Defeating cancer takes more than one treatment method:

A 5-year retrospective case series using multiple nutritional and herbal agents, 2011 update

Naturopathic Medical Doctors of Arizona,

1250 E. Baseline Rd., Suite 205, Tempe, AZ 85283. USA.

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.

September 9, 2011. This paper is an update of the 2009 and 2010 editions of this paper.

It is not enough to repair genetic damage and neglect to reverse all other cancer-causing problems. It is not enough to stop angiogenesis and neglect to reverse all other cancer-causing problems. It is 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. – Colleen Huber, NMD

Medical Choice Editions
Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Research has shown that for cancer to occur in the body multiple normal functions must break down. Therefore multiple-agent treatments may be the only successful way to treat cancer. We used well-tolerated natural substances to assess their usefulness in combination anti-neoplastic therapy.

METHODS: We treated a total of 165 patients with cancer from October 2006, when we opened our practice, until July 2011, when we stopped collecting data for this year’s update of this paper, originally written in 2009. Data from all 165 patients who came to us with a definitive diagnosis of cancer are included in this paper, excluding only those cancer patients who decided against further treatment after less than two weeks in our care. We treated with natural methods alone, choosing among methods with research-established anti-neoplastic effect, both dietary and supplemented, nutritional and herbal, oral and intravenous, 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: 60 patients voluntarily left our practice, against our advice, primarily for financial reasons, while still having cancer. Of the remaining 105 patients, 98 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 3 months after leaving our care and needing no other physician supervised cancer care. Those patients in remission stayed in our care an average of 3.7 months; those who left, 2.7 months. We are still treating 10 patients plus giving ongoing maintenance treatments to some of those who are still in remission, and 7 died while still our patients. 12 more were killed by hospital procedures and or chemotherapy while still our patients. Of the 98 who went into remission, only 5 had chosen to have chemotherapy while having our treatments. 5 of those in remission have come out of remission as of this writing, and of those, three are back in remission again. Stages 1, 2 and 3 patients at start of treatment had much better outcomes than Stage 4 patients in general.

INTERPRETATION: Our results are a considerable improvement over other known cancer treatment methods, chemotherapeutic (with a 2.5% success rate), radiological or natural. However, the 7 patients who did not survive treatment as well as six other patients who had an increased tumor load during our treatments make an 8% failure rate. Therefore these treatment strategies are still not adequate to eliminate all patients’ cancers and must be further developed.

Introduction

Cancer treatment, more so than other areas of medicine, 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 illness. Nothing could be further from the truth. With cancer especially, 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 anti-neoplastic strategic effects to reverse all of those abnormalities in all patients, in effect, to be “the cure” for cancer.

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 go wrong,[1] 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 deviant 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 self-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 organism.

5) Angiogenesis, the creation of blood vessels and resultant hoarding by the tumor of disproportionately large amounts of nutrients;

6) Invasion and metastasis, which not only results from the aggressive nature of the tumor, but also the low integrity 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.

The “Dinomit” acronym as a model of cancer development later proposed by Cedric Garland is a similar recognition of the numerous events necessary to enable the development of cancer. [2] “Dinomit” refers to D: Disjunction, I: Initiation, N: Natural Selection, O: Overgrowth, M: Metastasis, I: Involution, T: Cancer becomes chronic.

Once established in the body, cancer seems to have the ability to thrive and reproduce despite most of the efforts against it by 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, 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, leaving the fertile ground 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 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. Licensed naturopathic physicians, because of thorough medical training, having more classroom hours and more than twice the number of courses in medical school of Medical Doctors[3], 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 among numerous pharmaceuticals. Just as a meal may contain many different foods without the need for conscious consideration of potential interactions, we have combined many different nutrients and plant materials in each cancer patient’s treatment protocol.

