to meet Dr. William Donald Kelley, the Texas dentist who for twenty years had been treating cancer patients with a complicated nutritional therapy based on Beard’s enzyme treatment. Although Kelley had been attacked in the press because of the unorthodox nature of his work, the Dr. Kelley I met was an unassuming man whose primary wish was to have his controversial work fairly evaluated by the academic medical world. I thought his request reasonable.

My research advisor at Cornell, Dr. Robert A. Good, at the time President of Sloan-Kettering, agreed to support a case review of Kelley's patients, which I continued despite the rigors of third year medical school. During my fourth year at Cornell, I was given a considerable block of time under Dr. Good's direction to investigate Kelley's work and results in a more structured manner. Eventually, what began as a student project developed into a two-year formal research effort which I pursued during my formal immunology training.

During my study, I reviewed nearly 10,000 of Dr. Kelley's patient records. I interviewed and evaluated intensively over 500 patients with appropriately diagnosed advanced cancer, and summarized my findings in an extended monograph completed in 1986 as partial fulfillment for my fellowship training. This monograph, entitled One Man Alone: An Investigation of Nutrition, Cancer, and William Donald Kelley, is now available through New Spring Press or on Amazon.

The written report consisted of several sections. In addition to outlining Kelley's theoretical approach, I discussed at length 50 of his patients initially diagnosed with 26 different types of poor prognosis cancer, all of whom had enjoyed long-term survival and/or apparent regression of disease while following their nutritional regimen. As a separate chapter, I also evaluated all cases of unresectable pancreatic cancer, both compliant and non-compliant, who had come to see Kelley between 1974 and 1982. I eventually identified 22 patients in this group. For all of these patients, I obtained complete medical records, including death certificates for those who were deceased. I interviewed all surviving patients repeatedly and at length, and in the case of those who had died, I interviewed family members as well as the original attending physicians.

Ten of these patients had visited Kelley only once and had never followed the protocol: these individuals had been discouraged from proceeding largely because of the negative influence of family and physicians who thought Kelley to be an outright fraud. This population, with a median survival of only 60 days, served as a convenient control. Among the remaining 12 patients, I found a number who had survived far beyond what would be expected for the disease, including one patient with pancreatic cancer to the liver who had, when last contacted, been alive over twenty years from her original diagnosis. (Discoveries in Medicine review)

Despite the careful documentation and the five-year investment of time, no one in academic medicine could, at the time, accept that a nutritional therapy might produce positive results with advanced cancer patients.

In 1986, probably as a result of endless pressures, Dr. Kelley gave up research and patient care, and I myself did not speak to him or any of his associates after 1987. He passed away in January 2005. (Obituary of Dr. Kelley) In 1987, I decided to move to New York to try and salvage the enzyme approach, and observe for myself the results with poor prognosis cancer patients. My goal throughout has been to generate research support, so that this method, if it indeed proved to have value, could be integrated into general medical treatment.

