Defeating Cancer Requires More than One Treatment Method

 

A 10-year retrospective case series using multiple nutritional and herbal agents, 2016 update


© Colleen Huber, NMD

There has been no financial support for this research. The author has received no funding, nor is affiliated with any industrial or commercial entity other than her own private medical practice.

December 30, 2016. This paper is an update of the 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 editions of this paper.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Research has shown that for cancer to occur in the body multiple normal functions must break down. Therefore multiple-component treatments may be the only successful way to treat cancer. We used well-tolerated natural substances to assess their usefulness in combination cancer-disrupting therapy.1 The following has been the goal of our clinic in treating cancer patients: It is not enough to repair genetic damage or to stop angiogenesis and neglect to reverse all other cancer-causing problems. It is also not enough to attack metastases and leave the primary tumor in a comfortable environment. In order to defeat cancer, it must be attacked at every level and with every method necessary to reverse cancer’s multiple-layered assault on the body, even if that means that some of the various treatments have redundant effects. And this all must be accomplished while maintaining the maximum possible wellbeing of the patient, and without sickening or weakening the patient. This has been the mission of our clinic.

METHODS: We treated a total of 379 patients with cancer from October 2006, when we opened our practice, until July 1, 2014, when we stopped collecting data for the 2014 update of this paper, originally written in 2009. Data from all 379 patients who came to us with a diagnosis of cancer up to that time are included in this paper, excluding only those cancer patients who decided against further treatment after less than two weeks in our care. Patients’ stage is recorded as the stage at first arrival to our clinic, which is not necessarily the stage when first diagnosed. We treated with natural methods alone, choosing among methods with research-established cancer-disrupting effect, both oral and intravenous, dietary and supplemented, nutritional and herbal, having a preference for those with high patient tolerance and compatibility, and varying with individual needs and tolerance, according to the standard naturopathic principle of “Treat the whole person.”

FINDINGS: Many patients voluntarily left our practice, against our advice, primarily for financial reasons, while still having cancer. Of the remaining patients, 175 either went into confirmed, complete remission, which we define by no evidence of cancer remaining in the body on imaging, or have remained in good to excellent wellbeing, as determined retrospectively by prolonged stable health of at least 6 months after leaving our care and needing no other physician supervised cancer care, and as confirmed by annual telephone conversation with either the patient or a family member. Those patients in remission stayed in our care an average of 3.7 months; those who left, 2.7 months, (this data last measured in 2010). Eight additional patients went into remission after leaving our clinic, and while being treated at a different clinic, and it is unlikely that our treatments were the decisive factor in that remission. We were still treating 22 patients at July 1, 2014 plus giving ongoing maintenance treatments to some of those who are still in remission. 44 died while still our patients. Of those 44, 12 died after a significant dietary dispute with us. That is 32 patients died although they received our treatments and complied with our requested diet. 22 more were killed by hospital procedures and/or chemotherapy and/or radiation side effects while still our patients. 45 total patients chose to have chemotherapy while having our treatments. Yet, of the 175 who went into remission, only 12 had chosen to have chemotherapy while having our treatments. Stages 1, 2, 3 and early Stage 4 patients at start of treatment had much better outcomes than late Stage 4 patients in general.

INTERPRETATION: The 32 patients who complied with our dietary and treatment protocol, and still did not survive their cancers must be seen as an 8% failure rate if considered of all 379 patients, or a 15% failure rate if taken of the 210 patients who stayed to complete our treatments. Therefore, these treatment strategies are still not adequate to eliminate all patients’ cancers and must be further developed. However, our success rate of 93% in steadfast patients following all protocols as recommended, from Stage I through early Stage IV (Table 5) is unprecedented and unequalled in both conventional and natural medicine in all clinics that report their results in detail as we do in this paper. There is also a 93% rate of sustained remission in individual patients who elect to follow our recommendation to have monthly follow-up treatments. 26 of those 28 patients are still in remission. (Table 9). 27 of those patients are alive and well (97%). Because of this consistent success in treating cancer since 2006, we believe that the experiences of over 300 cancer patients detailed below have demonstrated the need for simultaneous well-tolerated cancer-disrupting treatments, across all cancers and stages of cancer.

Introduction

Cancer treatment has been constrained by the prevailing view that a single agent must be isolated and tested for its either successful or failing role as the therapeutic agent to eliminate cancer. This viewpoint is disastrous for most patients, for the following reasons. Many agents are needed to fight cancer, primarily because it arises after several normal mechanisms break down, and because cancer preys on the body in numerous ways simultaneously, and because no single agent, whether chemotherapeutic or natural, has yet been found that has enough cancer-disrupting strategic effects to reverse all of those abnormalities in all patients, in effect, to be “the cure” for cancer. At our clinic in Tempe, AZ, USA we therefore simultaneously employ multiple naturally derived, unpatented, and therefore inexpensive, substances for use in cancer patients.

Background

As John Boik has described, cancer becomes possible, and has its only opportunity to arise in the body, when seven different events, such as genetic damage, angiogenesis, immune system evasion, etc. all occur,i as listed below. Then, once established, cancer is adaptable enough to be able to thrive and grow with the continuation of just one or a few of those unfortunate events.

Boik describes the seven pro-cancer events as follows:

  1. genetic instability or vulnerability to mutation, necessarily the first of the variety of events that lead to a tumor;

  2. abnormal gene expression, in this case that produce proteins that facilitate cancer, or at least do not prevent it;

  3. abnormal and autonomous cell signal transduction, which allows cancer cells to grow through auto-stimulation rather than depending on growth factors from other cells;

  4. Abnormal cell-to-cell communication, which sets a tumor apart from its neighboring cells metabolically, leaving the tumor in a position to ignore homeostatic mechanisms and, unlike cells throughout the rest of the body, to act in the best interests of the tumor rather than in the best interests of the host organism.

  5. Angiogenesis, the creation of blood vessels and resultant hoarding by the tumor of disproportionately large amounts of blood-borne molecules;

  6. Invasion and metastasis, which not only results from the aggressive nature of the tumor, but also the low tensile strength (sometimes from previous injury), and too friable nature of the surrounding normal tissue and basement membranes;

  7. Evasion of the immune system, which involves both camouflage functions and immune-disabling functions of cancer cells.

Once established in the body, cancer seems to have the ability to thrive and reproduce despite most of the efforts against it by chemotherapy oncologists, and without necessarily requiring all seven of the above pro-cancer events to still be in place. Therefore, without certain knowledge of the precise mechanisms governing any one patient’s cancer, and without the luxury of time to learn of all those mechanisms in each individual patient, any therapy that targets fewer than those seven major disturbances leaves the body of the cancer patient potentially vulnerable to the disastrous result of allowing continued growth of existing tumors. Shortchanging the patient of a diverse range of available, effective, well-tolerated, well-targeted, compatible, complementary and feasible treatment options also would allow too many of the conditions to persist that gave rise to tumors previously and may do so again. This would leave fertile ground and pro-neoplastic conditions that produced the cancer in the first place. For this reason, successful cancer therapy should be multi-purposed and with multiple agents, many more than are now used with each patient by chemotherapy oncologists.