Materials and Methods

Dietary interventions are of the utmost importance in cancer therapy, especially keeping blood sugar low. 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 considerably more than does 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,[4] breast cancer, [5] [6] gastric cancer, [7] [8] colon cancer,[9] [10] ovarian cancer[11] and prostate cancer.[12] 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 minimize 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. 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 importance with diet are the IV 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 anti-neoplastic 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.

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 cookbook fashion 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 for every individual 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.[13] [14] However, intravenous use of ascorbic acid has been shown to rise to concentrations that have killed cancer cells in vivo [15] [16] [17] and in vitro.[18] [19] [20] 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.[21] 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.[22] Research has confirmed that Vitamin C in such high concentration kills cancer cells while leaving normal tissue unharmed.[23] [24] Indeed the cancer patients whom we treat do not have side effects from these treatments, with few exceptions. Two of the exceptions were allergies to specific B vitamins in two individuals. Both 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 collagen[25] and to inhibit hyaluronidase[26] leading to stronger membrane integrity and tensile strength[27] of normal tissue, which inhibits invasion[28] and thus metastases.

Empirical data shows an inverse correlation between vitamin D intake and cancer incidence.[29] [30] [31] A rapidly growing body of research has confirmed the essential role that Vitamin D plays in cancer prevention and treatment.[32] [33] [34] [35] Vitamin D has been shown to induce differentiation,[36] and apoptosis,[37] to reduce proliferation by effect on signal transduction,[38] to improve intercellular communication by means of gap junction communication preservation,[39] to inhibit angiogenesis,[40] [41] and to inhibit metastasis.[42] At our clinic, most cancer patients are prescribed a regular dose of Vitamin D that is compatible with the weight, customary sunlight exposure, current pharmaceuticals if any, as well as the 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[43] and target identifying effects. Another very important quality of Vitamin A with regard to neoplastic cells is its ability to introduce differentiation.[44] [45] It has also been shown to induce apoptosis in cancer cells,[46] as well as growth inhibition.[47] Although there have been recent objections made to Vitamin A for an allegedly competitive and detrimental effect to vitamin D,[48] vitamin A does have the above-mentioned significant anti-cancer properties that make it useful in our work. Older research supports the use of vitamin A and vitamin D dosed together.[49] [50] [51]

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,[52] 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.[53] Its main effect seems to be protective against DNA damage.[54] It also seems to have anti-proliferative effect.[55]

For most of our patients, we have also used digestive enzymes apart from meals, for a presumed proteolytic effect against tumors. This use is still speculative and does not appear to be well-supported at this time in the medical literature. However, various digestive enzymes, and bromelain in particular, have been found to heighten immune system response to cancer [56] [57] and to inhibit metastasis.[58] [59]

For different cancers there are additional appropriate treatments. For example, Kenneth Proefrock NMD has done extensive original work with nebulizers, as well as many other areas of medicine, which he taught us to use with lung cancer patients to good effect.[60] 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 anti-neoplastic treatments to lung tissue via its other major port of entry.

Findings

Of the 165 cancer patients whom we have treated long-term, all came to us with a diagnosis of cancer from another physician, none originally diagnosed by us. Of those 165 patients, 7 have died of cancer while still our patients under our care, 98 have gone into complete remission, substantiated by PET/CT or other imaging, and/or biopsy, and/or stable good health for at least 3 months after stopping our treatments, and all of those except three are still in remission at this writing; 60 decided to leave our care against our advice while still with cancer, and others are still being treated by us. Specific results are shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Outcomes of naturopathic management of 165 cancer cases

Patient #s as-signed for reporting purpose only (referred to by name only in clinic)	Stage at start of treatment If the onco-logist said ‘no hope of recovery regard-less of treat-ment’ (NHR)	Type of cancer	Conventional therapies also used during our treatments: Chemotherapy (C) Radiation(R) Surgery (Su) Prior chemotherapy but still had tumor load after chemotherapy (PC) Prior radiation (PR); Prior surgery (PS) C R Su			Final result: Proven total remission (R), Assumed remission after long time well (AR) Proven reduced tumor load but not remission (Red), Proven increased tumor load (Inc), New metastases (Met) Tumor softened (Sof) Death (D), Death after dietary dispute (DDD) Left (L) Left against medical advice (L ama) Could not afford to continue treatments long enough (No$) No further information (NFI) Still treating (Current)		Quality of Life at end of treatment Improved (Imp) Worsened (Wor) High-functioning (HF) High- functioning with Exercise (HfwE) Same from beginning to end of treatment (Sa) Patient is employed (Job)