In July of 1993, the then Associate Director for the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program at the National Cancer Institute invited me to present selected cases from my own practice as part of an NCI effort to evaluate non-traditional cancer therapies. Dr. Isaacs and I prepared for presentation 25 cases representing a variety of poor prognosis or terminal malignancies who had either enjoyed long term survival or tumor regression while following my program. (NIH newsletter description) Included in my presentation were patients diagnosed with advanced breast, lung, prostate and other cancers. Most of these patients are still alive, now more than ten years since that presentation.
After the session, the Associate Director suggested we pursue a pilot study of our methods in ten patients suffering inoperable adenocarcinoma of the pancreas, with survival as the endpoint. He suggested pancreatic cancer because the standard survival for the disease is so poor, and an effect could be seen in a small number of patients in a short period of time. In fact, I was told that if three of ten patients lived a year, that would be considered a positive result. Nestec (the Nestle Corporation) agreed to fund the trial, which began in January 1994. The study has been completed and was published in the June 1999 issue (Volume 33, Number 2) of Nutrition and Cancer. Of 11 patients followed in the trial, 8 of 11 suffered stage IV disease. Nine of 11 (81%) lived one year, 5 of 11 lived two years (45%), 4 of 11 lived three years (36%) and two lived longer than four years. In comparison, in a trial of the drug gemcitabine, of 126 patients with pancreatic cancer not a single patient lived longer than 19 months. (12) (Abstract of Nutrition and Cancer article) Subsequently, the National Cancer Institute, in conjunction with the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, approved funding for a large-scale controlled trial evaluating our approach against chemotherapy, again in patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. Unfortunately, despite our initial enthusiasm for the project, ultimately it was ineptly managed by the academicians involved. The supervisory personnel at Columbia admitted multiple patients into the nutritional arm of the study whom we believed failed to meet the very specific entry requirements, and who for the most part were far too sick to comply with our treatment. Our multiple complaints were largely ignored. Finally, at our request, the Office of Human Research Protection, an investigative arm of the National Institutes of Health, launched a full scale investigation of those in charge at Columbia. After more than two years, the OHRP determined that the Columbia staff had inappropriately approved 42 of the total of 62 patients entered into the study. A summary of the current status of the investigations and reports is available.

In addition to these clinical trials, we have collaborated with basic science researchers to test our enzyme approach in animal models of pancreatic cancer. In May, 2004, the results of these studies were published in the peer-reviewed journal Pancreas. In these experiments, a very aggressive form of pancreatic cancer was induced in mice, then half the animals were given our pancreas product, half were given no therapy. Those treated with our pancreas product showed a significant improvement in survival and behavior compared to animals not receiving the enzymes. In a second experiment, tumor growth was substantially reduced, and survival prolonged again, in animals receiving the pancreas product. (13) (Abstract of article on enzyme therapy in mice) We want to emphasize that the results were particularly significant for a first attempt, since the investigators were using only the pancreas product part of our program, and did not use a variety of doses to determine the most optimal for a mouse. As the principal investigator of the study wrote in the conclusion of the article: "In summary, PPE (porcine pancreatic enzyme) is the first experimentally and clinically proven agent for the effective treatment of PC (pancreatic cancer). The significant advantages of PPE over any other currently available therapeutic modalities include its effects on physical condition, nutrition and lack of toxicity."
In addition to the financial support from Nestle, from 1995-1998, Procter & Gamble invested considerable resources helping us refine our therapy. You can review statements of support from Pierre Guesry, M.D., former Vice President for Research at Nestle, and J.P. Jones, Ph.D., the retired Vice President for Health Care at P&G.

In January 2007, we published a lengthy article about our results in the peer reviewed journal Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine. (14) Here, we discussed 36 patients diagnosed with a variety of advanced and poor prognosis cancer who responded to our treatment with exceptional survival and in many cases evidence of tumor reduction. We intend eventually to publish in book form 100 such cases, with supporting medical documentation. Please subscribe to our announcement list for updates on book projects currently in progress.

We also want to emphasize that in our practice we prescribe, and in the pilot study and in the animal experiments we used a formulation of pancreas product made to our strict specifications. In our experience, quality, manufacturing methods, and composition vary widely among commercially available preparations of pancreas product and/or proteolytic enzymes. The results of our studies cannot be used as validation for any other product, whether obtained from a health food store, a pharmacy or an Internet source.

Although our published research deals with pancreatic cancer, in our office we treat patients with all types of cancers. We also treat patients with a variety of other problems, ranging from chronic fatigue syndrome to multiple sclerosis. Each treatment protocol is individualized for each patient, regardless of the underlying problem.
The therapy itself is quite complex, but basically involves three components: diet, aggressive supplementation with nutrients and pancreas product (containing naturally occurring enzymes), and detoxification. The protocols are individualized and each patient receives a diet designed for his or her specific needs. The diets are quite variable, ranging from a pure vegetarian program to a diet requiring fatty red meat 2-3 times a day.