We have used natural therapies for cancer treatment, because they are well adapted for multi-agent use. Unrefined plant materials have tens of thousands or more phytochemical components, originally useful for protecting a plant from extreme or adverse conditions in its environment, and ultimately employed as described below by naturopathic physicians in adaptation to the needs of the human patient. The nutrients, each with a well-established role in the complex tapestry of metabolic pathways, serve to enable defensive functions of the body, such as strengthening, repair and immune activity. Licensed naturopathic physicians, because of thorough medical training, having more classroom hours and more than twice the number of courses in medical school as medical doctorsii iii, as well as extensive training in the use of natural agents, are well suited to choose appropriate combinations of natural therapies for the individual cancer patient. We also take advantage of the greater compatibility among natural substances than is possible with combinations of numerous pharmaceuticals. It seems obvious that a meal may contain many different foods without the need for conscious consideration of potential interactions among nutrients and plant molecules. In the same way, we have combined many different nutrients and plant materials in each cancer patient’s treatment protocol, with regard for the specific cancer burden in the body, the origin of the cancer, the nature of that particular patient’s cancer and any co-morbid conditions.

Materials and Methods

Dietary interventions are of the utmost importance in cancer therapy, especially keeping blood sugar low. Otto Warburg, Nobel physicist showed in 1926 that glucose fuels cancer growth and that cancer is dependent on glucose for fermentation as its default metabolism.iv The significant majority of research on the subject establishes a correlation between blood glucose and tumor growth. Using PET imaging preferentially for tumor evaluation, clinicians make use of the fact that tumors take up blood glucose disproportionately over benign tissue, which implies an especially glucose-dependent metabolism in cancer cells.

Research has shown a correlation between blood sugar or glycemic load and cancer growth for pancreatic cancer,v vi vii viii breast cancer,ix x xi xii prostate cancer,xiii xiv gastric cancer, xv xvi colorectal cancer,xvii xviii xix xx ovarian cancer,xxi xxii endometrial cancer,xxiii xxiv and liver and biliary tract cancers.xxv xxvi Given all of this evidence, it would be reckless for a physician to allow a cancer patient to assume that sugar intake is harmless. We therefore ask all of our cancer patients to avoid sweeteners, such as sugar, honey, maple syrup, corn syrup, as well as fruit juices, because such foods tend to have the highest glycemic indices. Use of stevia is encouraged if and when a sweetener is desired. For the same reason, we asked patients to also limit other refined carbohydrates, specifically flour products. Whole natural foods: vegetables, fruits, whole grains, eggs, dairy and other animal proteins are encouraged as the entire diet, with the widest available variety in those groups. Many patients arrive to our clinic already consuming all of those types of foods. Some patients have chosen a vegan diet. Others have chosen an ovo-lacto-vegetarian diet. Many others are omnivores. We have not actively pushed our patients to one or the other of these diets, because we tried to maintain the primary dietary focus on the avoidance of sweeteners. Use of soy is discouraged because of its mineral-depleting and phytoestrogenic components, which in some studies has been linked to a possible association with cancer.

Of equal emphasis with diet are the intravenous nutrients that we administer three times per week to each cancer patient. These consist of high-dose intravenous vitamin C (ascorbic acid), as well as other nutrients chosen for specific cancer-disrupting effect with regard to the patient’s type of cancer. For solid malignant tumors, we address the problem of pH, by infusing both sodium bicarbonate to alkalinize systemically, as well as other specifically anti-cancer nutrients, tailored to the individual patient’s tumor load, type of cancer and other health circumstances. B vitamins and minerals and other nutrients are often added for synergistic effect with Vitamin C, or because of their history of reducing and eliminating tumors, or their usefulness in converting malignant tumors into benign tissue, but primarily for their driving the citric acid cycle, and starving the pyruvate-to-lactate machinery characteristic of cancer. So a major goal is to push the citric acid cycle, and to disrupt the anaerobic glycolysis used by cancer to convert glucose to lactic acid.

Naturopathic training emphasizes the treatment of the individual with regard to the entire symptom picture. Therefore, there is no specific formula to be repeated in a rigid way from one patient to the next, or even for the same patient from one day to the next. Quantities of the different components of this combination vary among individual patients depending on symptoms, signs and type of cancer. Quantities also vary as the patient’s needs change. All components are kept far below the LD50 for each component, and are only administered if they have not produced any side effects in our patients.

Research has established that ascorbic acid taken orally cannot attain sufficiently high concentrations in the bloodstream to kill cancer cells.xxvii xxviii However, intravenous use of ascorbic acid has been shown to rise to concentrations that have killed cancer cells in vivo xxix xxx xxxi and in vitro.xxxii xxxiii xxxiv The ascorbic acid that we use is in much higher dose than would be tolerated orally, yet at a level where there is sufficient concentration of vitamin C in the bloodstream to create a substantial concentration of the products of vitamin C in the extracellular fluid.xxxv Intravenous doses of ascorbic acid have been found to produce from 25 to 70 times as much plasma concentration as may be attained by oral dosing.xxxvi Research has confirmed that Vitamin C in such high concentration kills cancer cells while leaving normal tissue unharmed.xxxvii xxxviii Indeed the cancer patients whom we treat do not have side effects from these treatments, with few exceptions. Three of the exceptions were allergies to specific B vitamins in three individuals. Two of the three went into remission after we had removed the offending agent early on.

In addition to this directly and selectively cytotoxic effect on cancer cells, vitamin C has been shown to form collagenxxxix and to inhibit hyaluronidasexl leading to stronger membrane integrity and tensile strengthxli of normal tissue, which inhibits invasionxlii and thus metastases.

Empirical data shows an inverse correlation between vitamin D intake and cancer incidence.xliii xliv xlv Research over the last decade has confirmed the essential role that Vitamin D plays in cancer prevention and treatment.xlvi xlvii xlviii xlix Vitamin D has been shown to induce differentiation,l and apoptosis,li to reduce proliferation by effect on signal transduction,lii to improve intercellular communication by means of gap junction communication preservation,liii to inhibit angiogenesis,liv lv and to inhibit metastasis.lvi At our clinic, most cancer patients are prescribed a regular dose of Vitamin D3 that is compatible with customary sunlight exposure, current pharmaceuticals if any, as well as the assessed condition of the liver and gallbladder and calcium metabolizing mechanisms.