1	4	neuro-endocrine tumor	No	No	No	Red, Current		HfwE/Sa
2	1	prostate	No	No	No	R		Imp/Job
3	3	breast	No	No	No	R		HF/Job
4	2	liver	No	No	No	Red, L ama, NFI		HFwE/Sa
5	1	breast	No	No	Yes	Red, Sof, L ama –No$		D, 1 year after leaving
6	1	breast	No	No	Yes	R		HfwE/Sa/Job
7	1	prostate	No	No	No	R		HFwE/Sa/Job
8	1	breast	No	No	No	AR. Red, Sof, L		HFwE/Sa
9	1	prostate	No	No	No	R		HFwE/Sa
10	4 NHR	breast	No	No	Yes	Current		HfwE/Sa
11	1	mesothe-lioma	Yes	No	No	Inc., L, then 1 mo, then DDD		Wor
12	2	lung	No	No	No	S, Current		HfwE/Imp
13	2	lymphoma	No	No	No	AR		Hf, Imp, then Wor after dietary difference
14	3	breast	No	No	No	Red, Sof, dispute over treatments, Current		HFwE/Sa
15	2	breast	No	No	No	AR		HfwE/ Sa
16	1	breast	No	No	Yes	R		HFwE/Sa/Job
17	3	lung	No	No	No	L after strong dietary dispute, then 1 mo, then, DDD, L ama		Sa
18	3	colon	No	No	Yes	L ama, NFI		Sa
19	4	lymphoma	No	No	No PS	Current, Red		Imp, HfwE
20	2	breast	No	No	Yes	Red prior to surgery, R		HFwE/S/Job Diet dispute à tumor returned à more treatments à in Remission again
21	4	lung	No	No	No	R x 2 yrs, then recurred, then no treatment at all, then D		Imp/Job
22	1	prostate	No	No	No	AR, Current		Imp
23	1	prostate	No	No	No	AR		HF/same
24	2	lung	No	Yes	No	R, then radiation, then radiation poisoning, then fall, then broken hip, then D.		Wor from radiation treatments; D of fall and broken hip after Remission
25	4 NHR	lung	No	No	No	L ama-No$, then 2 mos. Then D		HF/same
26	4	stomach	No PC	No	No	AR		Imp, but improved more after surgery
27	3	leukemia and squamous cell	No, PC	No	No	R for leukemia, now working on Squamous cell ca		Imp, HFwE, then Wor. Up and down: severely sore throat with ulcerated lesion from cancer, but no malignancy found on path lab.
28	1	rectal	No	Yes	No	Dispute about how to treat. Tumor shrinks and grows with irritation; average same size; L		HFwE/same
29	4 NHR	lung	No	No	No	Stable cancer D of pneumonia		Weak; Same, but died of pneumonia
30	4 NHR	small cell lung	No PC	No	No	AR		HF/Job
31	4	breast, 4^th recur.	No, PC	No PR	No PS	AR		HFwE/Job/same
32	1	squamous cell	No	No	Yes	AR		Hf/Job/Same
33	1	breast	No	No	No	L ama, NFI		HFwE/same
34	1	breast	No	No	Yes	R		HFwE/same
35	1	thyroid	No	No	No	R		Concurrent Lyme Disease, but Imp
36	1	breast	No	No	Yes	R		HFwE/Sa/Job
37	1 recurred	breast	No, PC	No PR	No PS	R		HF/Sa/Job
38	1	breast	No	No	Yes	R		HFwE, Imp
39	4	kidney	No	No	No	L ama-No$, NFI, then 1.5 years, no other treatment, then D		HF/Sa
40	4	colon	Yes	No	No	L ama, NFI		Sa
41	4 NHR	ovarian	No	No	No	L ama, then 2 mo, gave up, then D		Entered very ill, same
42	3	squamous cell tongue	No	No	No PS	Strong dietary dispute, Current		Imp, then Wor
43	1	lymphoma	Yes	No	No	AR, then was forced into chemotherapy against patient’s wishes		Improved, responded immediately to natural treatments.
44	1	breast	No	No	No PS	AR		HFwE/Job/Sa
45	4	Lynch Syndrome: colon, ovarian, uterine cancers; all primary	No, PC	No	No, PS	R		Imp
46	2	uterine	No	No	Yes	R		HFwE/Imp/Job; now fighting acid reflux