The supplement regimens are also individualized, and intense: each cancer patient consumes between 130 and 175 capsules daily. Non-cancer patients will require considerably fewer supplements per day. The supplement regimens include a range of vitamins, minerals, trace elements, anti-oxidants and animal glandular products, prescribed according to the particular patient's needs and cancer type. These nutrients do not, we believe, have a direct anti-cancer effect, but instead serve to improve overall metabolic function. In addition to these supplements, every cancer patient takes large quantities of pancreas product in capsule form, which we believe provide the main anti-cancer action.
The animal glandular products and pancreas product that we use are derived from animals raised in Australia and New Zealand, where there has been no history of BSE (mad cow disease) or other prion diseases such as scrapie. The animal husbandry regulations in Australia and New Zealand are the strictest in the world, and prohibit the feeding practices that have caused problems in other countries.

The third component of the protocol involves what we call "detoxification" routines. On this therapy, we find that as patients repair and rebuild, large amounts of metabolic wastes and stored toxins are released. As a result, patients routinely develop a variety of symptoms, most commonly described as "flu-like," such as low grade fevers, muscle aches and pains, even rashes that we hypothesize result from low grade tumor lysis. "Detoxification" refers to procedures such as the coffee enema, which are believed by alternative practitioners to enhance liver function and in turn, the processing and excretion of metabolic wastes. The coffee enemas are done twice daily, and patients most commonly report symptomatic relief.

Coffee enemas have been discussed in the orthodox medical literature for the better part of this century. Many nursing texts routinely recommended coffee enemas (15), and the Merck Manual advocated coffee enemas as a stimulant in all editions from the first in 1898 through 1977. During the 1920s and 30s, coffee enemas were prescribed for a variety of conditions. (16-20) In terms of their physiological effect, studies have shown that the rectal instillation of fluids will stimulate gallbladder contraction and emptying. (21)

Of the hundreds of Kelley patients I interviewed during my research study, virtually every one reported significant symptomatic relief from the enemas. In my own practice patients repeatedly report the same improved well-being and relief of symptoms after a coffee enema. The enemas, in my experience, appear to be safe: I have yet to document a single serious side effect either in the thousands of Kelley patients I evaluated, or in my own practice. However, I do not encourage anyone to attempt coffee enemas except under the care of a knowledgeable physician.
(For further information, you may wish to order a book or a lecture recording. Recordings of lectures given by Dr. Gonzalez over the years to both lay and professional groups are available, and provide more intensive explanations of the program. Various audio recordings of Dr. Gonzalez are available on this web site.) For periodic updates about our work and our website, please subscribe to our mailing list.
Home Page