Vitamin A is a less-widely appreciated but quite crucial part of the treatment protocol for its immune-stimulating propertylvii and inhibition of cancer cell migrationlviii. Another very important quality of Vitamin A with regard to neoplastic cells is its ability to introduce differentiation.lix lx It has also been shown to induce apoptosis in cancer cells,lxi as well as growth inhibition.lxii Although there have been some objections made to Vitamin A for an allegedly competitive and detrimental effect to vitamin D,lxiii vitamin A seems to be vindicated by a preponderance of older research that supports the use of vitamin A and vitamin D dosed together.lxiv lxv lxvi

We frequently add the recommendation to take Essiac tea (Resperin Canada Limited, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada), because of its long history in North America, over most of the last century of folk use (outside of conventional medicine) against a wide variety of cancers. Essiac was developed by a Canadian nurse, René Caisse, together with the Ojibwe people of Canada. It is a combination of four herbs, Arctium lappa, Rheum palmatum, Rumex acetosella, and Ulmus fulva. Later versions of Essiac, using additional herbs with some pro-estrogenic effect, have been linked to breast tissue proliferation,lxvii and we do not recommend those altered formulas. Essiac has been found to have in vitro cytotoxic effects specifically against neoplastic cells, without damage to normal cells.lxviii Its main effect seems to be protective against DNA damage.lxix It also seems to have anti-proliferative effect.lxx

For different cancers there are additional appropriate treatments. For example, Kenneth Proefrock NMD has done extensive original work with nebulizers, as well as in many other areas of medicine, which he taught us to use with lung cancer patients, as well as others with metastases in the lungs, to good effect.lxxi Whereas all of the rest of our treatments arrive to the lungs by way of the bloodstream, Dr. Proefrock has introduced such nebulized botanicals and nutrients as required by the individual patient by way of the airways, thus carrying cancer-disrupting treatments to lung tissue via its other major port of entry.

Findings

The data obtained from our patients in 2015 differs considerably from data obtained over the previous 6 years. The difference was that from 2009 through 2014 we called all surviving patients every summer to ask about their wellbeing. However, in 2015 we mailed a questionnaire to each of our surviving patients. 97 of our cancer survivors mailed back the completed questionnaire in a timely way to prepare a database for presentation at the 2015 Euro Cancer Summit. This is likely more than one quarter of our surviving cancer patients. Most who did not respond told us they had not yet had time to respond to the whole questionnaire. Our paper on cancer survivors’ diets discusses the results of this questionnaire in detail.lxxii

The data obtained in 2016 involved questions of a psychological nature as well as some questions from earlier years. This also resulted from a mailed questionnaire. Unfortunately, a combination of exhaustive and intrusive questioning, lost or forgotten mail and survey fatigue were the most likely causes of having only 69 responses to our 2016 questionnaires.lxxiii

Of the 379 cancer patients whom we had treated long-term through the end of June 2014, all came to us with a diagnosis of cancer from another physician, none originally diagnosed by us. Those who are reported below stayed for at least two weeks in our care, which involved intravenous cancer-disrupting nutrients. As of June 30 of each year, we stopped collecting data for that year, and we began annual telephone outreach to all of the surviving patients who have been diagnosed with cancer, and who have stayed at least two weeks in our care. Those results are reported below. Since we began collecting this data for the 2009 edition of this paper, automated telephone dialing seems to have become more pervasive in the United States, and the public’s defense against such frequent interruptions have become more varied and creative. Therefore, it is now harder to reach our patients and their families. If a patient was referred by another, sometimes we have to return to the source of the referral for updated information. Of the 379 individual patients meeting the above criteria, 44 have died of cancer while still our patients under our care, and of those 44, 12 did not comply with our main dietary advice to avoid sweeteners. Therefore, 44 – 12 = 32 patients died while under our care and complying with all of our protocols. 175 have gone into complete remission or assumed complete remission, substantiated by PET/CT or other imaging, and/or biopsy, and/or stable good health for at least 6 months after stopping our treatments.

Specific results are shown in Table 1. Table 1 is too large to fit in a print paperback such as this, unless the type is at least 7 point. Smaller type is not feasible for print clarity. Please see the whole of Table 1 at the site www.NatureWorksBest.com, and click on “documented.” A summary of Table 1 is shown in Table 2.

Table 1: Outcomes of naturopathic treatment of 379 consecutive cancer patientslxxiv

The results in Table 1 are summarized as follows:

Table 2: Summarized outcomes of naturopathic treatment of 379 consecutive cancer patients

Outcome Number of patients Average number of months this group of patients stayed for treat-ments * Number in each group also receiving chemo-therapy Number in each group also receiving radiation Number in each group also receiving surgery

a

Remission or assumed remission

175

3.7

12

11

59

b

Still being treated, not yet in remission

22

4.0

1

0

3

c

Died while still only in our care, following all of our protocols

32

2.2

0

1

1

d

Iatrogenic death in hospitals or conventional clinics

22

2.7

15

4

7

e

Of those who left before finishing treatment, number who died after leaving (except for DDD)**

45

2.7

2

3

10

f

Death after dietary dispute

12

No data

1

1

3

g

No current information but never known to be in remission

46

1.4

5

1

10

h

Remission occurred elsewhere

8

No data

4

1

0

i

Waiting to know status, or conflicting information

17

No data

5

2

6

Total

379

45

24

99

*This column has not been updated since 2010, due to the labor-intensive nature of this research, and not much expected change or significance of any change.

** Please see legend of abbreviations at the head of Table 1. For example, DDD: death after dietary dispute.

I called all of the cancer survivors every summer until 2014 to annually update the data for this paper, based on patients’ subjective reporting of their wellbeing. Although it would be more scientifically and statistically valuable to insist on, with all former patients, and to receive updated, comprehensive, whole body imaging to confirm continued remission, expecting compliance with such a demand is not feasible. We therefore have to rely only on subjective reporting of health status by telephone. Speaking by telephone year after year with former patients who consider themselves well, whose last imaging was clear, with no further cancer treatment since leaving our clinic, have been grouped together in the category of “remission” in this study. “Assumed remission” (AR) satisfied fewer of these criteria, but involved at least stable good health of at least 6 months following cessation of our treatments. I could not reach 46 patients (Table 2, row g).

We may or may not continue gathering data for future editions of this paper, due to very little change found in the proportions and percentages of the various categories of patients year over year, as well as the increasingly labor-intensive nature of the research, as the patient population grows. However, we would like to continue try to contact all of the patients year after year, and to continue to report on each individual’s outcome.

In 2015 and 2016, we changed approach, and mailed a questionnaire to each of our surviving cancer patients. Those results are described in detail in our papers “Optimal Diets for Cancer Patients.”lxxv and “Extroversion, Expression and Appreciation Among Cancer Patients.”lxxvi

This paragraph summarizes Table 2, with reference herein to labelled rows of Table 2. 116 patients (rows e+g+h+i) left our practice before completing our treatments. 22 patients (row d) were killed in hospitals by medical procedures, non-cancer iatrogenic causes or simultaneous chemotherapy. The above numbers do not include any of the currently treated patients. Of the 219 patients (rows a+c+f) who were steadfast in treatment until either remission or death, 175 (row a) went into remission, and 44 patients (rows c+f) died while still our patients in our care alone. Of those 44, 12 (row f) died after a significant dietary dispute with us. The remainder is 32 patients (row c) who died while still our patients, under our care alone, following all of our protocols. This reflects a failure rate of 32 / 379 =row c / total = 8% of the total patients we treated, or a failure rate of 32 / 207 = rows c / (a+c) = 15% of the patients who were steadfast in their treatments and followed all of our recommendations. Of the 224 patients (rows a+c+i) who were steadfast in treatment, if we simply look at survivors, without confirmation of remission, then our success rate = (rows a+c+i – row c ) / rows a+c+i = /[(175+32+17) – 32] / (175+32+17) =(224 – 32) / 224 = 100% – 14% = 86%.