47	4 re-curred NHR	ovarian	No PC	No	Yes	Stopped treatment at worst possible time, much too early L ama		Imp significantly to HFwE/Job; then stopped treatment against clinic advice; then Wor significantly
48	4 NHR; several dozen mets from neck to feet	colon	Yes	No	Yes	Improved; went back for more chemo à D		Died from chemotherapy side effect. Only 3 of our treatments
49	1	leukemia	No	No	No	AR, L with no lymphadenopathy, borderline leukocytosis		HFwE/Sa/Job 71yo, bikes miles, hand built cabin, x 2 yrs since treatment
50	2 NHR	breast	No	No	Yes	R		HFwE/Sa
51	1 NHR	lung	No	Yes	No	R, then D of Pulm fibr, not lu ca		Wor from pulm fibrosis not ca
52	2 NHR	vulvar	No PC	No	No	Strong dietary dispute. L ama, then 2 mo, then no treatment, then DDD		Wor from chronic antibiotic resistant infection
53	4	lymphoma	Yes	No	No	R		HFwE/Sa/Job
54	4	GIST	No, but Rx’s	No	No	Current		Came in with huge tumor load; almost no metabolic activity in cancer now. Now struggling with ascites
55	3 NHR	cervical	No	No	No	L, NFI		HFwE/Sa/Job
56	2 NHR	lung	No	No	No	Red, Met, then L ama, then 6 months, then D		HF/Sa
57	2	squamous cell tongue	No	No	No	L ama to have radiation, then NFI		Wor/HFwE/Job
58	4 NHR	breast	Yes	Yes	Yes	L ama to have chemotherapy, then 1 mo, then D		Same; severe lymphedema
59	4	breast	No, PC	No, PR	Yes	L ama-No$, NFI, then 3mos then D		HF/Sa. Left against medical advice
60	4 NHR	breast	No	No	Yes	R		HFwE in her 70’s/Sa
61	1	multiple myeloma	Yes	No	No	R		HF w/travel, Job/Sa
62	4 NHR	bladder	No, PC	No	No, PS	R Critical electrolyte levels after K+ regulation destroyed from no fluids given in hospice à D		Entered very ill from hospice; greatly improved, regained consciousness, w/E. No cancer found on MRI one day before death
63	4	lymphoma	No	No	No	R		Sa/job/travel
64	1	cervical	No	No	No	R		HFwE/job
65	4	breast	No	No	No	R		Imp; HFwE/Job
66	1	lung	No	No	No	R. Then stopped treatment, then MI, then D		Imp
67	1	prostate	No	No	No	R		Imp; HFwE/Job
68	2	breast	No	No	Yes	R		HF/Sa/Job
69	4	lymphoma	Yes	No	No	AR		Imp
70	1	breast	No	Yes	Yes	R, then recur, then R		HFwE/Sa/Job
71	4 NHR	esophagus	No PC	No	No	Strong dispute over diet, then L, then hospital, then D		Imp, then Wor
72	1	prostate	No	No	No	R		HF/Sa/Job
73	4 NHR	pancreatic	No	No	No	L ama, went to another clinic, then D		Sa
74	4 NHR	prostate	No	No	No	Imp, from hospice to outpatient, then L ama, then 1 mo. Then D		Imp. Then Wor
75	4 NHR	lung	No PC	No PR	No PS	Decided not to continue our treatment after 1^st treatment, then D		Imp
76	2	ovarian	No PC	No	Yes	R		Imp, HF w/E, Job
77	4 NHR	glioblastoma	No	No	No PS	D		Imp, then Wor
78	4	breast	No, PC	Yes	Yes	Inc (while improving stamina), Met, radiation, D		Imp/HFwE (intense exercise), 69yo then radiation then rapidly Wor, then died
79	4	colon	No PC	No	No PS	R		Imp HFwE
80	2	breast	Yes	No	Yes	Dec., then disa-greement about diet, then Inc, Met, L ama, then 12 mos, then D		Wor
81	4	prostate	No	No	No	R, PSA from >100 to <6, L		Imp; well
82	4	tongue	PC	PR	PS	Blood glucose went 170 to 400’s from hospital treatment between consults with us => D suddenly of DM2		Died of diabetes mellitus
83	4	breast	No	No	No PS	L ama, NFI		Sa