The references listed below, with the exception of references 7 and 8 (which are books), are available through the Nutritional Research and Educational Foundation.
1. Beard J: "The action of trypsin upon the living cells of Jensen's mouse tumor." Br Med J 4, 140-141, 1906.
2. Campbell JT: "Trypsin treatment of a case of malignant disease." JAMA 48, 225-226, 1907.
3. Cutfield A: "Trypsin treatment in malignant disease." Br Med J 5, 525, 1907.
4. Goeth RA: "Pancreatic treatment of cancer, with report of a cure." JAMA 48, 1030, 1907.
5. Little WL: "A case of malignant tumor, with treatment." JAMA 50, 1724, 1908.
6. Wiggin FH: "Case of multiple fibrosarcoma of the tongue, with remarks on the use of trypsin and amylopsin in the treatment of malignant disease." JAMA 47, 2003-2008, 1906.
7. Beard J: The Enzyme Treatment of Cancer. London: Chatto and Windus, 1911.
8. Shively FL: Multiple Proteolytic Enzyme Therapy of Cancer. Dayton: Johnson-Watson, 1969.
9. Moskvichyov BV, Komarov EV, Ivanova GP: "Study of trypsin thermodenaturation process." Enzyme Microb Tech 8, 498-502, 1986.
10. Gotze H, Rothman SS: "Enteropancreatic circulation of digestive enzymes as a conservative mechanism." Nature 257(5527), 607-609, 1975.
11. Liebow C, Rothman SS: "Enteropancreatic circulation of digestive enzymes." Science 189(4201), 472-474, 1975.
12. Gonzalez NJ, Isaacs LL: "Evaluation of pancreatic proteolytic enzyme treatment of adenocarcinoma of the pancreas, with nutrition and detoxification support. " Nutr Cancer 33(2), 117-124, 1999.
13. Saruc M, Standop S, Standop J, Nozawa F, Itami A, Pandey KK, Batra SK, Gonzalez NJ, Guesry P, Pour PM: "Pancreatic enzyme extract improves survival in murine pancreatic cancer." Pancreas 28(4), 401-412, 2004.
14. Gonzalez NJ, Isaacs LL: "The Gonzalez therapy and cancer: a collection of case reports." Altern Ther Health Med 13(1), 46-55, 2007.
15. McClain ME: Scientific Principles in Nursing. St. Louis: CV Mosby Company, 1950, p.168.
16. Bastedo WA: "Colon irrigations." NEJM 199(18), 865-866, 1928.
17. Bastedo WA: "Colon irrigations." JAMA 98(9), 734-36, 1932.
18. Friedenwald J, Morrison, S: "Value, indications, limitations and technic of colonic irrigation." Med Clin of N Am, p.1611-1629, 1935.
19. Marshall JK, Thompson CE: "Colon irrigation in the treatment of mental disease." NEJM 207(10), 454-457, 1932.
20. Snyder RG: "The value of colonic irrigations in counteracting auto-intoxication of intestinal origin." Med Clin N Am, p.781-88, 1939.
21. Garbat AL, Jacobi HG: "Secretion of bile in response to rectal installations." Arch Int Med 44, 455-462, 1929.