224 steadfast patients minus 22 killed by iatrogenic causes, minus 12 who died after a dietary dispute leaves 190 patients who were steadfast and made prudent decisions. If we consider that we had 175 patients in remission of 190 who were steadfast and made prudent decisions in the treatments, then the remission rate is 92%. Late Stage IV patients tend to not do well with our treatments, although even early stage IV patients seem to have a good likelihood of going into remission.

It cannot be emphasized enough that cancer treatment has been far more effective at our clinic when patients began treatment as early as possible after diagnosis. For all stages of cancer between Stage I and early Stage IV, the success rate is between 87% and 93% (Table 5). However, for late Stage IV, the success rate has been only 29%. After a certain critical juncture of loss of vitality and overwhelming tumor burden, our treatments seem to be as unlikely to work for the patient as any other available treatment. We therefore strongly advise against a strategy of postponing natural treatments until after chemotherapy stops working.

These results must be seen in the context of when, in the course of the cancer disease process, a patient decides to, or learns of the opportunity to, embark on naturopathic treatment. The overwhelming majority of patients who come to us never heard of the possibility of such treatments until very shortly before arriving to our clinic. Therefore, we do not have the advantage of meeting the patients at the time of diagnosis, as the medical oncologists have. Rather, valuable time is often lost, and very often we only have the opportunity to begin treatment after the chemotherapy oncologist has given up on the patient. This makes our job immensely harder than it would have been if we could have started a timely treatment.

33 of 44 patients who died were Stage IV at start of treatment. This paragraph describes the ordeals of some of those individuals. One Stage IV patient had over 36 bone metastases, over 50 total metastases, and chose to have chemotherapy during our treatment (Patient #204). Four others began treatment with a tumor load that was approximately a cubic foot in the abdomen (Patients #112, 124, 301 and 356). Others chose not to follow our main dietary recommendation during the last month of their treatment, i.e. not to eat sweetened foods (Patients #264 and 275). This pancreatic cancer patient’s tumors had reduced considerably during our treatments. Of the 2 pancreatic tumors, one disappeared completely, and the other shrank to approximately half the volume. This was after they had not been reduced at all by previous chemotherapy, and his oncologists had given no hope of recovery (NHR in Table 1). During this time, the patient stayed very physically active, doing construction work in his own house at age 67. Several weeks went by, and then new pain arose. The patient then admitted to starting to eat cookies every night after dinner for the past month, which was contrary to our main dietary treatment focus, to be described below. Within 2 weeks he was dead of pancreatic cancer with new metastases. Numerous others in this group had also declined our main dietary recommendation. Another had an extensive, fast-growing inoperable glioblastoma at start of treatment, had improved briefly, then worsened and died (Patient #179). Others had cancer that our treatments simply had no effect on. Another decided to enter hospice before finishing our treatments, and we could not obtain information about how much morphine he had been given (Patient #170). And yet another had an unfortunate combination of severe constipation with fast tumor breakdown (Patient #210). This combination allows toxins to build very quickly in the body, and we could not clear them out fast enough to save her life.

Most of the late stage cancer patients who died while still only in our care arrived to our clinic very late in their disease process, years after first diagnosis, and after one of two things: 1) they had been told by an oncologist that there was no remaining hope, or 2) they had never seen an oncologist and had a growing tumor burden that had been untreated for years.

Table 3: Patients who died while only in our care prior to July 1, 2014, and stage at arrival

Stage Total number

of deceased patients, while in our care

Total patients who died despite following all of our protocols, including diet DDD = death after dietary dispute
I 2 0 2
II 2 0 2
III 7 4 3
Early Stage IV, still functioning,

activities of daily living

13 8 5
Late Stage IV, very sick, very late

arrival to our clinic

20 20 0
Total 44 32 12

Table 4: Patients in remission or assumed remission during our care prior to July 1, 2014, and stage at arrival

Stage

Number of patients

Previous chemo-therapy with active cancer at start of our treatments

Number in each group also receiving chemo-therapy concurrently

Number in each group receiving radiation concur-rently

Number in each group receiving surgery concur-rently

I

76

5

4

6

25

II

37

1

3

2

15

III

20

6

0

1

8

Early IV

34

8

4

3

10

Late IV

8

3

1

0

1

Total

175

23

12

12

59

Table 5: Success rate by stage of cancer, for patients following all of our protocols including diet (Column 6), compared with all regardless of diet (Column 7)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Stage on arrival

Total patients treated

until remission

or death

Remission

Died,

Not DDD

DDD

Remission

÷ Total =

Success rate

Including dietary protocol

Remission

÷ Total =

Success rate**

Including DDD

I

*76

76

0

2

*100%

**97%

II

*37

37

0

2

*100%

**95%

III

*24

20

4

3

*83%

**74%

Early IV

*42

34

8

5

*81%

**72%

Late IV

*28

8

20

0

*29%

**29%

Total

*207

175

32

12

*85%

**80%

Stage I through early

Stage IV

*179

(not including DDD)

167

12

12

*93%

**87%

*This number does not include those who did not follow our dietary recommendations.

** These percentages in Column 7 were derived from the figures in each row of:

[Column 3 ÷ (Column 2 + Column 5)].

Only 12 of the 175 patients we treated who went into remission also had concurrent chemotherapy (Table 4). Of all our other patients who went into remission, most had refused current chemotherapy prior to starting our treatments, although some had chosen to have it in the past. It is common for a patient who finds their way to our clinic to comment that cancer is difficult enough to endure, without the additional burden of the ill health attributable to chemotherapy alone. Our clinic’s policy is never to insist that a patient either have chemotherapy or avoid it, because of the profound and severe effects on the health of such drugs, and because there is already excessive pressure on the patient by family and/or oncologists to choose one or another course of action, and because we have the utmost respect for the adult individual’s inherent and self-evident right to make his/her own healthcare decisions without coercion.

Of the patients who had chemotherapy along with our treatments, all commented on feeling stronger and better able to tolerate their chemotherapy with our treatments. One patient whose tumor volume had reduced by 80% subjectively attributed this good result to both our treatments as well as chemotherapy, an evaluation that seems to defy proof or disproof (Patient #246), at least in his case.

59 of our 175 patients to go into remission also had either surgical resection or debulking of their tumors while getting our treatments. This would suggest that surgery is often a reasonable choice, perhaps even a life-saving choice, when available, and that the combination of surgical tumor resection and natural treatments was a feasible strategy for a successful outcome, although not always required for a successful outcome.

One of our patients now in remission for 6 years is and has been for years the only known survivor of Stage 3 giant cell endometrial carcinoma (Patient #306), at least according to published medical literature.lxxvii This remission occurred with only natural treatments after all three conventional cancer treatments, chemotherapy, radiation and surgery, were each tried multiple times and failed for this patient.