84	1	thyroid	No	No	No	R		Imp, Job, HFwE
85	4; 36 bone mets. at start of treatment	lung	Yes	Yes	No	D		Wor. Neither chemotherapy nor our treatments worked for this patient.
86	4 NHR	liver and colon	No	No, PR	No PS	L ama, NFI		Imp
87	4 NHR	squamous cell tongue	No	No	No	Red, L ama, then 3 months, then D		Imp, and speaking again, then Wor, then left, then died
88	4 NHR	prostate	Yes	Yes	Yes	L ama, NFI		Close to death at time of 1^st visit, then 2 treatments, then improved, then left.
89	2	breast	No	No	Yes	R		Imp HFwE
90	4 NHR	liver	No PC	No PR	No PS	Red, Wor, D		Wor from rapid tumor breakdown, without adequate elimination, left
91	2	breast	No	No	PS	R		HFwE, Job
92	1	prostate	No	No	No	Imp, AR		Sa, HFwE, bench presses 200 lbs in his 70’s.
93	2	lymphoma	No	No	No	Imp		Dramatic improvement from 1^st treatment, then family dispute, then left
94	4 NHR	lymphoma	No PC	No	No	Strong dispute over course of treatment; L ama à2 months, then D		Then 2 months, then infection, then D of infection
95	4 NHR	breast	No	No	No	R		Imp HF/Job
96	4	sarcoma	No PC	No	Yes	Inc, but improved vitality, stamina, Current		HFwE
97	4 NHR	ovarian	No PC	No PR	Yes	R, L ama-No$, then same for 6 months, then weaker, then more months, then surgical complications from double colostomy, then D		Low functioning; ill and weak. Left against medical advice
98	1	liver	No	No	No	R		HFwE
99	1	breast	No	No	No	R		HF/Sa/Job
100	1	breast	No PC	No	No PS	R		HFwE Sa/Job; just this year hiked Grand Canyon
101	4	ALL leukemia	No PC	No	No	R		Imp, HFwE
102	1	squamous cell	No	No	No PS	R		HFwE, Sa
103	1	brain	No	No	No	L ama, NFI		HF/Sa/Job
104	3	breast	No	No	No, PS	R		Imp, HfwE/Sa
105	3	colon	Yes	No	Yes	Red by 80%, L then 2 mos D from surgical complications		Imp
106	1	thymus	No	No	Yes	R		HFwJob, travel
107	4 NHR	cervical, recurred to colon before starting our treatments	No	No	No PS	D		Cancer did not respond to our treatments
108	2	colon	No	No	No	R		HF, Job
109	2	multiple myeloma	No	No	No	L ama, then 2 years then D		Same
110	4	pancreatic	No PC	No PR	No PS	AR, but with damage to lung from cancer and repeated thoracentesis		HF
111	1	pancreatic	No PC	No	No PS	R		HFwE; pilot
112	4	breast	No PC	No	No PS	Imp, then Wor, Current		HFwE; runs or walks 2 miles/day
113	4 NHR	gastric	No PC	No	No	L ama, then 1 mo, then D		Came from hospice, Sa, then Wor, then hospital, then D Cancer did not respond to our treatments.
114	1	breast	No	No	No PS	R, then 2 months, then bone mets, then died		HFwE/Job during treatment. 2 mos later, bone mets, Wor.
115	4 NHR	pancreatic	No, PC	No	No	Red, then disa-greement about diet, then Inc, D		Imp then Wor
116	1	prostate	No	No	No	R		HFwE/Sa/Job; active performing musician in his 70s
117	3 NHR	breast	No	No	No	L ama, NFI		HFwE/Sa
118	2	multiple myeloma	No PC	No	No	AR Imp quickly; could not afford to continue treatment		HFwE/Sa
119	4	lymphoma	No	No	No	R		Active in community in her 70’s
120	4	multiple myeloma	No	No	No	AR		Imp, HF/Job; left due to doubts raised by blood tests
121	4 NHR	thyroid	No PC	No	Yes	Came in after being assigned to hospice; L ama, D		Sa; Left against medical advice, then some months, then D