Journal of Clinical Oncology Article Rebuttal
In August 2009, to our astonishment we learned that the Journal of Clinical Oncology, considered to be one of the pre-eminent oncology journals in the country, published an article about our NCI-NIH clinical study which claimed that chemotherapy worked better than our treatment with patients diagnosed with inoperable pancreatic cancer.
Though I originally earned the grant from the NCI in 1998, though I was an investigator on this study throughout its existence, and though the clinical trial was set up to compare the efficacy of my treatment with chemotherapy, no one involved with the publication – not the Principal Investigator, Dr. John Chabot of Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center, nor any of his associates, informed me of their intent to publish this article, nor had I seen it. I learned of it serendipitously when the online version appeared on PubMed.
I believe the article to be deliberately misleading in many regards, seeking to discredit me and salvage the reputations of those involved in supervising the study in the face of devastating findings of mismanagement on their part determined after official government investigations instigated at my request. In their official determination letter appearing on their website after a two-year investigation, the Office of Human Research Protections, the NIH agency in charge of investigating mismanagement on government funded studies, found that Dr. Chabot, who was in charge of admissions of patients, had improperly approved 42 out of a total of 62 patients, including 40 for whom he had failed to obtain appropriate written informed consent. Furthermore, the determination letter states that the Principal Investigator (Dr. Chabot) admitted he committed the managerial lapses, and in their letter the OHRP requires Columbia set up a program for training in appropriate research methodology – a serious indictment of a major academic medical center.
To my astonishment, the JCO article nowhere mentions the findings of the OHRP, as if this lengthy investigation never existed, leaving the reader with the impression this study was properly managed by Dr. Chabot. In that regard, the article is a gross misrepresentation of what actually transpired during the study’s sad eight year history.
Furthermore, Dr. Chabot's JCO article also completely ignores a letter dated January 27, 2005, written in response to my ongoing complaints that because Dr. Chabot had admitted so many patients into the nutrition arm of the trial who could not or did not comply, any comparison between the two groups was meaningless. In her letter, written as the official spokesperson for the NIH, Dr. Engel concurs, stating that:
In spite of everyone's best efforts, it appears as if the current design and implementation of the study may have resulted in accrual into the two study arms of patient populations that are not comparable. As a consequence, it is very difficult (if not impossible) to ascertain treatment effect with certainty.
Later, she writes:
We discussed at considerable length his concerns about the probable accrual of patients unable to comply fully with the nutrition arm of the protocol. It was our impression that everyone in the room basically agreed that, despite best efforts, there is in fact, reason to be concerned about this issue, and that it clouds interpretation of the data.
More recently, Congressman Dan Burton of Indiana and I have requested that the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services begin an investigation to determine if the supervisors of the study committed fraud in the mishandling of the project and its data. We have learned, for example, that according to the published medical literature, Dr. Chabot, who as Principal Investigator should have been a completely neutral manager with no ties to either treatment being evaluated, had worked closely with his Columbia colleague developing the very GTX chemotherapy regimen used against us in the study – an obvious conflict of interest that had never been declared to us. We suspect Dr. Chabot believed it was in his best interest to discredit our alternative therapy and instead prove the value of a treatment he helped develop.
Ironically, with no knowledge of the pending JCO article, I had only recently completed a lengthy book detailing the problems with the study and the gross mismanagement committed by the so-called conventional academic researchers assigned to run the project, and the attempts of myself and my colleague Dr. Isaacs to abide by the tenets of appropriate scientific investigation. It makes a good story of deceit, collusion, and disregard for patient safety that reaches right into the highest levels of the academic medical community
Below I include a number of documents, several extracted from the book itself, that summarize the study’s history, and its various well-documented problems.
The Truth About The NCI-NCCAM Clinical Study
Excerpt summarizing problems
Excerpt chapter on informed consent
Letter from Dr. Engel
Link to OHRP findings
My answer to OHRP
My letter to Columbia Dean (December 2006)
An article entitled "Some Thoughts about Scientific Bias," also extracted from my upcoming book, discusses at length two examples of fraud perpetuated at the highest levels of the academic research community; the promotion of bone marrow transplantation as a treatment for breast cancer, and the HIV-nevirapine clinical trial in Africa. These examples illustrate that conventional scientists will often stop at nothing to promote their cherished theories, and without hesitation will ruthlessly attack those who insist on speaking the truth.

Pancreatic Enzyme Extract Improves Survival in Murine Pancreatic Cancer
Saruc M, Standop S, Standop J, Nozawa F, Itami A, Pandey KK, Batra SK, Gonzalez NJ, Guesry P, Pour PM
The disappointing current therapeutic approaches for pancreatic cancer (PC) represent an urgent need for the development of novel methods to control the disease. Based on a recent report on the effectiveness of pancreatic enzyme therapy, we examined the effect of porcine pancreatic enzyme extracts (PPE) on human PC xenografts in nude mice.
The malignant human PC cell line AsPC1 was transplanted into the pancreas of male beige XID nude mice that were treated or not with PPE in drinking water. The survival, size, and volume of tumors, plasma pancreatic enzyme levels, fecal fat, and urine were examined as were the expression of transforming growth factor alpha, insulinlike growth factor-I, epidermal growth factor, epidermal growth factor receptor, apoptosis, and proliferation rate of tumor cells.
PPE-treated mice survived significantly longer than the control group (P < 0.002). Tumors in the PPE-treated group were significantly smaller than in the control group. All mice in the control group showed steatorrhea, hyperglucosuria, hyperbilirubinuria, and ketonuria at early stages of tumor growth, whereas only a few in the treated group showed some of these abnormalities at the final stage. There were no differences in the expression of growth factors, epidermal growth factor receptor, or the apoptotic rate between the tumors of treated and control mice.
The treatment with PPE significantly prolongs the survival of mice with human PC xenografts and slows the tumor growth. The data indicate that the beneficial effect of PPE on survival is primarily related to the nutritional advantage of the treated mice.
Pancreas, 28(4):401-412, May 2004. PMID: 15097858

Case Report Series Introduction
By Nicholas J. Gonzalez, M.D.

