Calcium

The debate about calcium has developed so much that it now has a separate page of its own. Click here.

Denying health choices

Death by doctoring

Professor Luigi Di Bella

Sprouts: A Negative View

Milk and the Cancer Connection

Denying health choices

From the Health Services Institute, another example of the FDA's interference with individual health choices.

Michael and Raphaele Horwin were told that their two year old son Alexander had medulloblastoma - a fast-growing, invasive brain tumor that spreads throughout the nervous system. The tumour was removed and Alexander's doctors recommended the typical chemotherapy used for medulloblastoma. This chemo is very harsh, often damaging the heart, lungs, liver and kidneys, and sometimes leading to loss of hearing, further cancers and even death.

This was unacceptable to the Horwins - who found an alternative - the treatment offered by Stanislaw Burzynski at his Houston clinic. Burzynski used synthetic peptides, purported to 'switch off' cancer genes. His treatment, though controversial, was part of an FDA-approved clinical trial, and he had had some success with children. However, according to FDA guidelines, Alexander had to try an'approved' chemotherapy before he could receive Burzynski's treatment. Furthermore, Alexander's oncologists informed his parents that they could forcibly remove Alexander to administer the chemo they recommended. These regulations were designed to 'protect' the Horwins and other parents from unscrupulous purveyors of unproven treatments.

Reluctantly, the Horwins agreed to begin the recommended chemotherapy. After three cycles, Alexander had a large number of new tumors. At this point he was eligible for the Burzynski treatment, but it was too late. He died three weeks later. After Alexander's death, the Horwins discovered that over a period of more than 20 years, numerous studies in medical journals had reported that this chemo was known to cause dementia, seizures and death, and in children, spreading of tumours. While approved for adults, its use with children is considered to be 'experimental'. And yet, it is still being prescribed for, or forced, on, children.

FDA regulations denied the Horwins the right to make the choice they felt best for their child, to try a treatment that just might have saved his life.

Jenny Thomson writes: 'Without question, there are true charlatans out there who would prey on desperate people, bilking them of their savings while convincing them that a bogus therapy might save their lives, or the lives of their children. But this is what thorough research and background checks are for. And I would much rather place my faith in each individual's personal judgment before I placed my faith in a bloated bureaucracy, willing to restrict everyone's right to choose in order to protect a few of us from making bad choices.'

This case was originally reported in 'War on Cancer: Why does the FDA Deny Access to Alternative Cancer Treatments?' Michael Horwin, California Western Law Review, V. 38, No. 1, Fall, 2001 In 1998

Death by doctoring

Follow this link for a good summary of the anti-chemotherapy position.

Professor Luigi Di Bella

The work of this Italian doctor has recently hit the headlines in a big way. Unfortunately, although a large number of individuals are claiming his treatment methods have cured them of their cancers, trials currently underway do not appear to be supporting this.

Professor Di Bella is shouting that medical researchers have falsified his protocols. The researchers are denying this. 

Certainly there have been cases of medical researchers sabotaging clinical trials: Vitamin C and Hydrazine Sulphate (Sulfate) being two cases in point - not to mention laetrile. For a description of these see Ralph Moss's book: The Cancer Industry.

However, that doesn't mean that in this case these trials are being falsified. I think we need to be cautious in evaluating this therapy - especially as some of the drugs used are prohibitively expensive (some are as much as DM150 a vial) Here is an extract from an article by Margaret Straus on the Di Bella therapy 

It would take considerably more space than is available here to describe Professor Di Bella's "Multi-therapy" and the rationale behind it. The various elements, individually tailored to each patient, are according to Di Bella's claims, non-toxic, with an emphasis on the cell-growth control functions of melatonin, bromocryptin, and special slow-release injections of somatostatin. In addition, he uses prolactine inhibitors, and ACTH, a vitamin mix of retinoids, carotenoids, vitamins E and C, selenium, and in occasional cases very small doses of cyclophosphamide (a form of chemotherapy). His claims are of a "control" of cancer, a "return to normal life," and "tumor encapsulation." 

Many patients that have come forward to testify for his method would appear by most criteria to qualify as "cures". It is interesting to note that Di Bella's greatest successes are in areas where the Gerson Therapy has in recent years found results lacking: notably in leukemia's and brain metastasized breast cancer. However, the area where Di Bella admits he has most difficulty, is where Gerson has the greatest success rate: malignant melanoma. It would certainly be interesting for notes to be compared between exponents of the two methodologies. 