Table 6: Results for patients who left to have chemotherapy prior to 2013

Went into remission following chemotherapy

Died following chemotherapy

Not in remission, but surviving both chemotherapy and cancer as of mid-2013

Evidence of remission from our treatments alone prior to starting chemotherapy

Total who left our clinic to have chemotherapy (total of all outcomes)

4

9

5

6

24

Table 6 has not been updated since July 2013. It shows that leaving our treatments to pursue chemotherapy only possibly benefited 4 of the 24 patients who had left. However, it is possible that those 4 would have gone into remission if they had continued with our treatments alone. This table has not been updated since 2013, because a large majority of those who were thought to have left for chemotherapy could not be reached by phone. As of now, we have not attributed either pessimistic or optimistic outcomes to those we cannot reach; we simply record “NFI” in Table 1. Sometimes good or bad information comes much later. In 2014 we were absolutely delighted to welcome to our clinic visits from two cancer survivors, after only our treatments, who had not been in contact with us for 5 years and 4 years respectively (Patients #288 and 295). One lives in an RV trailer, and happened to be passing through our area again.

Table 7: Results for patients for whom the treatments had no apparent effect, as of 2013

Stage at start of treatments Number of patients Of these, how many had prior or current chemotherapy Of those never having chemotx, waited years with growing mass before seeing a doctor

Stage I

1

0

0

Stage II

0

0

0

Stage III

1

0

0

Early Stage IV

4

3

1

Late Stage IV

12

6

5

Total

18

9

6

Table 7 shows that 15 of the 18 people for whom our treatments had no apparent effect either had prior chemotherapy or waited years with a growing mass before seeking treatment. This is likely because the patient’s tumor burden became more resilient either due to the chemotherapy-imparted resistance to treatment or due to an unopposed sizeable cancer burden having the opportunity to establish an intractable stronghold in the body.

We have data for change in tumor size for relatively few patients. It must be considered that by the time a person seeks the help of a naturopathic physician for any ailment, they have often rejected, for one reason or another, the conventional medical system, leading to a distrust and disdain for conventional imaging. Imaging such as PET/CT fusion is a “hard sell” to such people. (“You want me to have radioactive glucose after telling me not to eat sugar?”) Further biopsy was even less likely to be acceptable to our patients. Many of those patients left our practice for one reason or another, as discussed below, before we had any information about changing tumor size. A strong will must be present in a person to ignore the exhortations of oncologists and worried loved ones, and to pursue treatment by a naturopathic physician. This strong will easily enables rebellion against naturopathic physicians and our recommendations as well. Because we have so little information on which patients actually had increased or decreased tumor load, we have not yet had the advantage of the best way to determine the success or failure of our treatments. At present, we primarily rely on MRI imaging of the part of the torso or head or neck with the known tumor burden prior to finishing the treatments. For the blood dyscrasias, we rely on blood tests. After finishing the treatments, we recommend smaller treatments one time per month indefinitely. The local residents of course find this to be more feasible than those who temporarily moved close to our clinic for the treatments. For those who cannot pursue follow-up treatments, our contact has been one time per year with each patient, every summer, by telephone, to inquire about the current state of health from 2009 until 2014. In 2015 and 2016 we used a questionnaire instead to ask more detailed questions of our cancer survivors. However, many of the patients in remission choose to maintain an ongoing intravenous nutrient treatment one time per month. Of those patients in remission coming in for one time per month ongoing intravenous nutrient treatments, only two of those patients have come out of remission. Therefore, we recommend this strategy for all of the cancer patients who have been treated by us, as the most likely way we know of to remain in remission long-term.

There is another factor that we kept track of from July 2010 to June 2011: that year we also called people who came in to our clinic for an initial consult, but did not start our treatments. Of the 4 who visited that year, but never started our treatments, and whose family we were able to contact by phone, all four have died, according to their family members. We are no longer calling people in this category, because we are focusing our attention on the people who chose to undergo our treatments.

It cannot be assumed that those for whom our treatments failed to reduce cancer are entirely worse off. Most have described a better quality of life since starting the treatments. For example, one of the patients with stage IV breast cancer, and an increased tumor load since starting our treatments, described herself as more fit than ever since beginning our treatments, far more healthy than when she had previous chemotherapy, at 68 years old, walking 2 miles up and down hills in 22 minutes, gradually improving her time right up to the time she chose to have concurrent radiation, at which point her wellbeing, her energy, her tumor burden and her disease state began to worsen dramatically (Patient #184). Although we have not yet found the necessary combination of therapies to reduce and eliminate such a resilient cancer as hers, this patient expressed to us that the quality of life that she gained from our treatments was tangible and valuable to her.

It also cannot be assumed that conventional treatments would succeed when ours did not. For example, an ovarian cancer patient (Patient #112) was persuaded by family members to stop our treatments and resume chemotherapy, even though chemotherapy had not eliminated her cancer in the past, and our subsequent treatments did in fact reduce the tumors to a fraction of their original size, in only a fraction of the usual treatment time. When this patient complied with her family members and resumed chemotherapy, the remaining tumor mass grew again, steadily through two months of chemotherapy. The oncologist then gave up and offered her no more chemotherapy and directed her to hospice care. A number of other patients also did very well in measures of tumor size and wellbeing with our treatments. Then in some cases, chemotherapy oncologists or family members persuaded or pressured or coerced the patient to have chemotherapy instead. Usually, that patient then quickly declined and died.

For the 116 patients who decided to leave before finishing our treatments, it is difficult to assess the degree of success or failure. Reasons for leaving were often not given. There was sometimes a phone message requesting to cancel the future appointments without explanation. However, when we were told reasons for leaving, the following were common:

  1. Financial reasons: no insurance reimbursement made it hard to continue paying for our treatments out of pocket. This was by far the most common reason given. This was expected to change in 2014 when the Affordable Care Act mandated insurance reimbursement of naturopathic medicine, to the best of our understanding, under new private insurance plans. However, that mandate has not yet been implemented. Some insurance companies were much better about reimbursing for naturopathic medicine than others.

  2. The patient did not feel that anything important was happening with the treatment. There was a strange viewpoint expressed by some patients that cancer is not very frightening, once they saw that they, as well as all of the other non-chemotherapy cancer patients in our IV rooms maintained their vitality, their hair and their bodily functions, and almost always with improved fitness. This led some to the dangerously wrong conclusion that cancer was easy to conquer, could probably have happened at home with store-bought nutrients, and that our treatments had not accomplished much, and perhaps had not even contributed to their continued wellbeing, and that they would have remained well anyway.

  3. A related viewpoint was that improvement in the patient’s condition should have been faster and more dramatic. If the condition seemingly stayed the same, some patients viewed this as evidence of failure, of not defeating cancer fast enough, and concluded that the treatment was not working, and that they should not waste any more time or money pursuing it, and that it was time to leave and explore other avenues.

  4. Family members or oncologists disapproved of natural cancer treatment and persuasively urged chemotherapy exclusively.

  5. The patient had traveled from another state to receive our treatments, but wanted to return home to be with family, regardless of expected outcome.

*Table 8: Summary of quality of life changes, as of July 2011, by assessment of naturopathic physician along with patient self-evaluation during naturopathic care of the patients whose wellbeing stayed the same or improved prior to July 2011

Quality of life changes Number of patients Number in each group who went into remission Number in each group also receiving chemotherapy

Came in with high wellbeing /

Still the same way

92

70

3

Came in occupationally functional but not physically fit /Ultimately improved vitality

34

25

3

Came in occupationally functional but not physically fit / Still the same way

17

3

4

Total

143

98

10

*Note: This table has not been updated since the 2011 edition of this paper, due to the labor-intensive nature of this research, and not much expected change in proportion of the different groups.