122	2	breast	No	No	No, PS	R		HFwE/Job, Sa
123	4 NHR	breast	No, PC	No	No, PS	Killed by overdose of morphine in hospital, D		Came in 27 yrs after 1^st diagnosis and after recent worsening of symptoms
124	2	squamous cell of neck	No	No	No	R		Dramatic Imp
125	1	thyroid	No	No	No	R		HF/Job/Sa
126	1	ovarian	No PC	No	No PS	R		HFwE/Job/Sa
127	1	prostate	No	No	No PS	AR		HFwE/Job/Sa
128	1	breast/ Paget’s	No	No	Yes	R		HF/Sa
129	2	prostate	No	No	No	R		HFwE/Strenuous outdoor Job
130	4	colon	No	No	No		D	Worse from rapid tumor breakdown without adequate elimination
131	3 NHR	giant cell endometrial	No, PC	No, PR	Debulking but not resection PS		R	Imp/HFwE/Job
132	4	melanoma	No	Yes	Yes	R, then 2 years off diet, then D		Imp/HFwE during treatment
133	2	liver	Yes	Yes	Yes	L for surgery, then D from Valley Fever		Well until chemo and radiation and surgery, then Wor
134	4	colon	No	No	No	R		Imp
135	1	prostate	No	No	No	AR		HFwE
136	1	prostate	No	Yes	No	AR		HFwE, Job
137	1	prostate	No	No PR	No PS	R		HFwE
138	4	breast	Yes	No	Yes	AR		Sa, Job
139	3	squamous cell	No	No	No	R		HF/Job
140	4	gastric	No	No	No	R, but no surgery available for damage created by tumor, D		Imp/ HF, then Wor from complications, after cancer was gone.
141	3	lymphoma	No, PC	No	No	R		HF/Sa/Strenuous outdoor Job
142	4	lung	No, PC	No	No	L ama-No$, NFI, then D 2 yrs later		Sa
143	4 NHR	colon	No PC	No PR	No PS	Cancer had metastasized from neck to feet, and to most major organs before patient started our treatments.		Our treatments did not work for this patient
144	4	breast	No	No	No	L ama, NFI		Sa
145	4	pancreatic	Yes	Yes	No	D from chemo reactions		HF till 2^nd chemo treatment, then hospital
146	1	rectal	No	No	Yes	R		Recuperating now from surgery
147	3	lung	No	No	No	AR, L ama, then had chemo, then quickly sickened and D		Pneumonia during treatment, complications, hospital. But tumors gone.
148	1	breast	No PC	No	No PS	R		HFwE
149	1	gallbladder	No	No	No	AR		HF/Sa
150	1	leukemia	No	No	No	AR Numbers stable		HF/Sa
151	1	prostate	No	No	No	AR		HFwE/ Job
152	3	testicular	No, PC	No	No	R		HFwE/Strenuous outdoor job
153	1	leukemia	Yes	No	No	R		HF/Sa
154	4	adenoid palate	No	No, PR	No	L ama, then 1 year, then D		Same
155	1	prostate	No	No	No	L ama, NFI		HF/Sa
156	1	breast	No	No	Yes	R		HF wE/ Sa
157		colon	No	No	No	Imp		HFwE/Sa; bicycles miles per day
158	4	esophagus	Yes	No, PR	No	Severely sickened with each chemo treatment, then D		Wor after chemo treatments.
159	3	breast	No PC	No PR	No PS	R Cancer had recurred after chemo		HF/Sa/Job
160	1	breast	No	No	No	R		HF/Sa
161	4	cervical	Yes	No, PR	No	L, then 1 month, D of chemotherapy side effects		Sa
162	2	breast	No	No	No	Spontaneous remission (Patient only had one of our treatments then no$, then L ama.) R with no other treatment à we probably deserve no credit for this remission.		HF/Sa
163	4	colon	No, PC	No, PR	No, PS	Came in late stage, after hospice, L, then 1 week, D of hepatic coma		Sa
164	1	lymphoma	No	No	Yes	R prior to surgery (clear pathology report)		HFwE/Job
165	2	liver	Yes	No, PR	No	L, NFI		Sa