The parallels between the Di Bella story and Dr. Max Gerson's American experience were not lost on Giuliano Dego, Italian author of the biographical Gerson novel, Doctor Max. Dego began publishing a series of 15 articles in his regular newspaper column, warning the Italian public of the lengths to which the cancer establishment will go to in order to block intruders in their territory. His articles also tell the story of Dr. Gerson in detail. While the role of the press in this whole affair has been under attack by orthodox oncologists, it has at least demonstrated a freedom of public information that the U.S. could well envy. Meanwhile, experimentation has gotten underway, criticized by Professor and Dr. Di Bella and overshadowed by the government decree. In March, Professor Di Bella traveled to Argentina to explain his therapy to doctors there, but Italy's most powerful oncologist, Professor Umberto Veronesi mysteriously preceded him to meet with his Argentinian colleagues. Di Bella was snubbed by all but a host of journalists. Brazil and Canada, on the other hand, have offered him facilities for research and freedom to teach his method. The saga continues... 

A Note from Charlotte Gerson: 

It is interesting to notice that there has been almost no mention of this major event in the U.S. news media. With more Americans facing cancer than anywhere else in the world, it would seem the media have a responsibility to inform their U.S. public about such a thing. Not until April 18th of 1998, almost 6 months after the Di Bella affair began in Italy, did I see a small mention of it on the local TV news. 

For more information on doctors using the therapy contact the following website http://microwebcom.com/melatonina/indexe.html or write to AIAN - Associazione Italiana  Assistenza Malati Neoplastici Via Magna Grecia, 39 - ROMA 
Tel. 06 / 77200984
Fax: 06 / 7009397

[Back to top]

Sprouts: A Negative View

The enzymes contained in bean-sprouts have been claimed by many to have powerful anti-cancer properties. However, not everyone agrees. The Gerson Institute, for example, is opposed to the use of sprouts. Here is a comment by a Gerson practitioner: There is no mention anywhere in A Cancer Therapy of sprouts! It has also been proven by research and in our own seriously negative experience, that sprouted alfalfa contains precursor amino acids that have caused lupus in healthy monkeys, Unfortunately, we do not have the funds nor research facilities to test other sprouts for the possibly toxic precursor amino acid (l-canavanine, see Gerson Healing Newsletter No. 11, Jan/Feb '86 ) Therefore, in order to avoid any possible damage from immature proteins, we have prohibited all sprouts. For further information on Gerson Therapy contact  http://www.gerson.org. 
[Back to top]

Milk and the Cancer Connection

With complete references for researchers
by Hans R. Larsen, MSc ChE 

On January 23, 1998 researchers at the Harvard Medical School released a major study providing conclusive evidence that IGF-1 is a potent risk factor for prostate cancer. Should you be concerned? Yes, you certainly should, particularly if you drink milk produced in the United States. 

IGF-1 or insulin-like growth factor 1 is an important hormone which is produced in the liver and body tissues. It is a polypeptide and consists of 70 amino acids linked together. All mammals produce IGF-1 molecules very similar in structure and human and bovine IGF-1 are completely identical. IGF-1 acquired its name because it has insulin-like activity in fat (adipose) tissue and has a structure which is very similar to that of proinsulin. The body's production of IGF-1 is regulated by the human growth hormone and peaks at puberty. IGF-1 production declines with age and is only about half the adult value at the age of 70 years. IGF-1 is a very powerful hormone which has profound effects even though its concentration in the blood serum is only about 200 ng/mL or 0.2 millionth of a gram per milliliter(1-4). 

IGF-1 and cancer

IGF-1 is known to stimulate the growth of both normal and cancerous cells(2,5). In 1990 researchers at Stanford University reported that IGF-1 promotes the growth of prostate cells(2). This was followed by the discovery that IGF-1 accelerates the growth of breast cancer cells (6-8). In 1995 researchers at the National Institutes of Health reported that IGF-1 plays a central role in the progression of many  childhood cancers and in the growth of tumours in breast cancer,  small cell lung cancer, melanoma, and cancers of the pancreas and prostate(9). In September 1997 an international team of researchers reported the first epidemiological evidence that high IGF-1 concentrations are closely linked to an increased risk of prostate cancer(10). Other researchers provided evidence of IGF-1's link to breast and colon cancers(10,11).  The January 1998 report by the Harvard researchers confirmed the link between IGF-1 levels in the blood and the risk of prostate cancer. The effects of IGF-1 concentrations on prostate cancer risk were found to be astoundingly large - much higher than for any other known risk factor. Men having an IGF-1 level between approximately 300 and 500 ng/mL were found to have more than four times the risk of developing prostate cancer than did men with a level between 100 and 185 ng/mL. The detrimental effect of high IGF-1 levels was particularly pronounced in men over 60 years of age. In this age group men with the highest levels of IGF-1 were eight times more likely to develop prostate cancer than men with low levels. The elevated IGF-1 levels were found to be present several years before an actual diagnosis of prostate cancer was made(12).\\ (reprinted with permission)

[Back to top]