If one considers quality of life as a criterion for success, then of the patients who stayed well or got better during our treatments, 143 patients out of 165 who had come to us prior to July 2011, make a success rate of 87%. For most of the remaining 13% of total patients, they mostly came to us after exhausting all conventional cancer treatments and were mostly late stage 4, or had other co-morbidities. These co-morbidities included: pulmonary fibrosis, asbestosis, uranium poisoning, radiation poisoning, more than 15 CT scans done on one individual, chronic antibiotic-resistant infections, Clostridium difficile, scleroderma, cirrhosis, pneumonia, asthma, diabetes, rapid tumor breakdown with poor elimination, radiation illness, chemotherapy intolerance, complications from previous surgery, blood clots where the tumor had compressed multiple veins before the tumor was eliminated, hepatic coma.

Table 9: Patients choosing to have monthly follow-up treatments

Stage

Cancer

C

R

S

CANCER OUTCOME WELL-BEING

1

2

breast

No

No

Yes

R HFwE/Job

2

2

lung

No

No

No

R x years. Now battling Valley Fever. HfwE/Job

3

3

breast

No

No

Yes

R Hf/Sa

4

4

breast

No

No PR

No

PS

R HF/Sa

5

1

breast

No

No

Yes

R HFwE/Job

6

1

breast

No

No

Yes

R HfwE (15 mi bike rides)/ Sa

7

2

breast

No

No

No

R. Current Imp; HfwE

8

1

Walden-strom’s lymphoma

No

No

No

Numbers go up and down with allergens, but much better strength now Imp mostly; strenuous exercise, recrea-tional travel

9

4

uterine

No

No

Yes

R

10

2 NHR

breast

No

No

Yes

R HFwE/ Sa

11

1

breast

No

No

Yes

R HFwE/Sa/

Job

12

4

ovarian and peritoneal

No

No

Yes

R x 3 years, then recurrence HFwE/Imp

13

2

breast

No

No

Yes

R HfwE/Job

14

1

prostate

No

No

No

R HFwE/Sa/

Job

15

4 NHR

ovarian

No

No

Yes

Rx 3 years HFwE in 80’s

16

2

breast

No

No

Yes

R HfwE

17

4

colon

No

No

No

PS

R HF/Sa/

retired

18

4

breast

No

No

Yes

R HF

19

1

breast

Yes

Yes

Yes

R HfwE, Job

20

4

ALL leukemia

No PC

No

No

R x 4 years Imp, HFwE

21

1

breast

No

No

Yes

R HF

22

3

breast

No

No

Yes

R HF/Job

23

2

breast

No

No

Yes PS

R, then recurrence, then lumpectomy. Current. HFwE, Sa

24

2

breast

No

No

Yes R HFwE/

Imp

25

3 NHR

giant cell endometrial

No, PC

No, PR

Debulking but not resection

PS

R x 5 years Imp/HFwE/Job

26

1

breast

No

No

Yes

R HFw/E, strenuous; “boot camp”

27

1

bladder

No

No

No

R HfwE/Job

28

3

breast

No

No

Yes

R HF

Summary of table of follow-up treatments: Total pts. = 28. Total still in remission = 26 = 93% of total.

It is important to note that not all of the patients did all that was recommended by us. For example, although we recommend beginning our treatments immediately after diagnosis, almost all patients delayed naturopathic treatment for months to years after initial diagnosis of cancer, mostly due to lack of information to the public about the effectiveness of natural treatments for cancer. The enormous disadvantage of such delay to the naturopathic physician’s work and effectiveness cannot be overstated. Chemotherapy is known to impart a resilience to tumors that makes it hard for any subsequent treatment to have an effect. It is surprising that our success has been as high as it is, given the severe disadvantage of beginning natural treatments months to years after cancer has had a head start in its growth and takeover of the body, as well as the debilitation of the general health of the patient.

Other patients chose to disregard the dietary recommendations that we made or to only observe the recommendations partially. Others chose to have fewer in-office treatments than were recommended. Others decided to choose only some of the recommended treatments due to financial constraints or inconvenience. However, as our clinic has demonstrated longer, sustained success with an ever-increasing number of patients, and a majority obviously well patients are present and visible in our clinic on our busiest workdays, and the value of our treatment protocols become obvious to more and more visitors to our clinic, both patients and their family members, compliance with our recommendations has generally been much better during the last few years than previously, with regard to both diet and on-site treatments.

Some of the patients who came out of remission had discontinued our main dietary recommendation. This was especially disappointing to us because for example, Patient #307, after being out of contact for almost two years after going into remission, called to inform us that she was now physically active and had at last stopped smoking. (She had smoked all through our treatments.) She had gone off of the diet, and then developed recurrence of cancer and died. Another patient (Patient #49) went quickly back into remission.

Most patients chose not to follow our recommendation to have monthly follow-up treatments after remission. But of those who did, 28 patients, 26 of them are still in remission. That is 93%.

Discussion

175 patients went into remission by mid-2014 during our treatments of a total of 207 up to that time who complied with all of our treatment protocols until either remission or death. This is 175 / 207 = 85% success over all stages and all types of cancer. For Stages I through early Stage IV, it is 167 / 179 (remission / total) = 93% success rate. If we consider that only 175 patients went into remission, out of the total 379 patients who had our treatment for at least two weeks prior to mid-2014, then only 175 / 379 = 46% have gone into remission, which is quite low. However, the 379 number includes those who only had sporadic treatments, and those who ignored our dietary and exercise recommendations, and those who were killed by chemotherapy and other iatrogenic procedures. Therefore, we do not consider the 46% as representative of what happens with patients who follow our recommendations steadfastly, and therefore does not reflect the work of our clinic. If one considers those who were steadfast in their treatments and died, divided by all who were steadfast in their treatments, then the failure rate is 32 / 207 = 15% of the patients who were steadfast in their treatments and followed all of our recommendations. Of the 224 patients who were steadfast in treatment, if we simply look at survivors, without confirmation of remission, then our success rate = (224 – 32) / 224 = 86%.

Numerous natural agents were simultaneously employed to reduce or inactivate or necrose or eliminate human neoplasms in vivo. We chose to use these agents together because cancer is a multifactorial disease and has not yet been fought effectively in a majority of patients with a single agent. Specific combinations of natural substances were chosen with regard to the type of cancer and circumstances of each individual cancer patient. Licensed naturopathic physicians are well-qualified to design such treatment programs because of our broad and extensive training with natural and conventional substances and how to combine them. Because of our unprecedented and consistent success in treating cancer since 2006, we believe we have demonstrated the need for simultaneous well-tolerated cancer-disrupting treatments.

Successful outcomes were more likely with steadfast patient compliance during the entire duration of the treatment process. Although our results are a strong improvement over any other cancer treatment protocols that we have found, both conventional and natural, if measured by either patient remission or survival, these treatment strategies are still not adequate to eliminate all patients’ cancers and must be further developed.