Conventional medical journals often publish case reports, that is, descriptions of individual patients whose disease might have taken an unusual course in response to some new treatment. Such “anecdotal” evidence, as it is technically called, contrasts with a controlled clinical trial, in which different treatments are given to large groups of patients with a particular illness, and the results compared. Some scientists stubbornly insist that only such rigorous exercises, ideally pursued under the most stringent rules and regulations, can “prove” to everyone’s satisfaction that a new treatment for a disease has any value. They often argue that case reports, these histories of individual patients, though perhaps interesting or entertaining, have little scientific merit.

My mentor Dr. Good, one of the finest scientists of the 20th century and the most published author in the history of medicine, always insisted case reports, if properly written and carefully documented, can teach us much about the potential of a new approach. When I first began to evaluate Kelley’s records, Dr. Good said that if I could find even one patient with appropriately diagnosed, biopsy proven metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma who had lived five years under Kelley’s care he would be impressed, since no one else in medicine anywhere to his knowledge had such a case. Dr. Good’s knowledge was indeed extensive, since he was at the time President of Sloan-Kettering and an expert in the disease. A single example might not prove to everyone’s satisfaction that the enzyme therapy had value, but it certainly should grab the attention of any fair-minded researcher.

In terms of cancer, a case report, to have value, must meet certain basic criteria; as a start, the diagnosis must be confirmed by biopsy, and the stage by appropriate radiographic studies or surgical procedures. Then, the unusual response to treatment must be carefully defined, carefully explained and carefully documented. The endpoints of most importance for cancer case reports include objective evidence of improvement in the underlying disease, or unusual prolonged survival.

For patients with the typical solid epithelial tumors, disease regression can be verified by serial radiographic studies, such as PET or CT scans. For blood cell malignancies such as leukemia or myeloma, normalization of blood parameters, such as white count or blood protein, might be the marker followed over time.

Survival, if particularly unusual, can be a valid endpoint with or without evidence of disease regression. If this be the chosen criterion, the patient in question must have lived far beyond the accepted medians and means for the disease. Such information on expected survival can be culled with some effort from a number of sources, both governmental and private, so comparisons can be made. The SEER and American Cancer Society websites, for example, provide survival statistics, including medians and means, for many cancers. However, no precise definition of “significantly” prolonged survival really exists, so it becomes more of a judgement call in each case. When I first presented at the NCI in July 1993, Dr. Michael Friedman, then Associate NCI Director, said that if a patient of mine diagnosed with inoperable pancreatic cancer lived three months beyond the reported mean of six months, he wouldn’t be impressed, whereas survival six months in excess of the standard averages would be meaningful. Of course, absolute values for “significance” will vary from cancer to cancer: six months of extra life might be unusual for a patient with a pancreatic neoplasm, but not so for a woman with metastatic breast cancer. In this case, two years beyond the mean would, to me, indicate an interesting response to treatment.

Traditionally the National Cancer Institute, which sets the standards for all oncology worldwide, hasn’t considered survival as a valid endpoint, only objective response as documented by radiographic or other tests. At the time I presented case reports at the NCI in 1993, for epithelial cancers the NCI experts defined “response to treatment “ as a 50% or greater reduction in tumor size that lasted at least four weeks. Unfortunately, as it has turned out, many chemotherapy drugs easily shrink tumors to this degree and within this time span, but the patients live no longer than if they had received no therapy. Tumor reduction, in chemotherapy studies, generally does not translate into longer life for the patient. Though the phenomenon has long perplexed the research establishment – logically, one expects if tumors shrink, patients should live longer - scientists now recognize that chemotherapy may kill the less aggressive population of cells and shrink tumors nicely, but then leave a small drug resistant clone that quickly takes over and proliferates explosively. So, the selection for more virulent cells cancels out the initial benefit. In any event, I have long believed this particular definition of response, 50% reduction lasting four weeks, to be rather meaningless, since patients care more about their length of life, not necessarily the size of their tumors.