The results in Table 1 are summarized as follows:

Table 2 Summarized outcomes of naturopathic management of 165 cancer cases

Outcome	Number of patients	Average number of months this group of patients stayed for treatments *	Number in each group also receiving chemotherapy	Number in each group also receiving surgery
Remission	98	3.7	5	23
Died while still only in our care	7	2.2	0	1
Killed by hospitals or MDs	12	2.7	7	5
Of those who left before finishing treatment, number who died after leaving	21	2.7	4	4
Still being treated	10	4.0	0	2
No current information	13	1.4	2	1
Waiting to know status	4		1	2
Total	165		19	38

*(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.)

60 patients left our practice before completing our treatments. Of the 105 patients who continued with our treatment until remission or death, 98 went into remission, and 7 died while still our patients in our care alone. This reflects a success rate of 93% ( = 98 in remission of 105 who were steadfast in the treatments.) 12 others were killed in hospitals by medical procedures, non-cancer iatrogenic causes or simultaneous chemotherapy. These numbers do not include any of the currently treated patients, because their complete data is not yet available. We have even gotten 23 Stage IV cancer patients into remission. Of the patients who went into remission, they have been contacted by us when collecting the data for this paper, in July 2009 and again in July 2010, then again in July 2011, and all but 5 of whom we could reach stayed in remission. We could not reach 15 patients.

All seven patients who died while only being treated by us were Stage IV at start of treatment. This paragraph describes the ordeals of each 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 #85). Another began treatment with a tumor load that was almost a cubic foot (Patient #130). Another chose not to follow our main dietary recommendation during the last month of his treatment, i.e. not to eat sweetened foods (Patient #115). The latter 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 the tables). 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 last 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, extensive metastases. Two 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. Another had a 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. And yet another had an unfortunate combination of severe constipation with fast tumor breakdown. This combination allows toxins to build very quickly in the body, and we could not clear them out fast enough to save her life.

The patients came in to our care starting at the following stages.

Table 3: Patients in remission or assumed remission from our treatments and stage at diagnosis

Stage	Number of patients	Previous chemotherapy with active cancer at start of our treatments	Number in each group also receiving chemotherapy concurrently	Number in each group receiving radiation concurrently	Number in each group receiving surgery concurrently
I	50	6	3	3	12
II	16	2	0	1	7
III	9	5	0	0	1
IV	23	8	3	2	3
Total	98	21	6	6	23

Only five of the patients we treated who also had concurrent chemotherapy went into remission. Of all the others, the only patients we had who went into remission had refused current chemotherapy prior to starting our treatments, although some had chosen to have it in the past. However, 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 #105).

23 of our 98 patients to go into remission also had either surgical resection or debulking of their tumors while getting our treatments. This would suggest that surgery was probably a good choice, when available, and that the combination of surgical tumor resection and natural treatments was a good strategy for a successful outcome, although not always required for a good outcome.

Table 4: Results for patients completing our program with all dietary recommendations and choosing not to have chemotherapy

Outcome	Number of patients
Remission without chemotherapy	92
Came out of remission after stopping our treatments, but maintaining diet	3

Table 4 shows that our treatments are very likely to ensure continued remission. 96% of those who went into remission with our treatments and maintained our dietary recommendations afterward are still in remission. This is an unprecedented high rate of sustained remission when compared with other clinics and other cancer treatments, conventional or natural.

One of our patients in remission is the only known survivor of Stage 3 giant cell endometrial carcinoma (Patient #131), at least according to published medical literature.[61] 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 5: Summary of interim changes in tumor load with naturopathic care of 165 cancer patients

Interim changes, regardless of final outcome, of survivors

Number of patients

Number in each group also receiving chemotherapy

Reduced tumor load

108

Increased tumor load

We have data for change in tumor size for relatively few patients. 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?”) Biopsy was an even harder sell. Many of those patients left our practice for one reason or another, as discussed below, before we had any information about changing tumor size. 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. 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.

If one considers that the treatment failed for the 7 patients who died, plus the 6 who had an increased tumor load despite following all of our protocols, then of the 165 total patients, whether they followed our recommendations or not, or completed the treatments or not, the success rate may be seen as 92%, if success means just keeping people alive at the same or better level of wellbeing. Or rather the failure rate is then 8%.

However, our success rate is even higher than 92% or 93%, if you consider a factor that we have started to keep track of since July 2010: we are now also calling people who came in to our clinic for an initial consult, but did not start our treatments. Of those 4 who visited in the last 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.

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, 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 and her disease state began to worsen dramatically (Patient #78). Although we have not yet found the necessary combination of therapies to reduce and eliminate such a resilient cancer, 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 #47) 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 has now given up and is offering her no more chemotherapy. Many other patients did very well in measures of tumor size and wellbeing with our treatments. Then oncologists or family members persuaded the patient to have chemotherapy instead. Usually, that patient then went quickly downhill and died.

For the 60 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.

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 room maintained their vitality, their hair and their bodily functions. 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.

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. The few whose tumor size clearly increased usually left when they believed our treatments were not working for them.

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 6: Summary of quality of life changes by subjective evaluation of naturopathic physician along with patient self-evaluation during naturopathic care of the patients whose wellbeing stayed the same or got better

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 number of patients	143	98	10

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, make a success rate of 86%. For most of the remaining 14% 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, uranium poisoning, radiation poisoning, chronic antibiotic-resistant infection, rapid tumor breakdown with poor elimination (2), chemotherapy intolerance (7), complications from previous surgery (2), blood clots where the tumor had compressed multiple veins before the tumor was eliminated, hepatic coma.

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 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 is generally much better now than it was during our earliest years.

Five of our cancer patients have come out of remission. Two of the five discontinued our main dietary recommendation. This was especially disappointing to us because after being out of contact for almost two years after they went into remission, one called to inform us that she was now physically active and had at last stopped smoking. Months later, she went off of the diet, and then developed recurrence of cancer. A third patient went quickly back into remission. The fourth opted to be treated by chemotherapy for her recurrence. The fifth came out of remission one year after leaving our clinic. Two of them are now in remission and are living productive lives, as confirmed by recent contact with them. The first and fourth and fifth passed away this year.

Discussion

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. 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 all other cancer treatment protocols, 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.

Medical Choice Editions Abstract