1 Anti-neoplastic is an inaccurate term to describe the effects of natural substances with anti-cancer effect. Conventional chemotherapy is anti-neoplastic in that it interferes with either DNA and RNA function (alkylating agents, topoisomerase inhibitors) or DNA and RNA synthesis (anti-metabolites) or other aspects of cell reproduction (anti-microtubule agents). In either case, cells are unable to reproduce, so that new cells are damaged first, and we see the results in lost hair (most obviously), an excoriated GI tract and arrested tumor growth. The natural anti-cancer treatments on the other hand do not target new growth indiscriminately (cancer, embryo, hair, GI lining), but rather target the 7 major mechanisms of cancer reproduction and growth described below. Hence, throughout this paper, we call them “cancer-disrupting” substances.

i

Chapter 7 Defeating cancer requires more than one treatment method

 Boik, John. Natural Compounds in Cancer Therapy. Oregon Medical Press. 2001; p.2.

ii Huber, Colleen. Naturopathic Medical Education: Does it Measure Up? A curriculum comparison among three naturopathic medical colleges, Yale University School of Medicine and Arizona College of Osteopathic Medicine, conducted at Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine, April 14, 2005.

iii Huber C. Naturopathic Medical Education: A Comprehensive Curriculum. NaturopathicStandards.org. 2015. http://naturopathicstandards.org/naturopathic-medical-education-a-comprehensive-curriculum/

iv Warburg, O. The Metabolism of Tumors [book] 1926. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2140820/pdf/519.pdf

v Chan J, Wang F, Holly E. Sweets, sweetened beverages, and risk of pancreatic cancer in a large population based case-control study. Cancer Causes & Control. 2009 Aug; 20(6): 835-46. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2694313/

vi Rossi M, Lipworth L, et al. Dietary glycemic index and glycemic load and risk of pancreatic cancer: a case-control study. Ann Epidemiol. 2010 Jun. 20(6): 460-465. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20470973

vii Mueller N, Odegaard A, et al. Soft drink and juice consumption and risk of pancreatic cancer: the Singapore Chinese Health Study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010 Feb. 19(2). 447-455. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20142243

viii Larsson S, Berqkvist L, et al. Consumption of sugar and sugar-sweetened foods and the risk of pancreatic cancer in a prospective study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Nov. 84(5). 1171-1176. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17093171

ix Tavani A, Giordano L, et al. Consumption of sweet foods and breast cancer risk in Italy. Ann Oncol. 2006 Feb. 17(2). 341-345. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16249211

x Larsson, S, Bergkvist L, Wolk A. Glycemic load, glycemic index and breast cancer risk in a prospective cohort of Swedish women. Int J Cancer. 2009 Jul 1; 125(1): 153-7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19319984

xi Wu A, Yu M, Tseng C. et al. Dietary patterns and breast cancer risk in Asian American women. Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 Apr; 89(4): 1145-54. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19211822

xii Bradshaw P et al. Consumption of sweet foods and breast cancer risk: a case-control study of women on Long Island, New York. Cancer Causes Control. 2009 Oct. 20(8). 1509-1515. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4109805/

xiii Freedland S, Aronson, W. Dietary intervention strategies to modulate prostate cancer risk and prognosis. Curr Opin Urol. 2009 May; 19(3): 263-7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19300265

xiv Drake I, Sonestedt E, et al. Dietary intakes of carbohydrates in relation to prostate cancer risk: a prospective study in the Malmo Diet and Cancer cohort. Am J Clin Nutr. 2013 Dec. 96(6): 1409-18. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23134882

xv Ikeda F, Doi Y, et al. Hyperglycemia increases risk of gastric cancer posed by Helicobacter pylori infection: a population-based cohort study. Gastroenterology. 2009 Aprei(4): 1234-41. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19236964

xvi Bertuccio P, Praud D, et al. Dietary glycemic load and gastric cancer risk in Italy. Br J Cancer. 2009 Feb 10; 100(3): 558-61. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19190635

xvii Wang B, Bobe G, et al. High sucrose diets promote intestinal epithelial cell proliferation and tumorigenesis in APC mice by increasing insulin and IGF-1 levels. Nutr Cancer. 2009; 61(1): 81-93. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19116878

xviii Wang B, Bobe G, et al. Dietary carbohydrate source alters gene expression profile of intestinal epithelium in mice. Nutr Cancer. 2009; 61(1): 146-55. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19116885

xix Nayak S, Sasi M, et al. A case control study of roles of diet in colorectal carcinoma in a South Indian population. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2009 Oct-Dec. 10(4). 565-568. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19827870

xx Williams C, Satia J, et al. Dietary patterns, food groups, and rectal cancer risk in whites and African-Americans. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009 May. 18(5). 1552-1561. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19423533

xxi Augustin L, Polesel J, et al. Dietary glycemic index, glycemic load and ovarian cancer risk: a case-control study in Italy. Ann Oncol. 2003 Jan; 14(1): 78-84. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12488297

xxii Silvera S, Jain M, et al. Glycaemic index, glycaemic load and ovarian cancer risk: a prospective cohort study. Public Health Nutr. 2007 Octo. 10(10). 1076-1081. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17381931

xxiii King M, Chandran U, et al. Consumption of sugary foods and drinks and risk of endometrial cancer. Cancer Causes Control. 2013 Jul 24(7) 1427-1436. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3683350/

xxiv Mulholland H, Murray L, et al. Dietary glycaemic index, glycaemic load and endometrial and ovarian cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Cancer. 2008 Aug 5. 99(3). 434-441. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2527795/

xxv Fedirko V, Lukanova A, et al. Glycemic index, glycemic load, dietary carbohydrate, and dietary fiber intake and risk of liver and biliary tract cancer in Western Europeans. Ann Oncol. 2013 Feb. 24(2). 543-553. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23123507

xxvi Moerman C, Bueno de Mesquita H, et al. Consumption of foods and micronutrients and the risk of cancer of the biliary tract. Prev Med. 1995 Nov. 24(6). 591-602. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8610083

xxvii Creagan E, Moertel C, et al. Failure of high-dose Vitamin C (ascorbic acid) therapy to benefit patients with advanced cancer. A controlled trial. New Engl J Med 1979 Sep 27. 301(13): 687-90. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/384241

xxviii Moertel C, Fleming T, et al. High-dose vitamin C versus placebo in the treatment of patients with advanced cancer who have had no prior chemotherapy. A randomized double-blind comparison. New Engl J Med. 1985 Jan 17; 312(3): 137-41. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3880867

xxix Cameron E, Campbell A. The Orthomolecular treatment of cancer: II. Clinical trial of high-dose ascorbic acid supplements in advanced human cancer. Chem Biol Interact. 1974; 9: 285-315. http://www.cellmedsoc.org/research_archive/NHC/studien_pdf/old/the_orthomolecular_treatment_of_cancer.pdf

xxx Cameron E, Pauling L. Supplemental ascorbate in the supportive treatment of cancer: prolongation of survival times in terminal human cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1976. 73. 3685-89. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1068480

xxxi Cameron E., Pauling L. Supplemental ascorbate in the supportive treatment of cancer: re-evaluation of prolongation of survival times in advanced human cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1978 Sep; 75(9): 4538-42.