With our treatment, Dr. Isaacs and I learned early on that at times tumors will reduce significantly or blood parameters will improve, to the great joy of patients, but at other times, the disease does not objectively regress, but instead stabilizes. We find patients in the “stabilized” group often survive as long as those enjoying radiographic or laboratory evidence of benefit, as long as they determinedly stick to their nutritional regimen.

During my 1993 NCI presentation, though I discussed a number of patients from my practice with documented disease reduction on standard testing, I also described several cases with long term stabilization without proof of regression. I argued that in such instances the unusual survival should be considered as a response, regardless of what the radiographic or blood tests showed. I know if I had cancer, and had a choice between ten year survival but no radiographic evidence of improvement, or a six week lifespan but impressive tumor reduction, I would choose the former within about a millisecond. Though I hardly assume my comments influenced anyone’s thinking at the NCI, today the scientists there have reworked their definition of response to include not only radiographic or laboratory evidence of regression, but significantly enhanced survival, with or without correlating “objective” documentation.

In the following case reports, I describe patients appropriately diagnosed with cancer who have survived far beyond what normally would be expected for their situation. For most, but not for all, I also provide evidence of tumor regression, often with complete resolution of their disease.

I would also like to make a point or two about our practice in general. Over the years, I have repeatedly heard the claim, from any number of sources, that Dr. Isaacs and I must be processing and treating thousands and thousands of new cancer patients each year. This is simply not the case, nor will it ever be, for a number of reasons. First of all, our approach to patients is extremely time consuming, requiring Dr. Isaacs or I spend at least four or five hours with each new patient divided into two sessions over two separate days. Our patients tend to be very sick people with often very long and complicated stories, so even basic history taking can be laborious. Furthermore, we individualize each protocol, also a time intensive process. Then, we must spend hours with each new patient reviewing the details of our complex therapy, which for most will be very new and oftentimes very bewildering. Few, for example, will have experience with coffee enemas prior to meeting one of us.

Our practice is not local in nature, and in fact most patients live some distance from New York. Consequently, Dr. Isaacs and I spend considerable time each day on the phone – in my case at least two hours daily - dealing with the inevitable questions that come up regarding the protocol and its management, as well as the medical issues that our patients encounter as they fight their disease.

Since most of our patients have serious medical conditions, even office visits can run up to 90 minutes - not the ten minutes most conventional physicians might allocate. We don’t have a revolving door, assembly line practice, nor would we want to. On the other hand, such time commitments reduce the number of new patients we can possibly see in any given week.

A good friend of mine, a scientist by training and a strong supporter of what we do, recently remarked that I must be seeing “350-450” new cases of pancreatic cancer yearly, because we are well known for our success with this particular illness. I still don’t know how he came up with these numbers, but he was completely surprised when I told him in reality we might see a handful of new pancreatic patients a year, and no more. True, we do get many calls from those diagnosed with the disease, but most have already been heavily – and unsuccessfully – treated with aggressive chemotherapy and radiation. By the time they learn of us and call the office, most have already deteriorated into the final terminal stages of the disease, at a point we cannot help.

I also want to add that a substantial number of patients, perhaps 30% of our total practice, come to us with non-cancer problems, such as chronic fatigue, multiple sclerosis, environmental illness, and any manner of situations for which orthodox medicine offers little. We don’t treat only cancer.

So, with those thoughts in mind, I present the following case reports, culled from our files.


Share this with your friends