xxxii Bram S, Froussard P, Guichard M, et al. Vitamin C preferential toxicity for malignant melanoma cells. Nature 1980 Apr 17; 284(57):629-31. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/279931

xxxiii Leung P, Miyashita K, et al. Cytotoxic effect of ascorbate and its derivatives on cultured malignant and non-malignant cell lines. Anticancer Res. 1993 Mar-Apr; 13(2): 475-80. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8517665

xxxiv Sakagami H, Satoh K, et al. Apoptosis-inducing activity of vitamin C and vitamin K. Cell Mol. Biol 2000 Feb; 46(1): 129-43. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10726979

xxxv Chen Q, Espey M, et al. Pharmacologic ascorbic acid concentrations selectively kill cancer cells: action as a pro-drug to deliver hydrogen peroxide to tissues. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2005 Sep; 102(38): 13604-09. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16157892

xxxvi Padayatty S., Sun H, et al. Vitamin C pharmacokinetics: implications for oral and intravenous use. Ann Intern Med 2004 Apr 6;140(7): 533-37. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15068981

xxxvii Chen Q, Espey M, Krishna M, et al. Pharmacologic ascorbic acid concentrations selectively kill cancer cells: action as a pro-drug to deliver hydrogen peroxide to tissues. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2005 Sep. 102(38): 13604-09.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16157892

xxxviii Padayatty S, Riordan H, et al. Intravenously administered vitamin C as cancer therapy: three cases. Canadian Med Assn J. 2006 Mar 28; 174(7): 937-42. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1405876/

xxxix Akiyama M, Nakamura M. Bone regeneration and neovascularization processes in a pellet culture system for periosteal cells. Cell Transplant. 2009 Apr 15. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19622231

xl Yogeeta S, Gnanapragasam A, et al. Synergistic salubrious effect of ferulic acid and ascorbic acid on membrane-bound phosphatases and lysosomal hydrolases during experimental myocardial infarction in rats. Life Sci. 2006 Dec.23; 80(3): 258-63. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17045618

xli Lin Y, Tan F, et al. Synthesis and characterization of collagen/hyaluronan/chitosan composite sponges for potential biomedical applications. Acta Biomater. 2009 Apr 2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19427824

xlii Petrella B. Assessment of local proteolytic milieu as a factor in tumor invasiveness and metastasis formation: in vitro collagen degradation and invasion assays. Methods Mol Biol 2009; 511:75-84. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19347293

xliii Penna-Martinez M, Ramos-Lopez E., et al. Vitamin D receptor polymorphisms in differentiated thyroid carcinoma. Thyroid. 2009 Jun; 19(6): 623-8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19499989

xliv Robien K, Cutler G, et al. Vitamin D intake and breast cancer risk in post-menopausal women: the Iowa Women’s Health Study. Cancer Causes Control. 2007 Sep; 18(7): 775-82. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17549593

xlv Epstein E, Lindqvist P, et al. A population-based cohort study on sun habits and endometrial cancer. Br J Cancer. 2009 Jun 23. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2720243/

xlvi Giovannucci E. The epidemiology of vitamin D and cancer incidence and mortality: a review. Cancer Causes Control. 2005 Mar; 16(2): 83-95. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15868450

xlvii Wei M, Garland C, et al. Vitamin D and prevention of colorectal adenoma: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008 Nov; 17(11): 2958-69. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18990737

xlviii Garland C, Gorham E, et al. Vitamin D for cancer prevention: global perspective. Ann Epidem 2009 Jul;19(7):468-83. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19523595

xlix Giovannucci E. Vitamin D and cancer incidence in the Harvard cohorts. Ann Epidem. 2009 Feb 19(2): 84-8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18291673

l Shen M, Yen A. Nicotinamide cooperates with retinoic acid and 1,25 dihydroxyvitamin D(3) to regulate cell differentiation and cell cycle arrest of human myeloblastic leukemia cells. Oncology 2009; 76(2): 91-100. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19127080

li Kizildag S, Ates H. Treatment of K562 cells with 1,25 dihydroxyvitamin D(3) induces distinct alterations in the expression of apoptosis-related genes BCL-2, BAX, BCL(XL) and p21. Ann Hematol. 2009 May 28. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19475409

lii Wu W, Zhang X, et al. 1alpha, 25 dihydroxyvitamin D(3) anti-proliferative actions involving vitamin D receptor-mediated activation of MAPK pathways and AP-1/p21 (waf1) upregulation in human osteosarcoma. Cancer Lett. 2007 Aug 28. 254(1): 75-86. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17412493

liii Fujioka T, Suzuki Y, et al. Prevention of renal cell carcinoma by active vitamin D(3). World J Surg. 2000 Oct; 24(10): 1205-10. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11071463

liv Bao B, Yao J, et al. 1alpha, 25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 suppresses interleukin-8-mediated prostate cancer cell angiogenesis. Carcinogenesis. 2006 Sep; 27(9): 1883-93. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16624828

lv Chung I, Han G, et al. Role of Vitamin D receptor in the antiproliferative effects of calcitriol in tumor-derived endothelial cells and tumor angiogenesis in vivo. Cancer Res. 2009 Feb 1; 69(3):. 967-75. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19141646

lvi Yudoh K, Matsuno H, et al. 1alpha, 25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 inhibits in vitro invasiveness through the extracellular matrix and in vivo pulmonary metastasis of mouse melanoma. J Lab Clin Med. 1999 Feb 133(2): 120-8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9989763

lvii Mora J, Iwata M, et al. Vitamin effects on the immune system: vitamins A and D take centre stage. Nat Rev Immunol. 2008 Sep; 8(9): 685-98. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19172691

lviii Guan J, Zhang H, et al.. Retinoic acid inhibits pancreatic cancer cell migration and EMT through the down-regulation of IL-6 in cancer associated fibroblast cells.

Cancer Lett. 2013 Dec 11. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24334138

lix Montrone M, Martorelli D, et al. Retionoids as critical modulators of immune functions: new therapeutic perspectives for old compounds. Endocr Metab Immune Disorder Drug Targets. 2009 June; 9(2): 133-31. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19519462

lx Kusmartzev S, Su Z, et al. Reversal of myeloid cell-mediated immunosuppression in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res.2008 Dec 15; 14(24): 8270-8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19088044

lxi Okuno M, Kojima S, et al. Retinoids in cancer chemoprevention. Curr Cancer Drug Targets. 2004 May; 4(3): 285-98. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11574627

lxii Wu Q, Dawon, M, et al. Inhibition of trans-retinoic acid-resistant human breast cancer cell growth by retinoid X receptor-selective retinoids. Mol Cell Biol 1997 Nov; 17(11): 6598-608. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9343423

lxiii Cannell J, Vieth R, et al. Cod liver oil, vitamin A toxicity, frequent respiratory infections and the vitamin D deficiency epidemic. Ann Otol, Rhinol, Laryngol. 2008 Nov; 117(11): 864-70. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/000348940811701112

lxiv Makishima M, Honma Y, et al. Effects of inhibitors of protein tyrosine kinase activity and/or phosphatidylinositol turnover on differentiation of some leukemia myelomonocytic leukemia cells. Leukemia Res 1991; 15(8): 701-08. -http://www.lrjournal.com/article/0145-2126(

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *