Defeating cancer requires more than one treatment method:

A 6-year retrospective case series using multiple nutritional and herbal agents, 2012 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 30, 2012. This paper is an update of the 2009, 2010 and 2011 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 243 patients with cancer from October 2006, when we opened our practice, until July 2012, when we stopped collecting data for this year’s update of this paper, originally written in 2009. Data from all 243 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: 71 patients voluntarily left our practice, against our advice, primarily for financial reasons, while still having cancer. Of the remaining 172 patients, 128 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, and as confirmed by annual telephone confirmation 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. We are still treating 21 patients plus giving ongoing maintenance treatments to some of those who are still in remission, and 23 died while still our patients. 16 more were killed by hospital procedures and/or chemotherapy while still our patients. Of the 128 who went into remission, only 7 had chosen to have chemotherapy while having our treatments. 10 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, 3 and early Stage 4 patients at start of treatment had much better outcomes than late Stage 4 patients in general.

INTERPRETATION: Our results demonstrate a considerable improvement over other known cancer treatment methods, chemotherapeutic (with a 2.5% long-term survival rate), radiological or natural. Success rate by stage of cancer is given in Table 5. However, the 23 patients who did not survive treatment must be seen as a 9% 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 cancer. 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. At our clinic in Tempe, AZ, USA we therefore 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 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 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 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. 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. 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 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 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. 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 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] Research over the last several years 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 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[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 some objections made to Vitamin A for an allegedly competitive and detrimental effect to vitamin D,[48] vitamin A seems to be vindicated by a preponderance of older research that 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 some 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 in many other areas of medicine, which he taught us to use with lung cancer patients, as well as others with metastases the lungs, 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 243 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 243 patients, 23 have died of cancer while still our patients under our care, 128 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 six are still in remission at this writing; 68 decided to leave our care against our advice while still with cancer, others are still being treated by us, and 3 have conflicting information and are waiting to know the status of their cancer. Specific results are shown in Table 1. A summary is shown in Table 2.

Table 1: Outcomes of naturopathic management of 243 cancer cases

Patient #s as-signed for reporting purpose only (referred to by name only in clinic)	Stage at start of treatment If a medical 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) Our treatments had no apparent effect (NOFX) 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	Stable > 1 year. AR		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		HF/Wor
6	4	testicular teratoma	No	No	Yes	R		HfwE/Job
7	1	breast	No	No	Yes	Uncertain; conflicting results on imaging, L ama		Now having different alternative tx abroad
8	1	prostate	No	No	No	R		HFwE/Sa/Job
9	1	breast	No	No	No	AR. Red, Sof, L		HFwE/Sa
10	4 NHR	pancreatic	PC	PR	PS	NOFX D		Arrived very sick, very late, severe pain
11	1	prostate	No	No	No	R		HFwE/Sa
12	4 NHR	breast	No	No	Yes	Sof; rare allergy to txs. àL à now radiation tx		Sa
13	4 NHR	breast	PC	PR	PS	Gave up on txs, D		Too sick to come in; house calls only 3x
14	4 NHR	breast	No	No	PS	NOFX D		Arrived very sick, late
15	4 NHR	breast	No	Yes	No	NOFX Current pt		Arrived very late; imp.
16	1	mesothe-lioma	Yes	No	No	Inc., L, then 1 mo, then DDD		Wor
17	2	lung	No	No	No	R		HfwE/Job
18	2	Hodgkins lymphoma	No	No	No	AR. L, then one year,, then 6 mos chemo, then R		Hf, Imp, then Wor after dietary difference
19	3	breast	No	No	Yes	Red, Sof, dispute over txs and diet, Lama, DDD		No tx for 1 yr after large mass found
20	2	breast	No	No	Yes	AR		HfwE/ Sa
21	1	breast	No	No	Yes	R		HFwE/Sa/Job
22	1	breast	No	No	Yes	R		HfwE/Sa
23	4 NHR	SCC	No	No	No	Stable		HfwE/Sa
24	1	parotid adenoma	No	Yes	Yes	AR		HfwE/Sa
25	3	lung	No	No	No	L after strong dietary dispute, then 1 mo, then, DDD, L ama		Sa
26	3	colon	No	No	Yes	L ama, NFI		Sa
27	4	lymphoma	No	No	No PS	Red, then left to do chemoà 5 rdsàD		Imp till chemo, then worsened quickly
28	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
29	4 NHR	lung	No	No	No	R x 2 yrs, then recurred, then no treatment at all, then D		Imp/Job
30	1	prostate	No	No	No	AR		Imp
31	1	prostate	No	No	No	AR		HF/same
32	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
33	1	breast	No	No	Yes	R		HfwE/Sa/Job
34	4 NHR	lung	No	No	No	L ama-No$, then 2 mos. Then D		HF/same
35	4 NHR	rectal	No	Yes	Yes	L ama after a few txs; D		Arrived very sick, very late; left early
36	4	lung; mets to brain	No	No	No	Of 8 brain tumors, 5 gone, 3 to go. Current		Imp; Hf/Job
37	2	brain	No	No	No	R		HfwE/Job
38	1	breast	No	No	No	Current		Imp; HfwE
39	4	CLL and SCC	PC	No	No	R from CLL; then dispute over tx, then Lama, then D		Imp, then dispute, then Wor
40	3	lymphoma	No PC	No	No	R		Imp; HfwE
41	4	prostate	No PC	No PR	No PS	NOFX, D		Arrive very sick, very late; Sa
42	4	stomach	No PC	No	No	AR		Imp, but improved more after surgery
43	2	lymphoma	No	No	No	AR		Imp
44	4 NHR	breast	PC	PR	PS	Had 4 txs, then L ama, then D		Arrived very sick, late
45	1	rectal	No	Yes	No	Dispute about how to treat. L ama. Tumor shrunk and grew with irritation; average same size; then chemo àD		HFwE/same
46	4 NHR	lung	No	No	No	Stable cancer D of pneumonia		Weak; Same, but died of pneumonia
47	4 NHR	small cell lung	No PC	No	No	L, NFI		HF/Job
48	4	breast, 4^th recur.	No, PC	No PR	No PS	R		HFwE/Job/same
49	1	squamous cell	No	No	Yes	R		Hf/Job/Same
50	1	breast	No	No	No	L ama, NFI		HFwE/same
51	1	breast	No	No	Yes	R		HFwE/same
52	1	thyroid	No	No	No	R		Concurrent Lyme Disease, MVA trauma, but Imp
53	1	breast	No	No	Yes	R		HFwE/Sa/Job
54	1 recurred	breast	No, PC	No PR	No PS	R		HF/Sa/Job
55	1	breast	No	No	Yes	L amaà chemo à ca has recurred 3x since.		Imp, then wor since chemo
56	4 NHR	kidney	No	No	No	L ama-No$, NFI, then 1.5 years, no other treatment, then D		HF/Sa
57	4	colon	Yes	No	No	L ama, NFI		Sa
58	4 NHR	ovarian	No	No	No	L ama, then 2 mo, gave up, then D		Entered very ill, same
59	4	uterine	No	No	Yes	R		Zumba, yoga, very active
60	3	squamous cell tongue	No	No	No PS	L ama, DDD; very strong dietary dispute		Imp, then Wor
61	1	lymphoma	Yes	No	No	AR, then was forced into chemotherapy against patient’s wishes		Imp, responded immediately to natural treatments; all lymph nodes down to normal prior to L
62	3	uterine	No	No	Yes	Current		HFwE
63	4	ovarian	No, PC	No	Yes	Current, after R, then relapse		Imp,Wor, Imp, HF
64	1	breast	No	No	No PS	AR		HFwE/Job/Sa
65	4	Lynch Syndrome: colon, ovarian, uterine cancers; all primary	No, PC	No	No, PS	R		Imp
66	4 NHR	esophageal	No	No	No	L after 3 weeks; NFI		Wor
67	2	uterine	No	No	Yes	R		HFwE/Imp/Job
68	4 re-curred NHR	ovarian	No PC	No	Yes	Stopped treatment at worst possible time, much too early L ama à D		Imp significantly to HFwE/Job; then stopped treatment against clinic advice; then Wor significantly
69	4 NHR; several dozen mets from neck to feet	colon	Yes	No	Yes	D from chemotherapy side effect.		Only 3 of our treatments. Improved; went back for more chemo à D
70	1	CLL	No	No	No	AR, L with no lymphadenopathy, borderline leukocytosis		HFwE/Sa/Job 71yo, bikes miles, hand built cabin, x 2 yrs since treatment
71	4	prostate	No	No	No	R		HFwE/Imp/Job
72	2 NHR	breast	No	No	Yes	R		HFwE/Sa
73	1 NHR	lung	No	Yes	No	R, then D of Pulm fibr, not lu ca		Wor from pulm fibrosis not ca
74	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
75	4 NHR	neuro-endocrine	No PC	No PR	No	A few weeks, NOFX, then D		Very sick; widely metastasized on arrival.
76	4	lymphoma	Yes	No	No	R		HFwE/Sa/Job; hiked Grand Canyon after R
77	4 NHR	GIST	Yes	No	No	D		Came in with huge tumor load; metabolic activity of cancer decreased. Wor from complications, ascites.
78	3 NHR	cervical	No	No	No	R		HFwE/Sa/Job
79	1	breast	No	No	Yes	R		HFwE/Sa/Job
80	4	ovarian and breast	No	No	Yes	Current		Imp., HF/Sa
81	2 NHR	lung	No	No	No	Red, Met, then L ama, then 6 months, then D		HF/Sa
82	4	prostate	Yes	Yes	No	R, then family bullied into conventional tx.. L ama		Imp then L ama, then Wor
83	2	squamous cell tongue	No	No	No	L ama to have radiation, then NFI		Wor/HFwE/Job
84	4 NHR	breast	Yes	Yes	Yes	L ama to have chemotherapy, then 1 mo, then D		Same; severe lymphedema
85	2	breast	No	No	No	R		HFwE/Sa/Job
86	4	ovarian and peritoneal	No	No	Yes	R		HFwE/Imp
87	4	breast	No, PC	No, PR	Yes	L ama-No$, NFI, then chemo, then 3mos then D		HF/Sa. Until L ama, then chemo, then Wor, then D
88	4 NHR	breast	No	No	Yes	R		HFwE in her 70’s/Sa/horseback riding
89	1	colorectal	No	Yes	No	L ama for other alternative therapy. NFI		HfwE/Sa
90	4	lymphoma	No PC	No PR	No PS	Current		Sa
91	4 NHR	melanoma	No	No	No	Decided against tx. L for hospice, then 1 month, then D		Arrived very late, very sick, huge tumor burden
92	4	multiple myeloma	Yes	No	No	R after adipose stem cell therapy		HFwE and travel, Sa
93	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
94	4	lymphoma	No	No	No	R; no recent info		Sa/job/travel
95	1	cervical	No	No	Yes	R		HFwE/job, Imp
96	4	breast	No	No	No	R		Imp; HFwE/Job
97	4	lymphoma	Yes	No	No	AR		Imp
98	1	lung	No	No	No	R. Then stopped treatment, then MI, then D		Imp
99	1	prostate	No	No	No	R		Imp; HFwE/Job
100	2	breast	No	No	Yes	R		HF/Sa/Job
101	1	prostate	No	No	No	Current		Imp
102	1	breast	No	Yes	Yes	R, then recur, then R		HFwE/Sa/Job
103	4 NHR	lymphoma	No	No	No	NOFX, D from concurrent liver disease		Pt arrived very sick, very late; liver was mostly non-functioning from late-stage cirrhosis
104	3	non small cell lung	No	No	No	Current		HfwE/Job
105	2	esophageal	No PC	No PR	No PS	L ama. NFI		Hf with controlled pain
106	4 NHR	pancreatic	No PC	NoPR	No PS	NOFX, L, then 2 months, then D		Pt arrived very sick, very late
107	4	breast	No	No	No	Interrupted tx repeatedly, when consistency was advised; L ama, No recent info		Wor
108	4 NHR	esophagus	No PC	No	No	Strong dispute over diet, then L, then hospital, then DDD		Imp, then Wor
109	1	prostate	No	No	No	R		HF/Sa/Job
110	4	breast	No, PC	No, PR	No PS	A few weeks of treatments. Then collapsed veins, could not receive treatments, then L, then D		Imp, then Wor
111	4 NHR	pancreatic	No	No	No	L ama, went to another clinic, then D		Sa
112	4 NHR	prostate	No	No	No	Imp, from hospice to outpatient, then L ama, then 1 mo. Then D		Imp. Then Wor
113	2	lung	No	No	No	AR		HFwE/travel/Sa
114	4 NHR	colon	No	No	Yes	L ama, then hospital, then D		Imp, then left, then Wor, then Hospital
115	2	ovarian	No PC	No	Yes	R, then dietary dispute, then recurrence, now planning surgery		Imp, HF w/E, Job, then Wor
116	4 NHR	glioblastoma	No	No	No PS	D		Imp, then Wor
117	1	prostate	No	No	No	R		HFwE/Sa/Job
118	4	breast	No	No	No	Lama after 2 weeks; No recent info.		Sa
119	4 NHR	ovarian	No	No	Yes	R		HFwE in 80’s
120	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
121	1	prostate	No	No	No	AR		HFwE/Sa/Job
122	4	colon	No PC	No	No PS	R		Imp HFwE
123	2	breast	Yes	No	Yes	Red, then disa-greement about diet, then Inc, Met, L ama, then 12 mos, then D		Wor
124	4	prostate	No	No	No	R, PSA from >100 to <6. No recent info.		Imp; well
125	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
126	1	multiple myeloma	No	No	No	R		Imp blood labs, but not much improvement in fatigue
127	3	prolympho-cytic leukemia	No	No	No	Pt left to have chemotherapy; still having chemo.		Pt stayed miserable with extreme relentless muscle pain; our treatments had no effect.
128	4	breast	No	No	No PS	L ama, NFI		Sa
129	1	breast	No	No	Yes	AR		HFwE/Sa/Job
130	1	thyroid	No	No	No	R		Imp, Job, HFwE
131	1	colon	No	No	No PS	R		Hf/Job
132	4; 36 bone mets. at start of treatment	lung	Yes	Yes	No	NOFX, D		Wor. Neither chemotherapy nor our treatments worked for this patient.
133	4 NHR	liver and colon	No	No, PR	No PS	L ama, NFI		Imp
134	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
135	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.
136	2	breast	No	No	Yes	R, then assumed recurrence, but little evidence, waiting for MRI		Imp HFwE
137	4 NHR	liver	No PC	No PR	No PS	Red, Wor, L ama, then D		Wor from rapid tumor breakdown, without adequate elimination, left
138	2	breast	No	No	PS	R		HFwE, Job
139	4	breast	Yes	No	No PS	R		Sa
140	1	prostate	No	No	No	Imp, R		Sa, HFwE, bench presses 200 lbs in his 70’s.
141	4 NHR	squamous cell in throat	No	No	No	R; Mayo doctors were “speechless” at finding no cancer on bx after their predicted expiration date		HFwE/Sa
142	2	lymphoma	No	No	No	Imp		Dramatic improvement from 1^st treatment, then family dispute, then left
143	4 NHR	lymphoma	No PC	No	No	Strong dispute over course of treatment; L ama à2 months, then D		L. Then 2 months, then infection, then D of infection
144	4 NHR	ovarian	PC	PR	PS	Red, then L ama, then Inc.		Worse since L ama
145	4NHR	pancreatic	No	No	No	Not a candidate for Whipple; well for months; AR		Imp. Red. HFwE/Sa/Job; “Feeling great.”
146	4 NHR	breast	No	Yes	No	Rx 2 yrs, then recurrence to bones; Now radiation. Current.		Imp HF/Job, then Wor
147	4	sarcoma	No PC	No	Yes	Inc, but improved vitality, stamina, Current		HFwE, strenuous; recently hiked highest mountain in Arizona: Mt Humphreys.
148	4 NHR	ovarian	No PC	No PR	Yes	R, L ama-No$, then same for 6 months, then weaker, then surgical complications from double colostomy, then D		Low functioning; ill and weak. Arrived after several years of low dose chemo.
149	3	liver	No	No	No	R, then D from complications from liver burden		HFwE, then Wor
150	4 NHR	lung	No	No	No	L ama after 2 weeks; NFI		Very weak; arrived late; Sa
151	1	breast	No	No	No	R, then No recent info		HF/Sa/Job
152	1	breast	No PC	No	No PS	R		HFwE Sa/Job; then hiked Grand Canyon
153	4	ALL leukemia	No PC	No	No	R		Imp, HFwE
154	1	squamous cell	No	No	No PS	R		HFwE, Sa
155	4	Hodgkins lymphoma	No PC	No	No	Current		HFwE, Imp
156	1	brain	No	No	No	R, even though L ama		HFwE/Sa/Job
157	3	breast	No	No	Yes PS	R, then 2 years, then recurrence, then lumpectomy. Current.		Imp, HfwE/Sa
158	3	colon	Yes	No	Yes	Red by 80%, L then 2 mos D from surgical complications		Imp
159	1	thymus	No	No	Yes	R		HFwJob, travel
160	3	thyroid	No	No	Yes	L ama due to no $. Now considering chemotx		Sa
161	1	squamous cell	No	No	No	L ama due to no $ after only 2 weeks. Then went to do chemotx and radiation. Now R		Sa
162	4 NHR	cervical, recurred to colon before starting our treatments	No	No	No PS	NOFX, D		Wor. Cancer did not respond to our treatments
163	2	colon	No	No	Yes	R		HF, Job
164	2	multiple myeloma	No	No	No	L ama, then 2 years then D		Same
165	4	pancreatic	No PC	No PR	No PS	AR, but with damage to lung from cancer and repeated thoracentesis. Then 1 year, then D in sleep.		HF w daily walks till end.
166	1	pancreatic	No PC	No	No PS	R, then 2 months, then DDD		HFwE
167	4	breast	No PC	No	No PS	Imp, then Wor, L ama to have chemotx. AR		HFwE; ran or walked 2 mi/day while on our txs.
168	4 NHR	mediastinum	No	No	No	Imp, then went hiking, had MI à D		HFwE
169	4 NHR	gastric	No PC	No	No	NOFX, L then 1 mo, then D		Came from hospice, Sa, then Wor, then hospital, then D Cancer did not respond to our treatments.
170	1	breast	No	No	No PS	AR, then 2 months, then bone mets, then D		HFwE during treatment. 2 mos later, bone mets, Wor.
171	4 NHR	pancreatic	No, PC	No	No	Red, then disa-greement about diet, then Inc, DDD		Imp then Wor
172	4	lymphoma	No	No	No	Current		Imp
173	4NHR	breast	No	No PR	No PS	AR		HFwE
174	1	prostate	No	No	No	R		HFwE/Sa/Job; active performing musician in his 70s
175	3	breast	No	No	No	L ama, no recent info		HF/Sa/Job
176	3 NHR	breast	No	No	No	L ama, NFI		HFwE/Sa
177	2	multiple myeloma	No PC	No	No	AR Imp quickly; could not afford to continue treatment. Then recurrence; now recovering from stem cell tx		HFwE/Sa
178	4	lymphoma	No	No	No	R		Active in community in her 70’s
179	4	multiple myeloma	No	No	No	AR, then doubts raised by blood test. Current		Imp, HF/Job
180	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
181	2	breast	No	No	Yes PS	R, then recurrence, then lumpectomy. Current.		HFwE/Job, Sa
182	4	lung	No PC one time	No	No	Imp dramatically, then L ama, then Wor, then D		Hf/Sa
183	4 NHR	breast	No PC	No	No PS	NOFX, D		Pt arrived very sick, very late.
184	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
185	2	macroglobulinemia	No	No	No	AR		Imp
186	2	squamous cell of neck	No	No	No	R; no recent info, possibly due to RV travel		Dramatic Imp
187	1	thyroid	No	No	No	R		HF/Job/Sa
188	1	ovarian	No PC	No	No PS	L ama. Then chemotx. Then R		HFwE/Job/Sa
189	4 NHR	breast	No	No	No	NOFX, D		Arrived very late, very sick, in severe pain. Our treatments had no effect
190	1	prostate	No	No	No PS	AR		HFwE/Job/Sa
191	1	breast/ Paget’s	No	No	Yes	R. No recent info		HF/Sa
192	2	CLL	No	No	No	Improved leukocytes. Current		HFwE/Sa
193	2	breast	No	No	Yes	Current		HFwE/Sa/Job
194	2	prostate	No	No	No	R		HFwE/Strenuous outdoor Job
195	4	colon	No	No	No		D	Worse from rapid tumor breakdown without adequate elimination. Arrived very sick, very late with huge tumor burden
196	2	breast	No	No	Yes		R	HFwE/Imp
197	3 NHR	giant cell endometrial	No, PC	No, PR	Debulking but not resection PS		R	Imp/HFwE/Job
198	4	melanoma	No	Yes	Yes	R, then 2 years off diet, then DDD		Imp/HFwE during treatment
199	2	liver	Yes	Yes	Yes	L for surgery, then D from Valley Fever		Well until chemo and radiation and surgery, then Wor
200	1	prostate	No	No	No	L ama due to no $ for tx. NFI		Sa/Job
201	2	kidney	No	No	No	Red tumor size, L ama due to no $ for tx		Red, Imp. HfwE/Job “feeling good”
202	4	colon	No	No	No	R		Imp
203	1	prostate	No	No	No	AR		HFwE
204	2	CLL	No	No	No	NOFX yet, Current		Our treatments are not yet having an effect.
205	1	prostate	No	Yes	No	AR, but first pessimism about prospectsà experimental txsà same outcomeà AR		HFwE, Job
206	1	prostate	No	No PR	No PS	R		HFwE
207	4	breast	Yes	No	Yes	Chemo-resistant mets; no $ for tx. Current		Sa, Job
208	3	squamous cell	No	No	No	R. No recent info		HF/Job
209	4	gastric	No	No	No	R, but no surgery available for damage created by tumor, D from complications		Imp/ HF, then Wor from complications, after cancer was gone on imaging.
210	3	lymphoma	No, PC	No	No	R, then recurrence; now AR		HF/Sa/Strenuous outdoor Job
211	4	lung	No, PC	No	No	L ama-No$, NFI, then D 2 yrs later		Sa
212	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. NOFX, L NFI		Sa
213	2	breast	No	No	No	L ama, NFI		HFwE/Sa
214	4	breast	No	No	No	L ama, NFI		Sa
215	4	pancreatic	Yes	Yes	No	D from chemo reactions		HF till 2^nd chemo treatment, then hospital
216	1	rectal	No	No	Yes	R. No recent info		Sa; strenuous outdoor job
217	3	lung	No	No	No	AR, L ama, then had chemo, then quickly sickened and D		Pneumonia during treatment, complications, hospital. But tumors gone.
218	1	breast	No PC	No	No PS	R “so far so good”		HFwE
219	1	gallbladder	No	No	No	AR; stable		HF/Sa
220	2	breast	No	No	No	AR		HfwE/Job
221	1	CLL	No	No	No	R Numbers stable		HF/Sa
222	4	NHL	No PC	No	No PS	R “been doing pretty good”		Imp
223	3	squamous cell	No	No	No PS	NOFX, D		Our treatments had no effect for this patient.
224	1	prostate	No	No	No	AR		HFwE/ Job
225	3	colon	No PC	No	No PS	AR		HF/Sa
226	3	testicular	No, PC	No	No	R, “doing fine”		HFwE/Strenuous outdoor job
227	1	CLL	Yes	No	No	R “doing good”		HF/Sa
228	4	adenoid palate	No	No, PR	No	L ama, then 1 year, then D		Same
229	1	prostate	No	No	No	L ama, NFI		HF/Sa
230	1	breast	No	No	Yes	R		HF wE/ Sa
231	1	colon	No	No	No	Imp; AR		HFwE/Sa; bicycles miles per day
232	4	colon	No PC	No	No	L ama, then two months, then D		Arrived very sick, very late
233	4	breast	No PC	No PR	No	NOFX, D of complications from liver mets		Arrived very sick, very late
234	4	esophagus	Yes	No, PR	No	Severely sickened with each chemo treatment, then D		Wor after chemo treatments.
235	3	squamous cell, throat	No	No	No	Stable for several months; L, Wor. NFI		HF/Sa
236	3	breast	No PC	No PR	No PS	R then recent recurrence; seeking other txs, “doing well”		HF/Sa/Job
237	1	breast	No	No	No	R		HF/Sa
238	4	cervical	Yes	No, PR	No	L, then 1 month, D of chemotherapy side effects		Arrived very sick, very late. Sa
238	2 NHR	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. Then recurrence, now seldom txs due to no$		HF/Sa
239	2	breast	No PC	No	Yes	Recurrence after chemo; now AR		HFwE/Sa/Job
240	4 NHR	colon	No, PC	No, PR	No, PS	Came in late stage, after hospice NOFX, L, then 1 week, D of hepatic coma		Arrived very sick; very late.
241	4	lung	No	No	No	Pt discouraged from effect of brain mets à L, then one month, then D		Wor from brain mets, but Imp lungs
242	1	lymphoma	No	No	Yes	R prior to surgery (clear pathology report). NFI		HFwE/Job
243	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 243 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 or assumed remission	128	3.7	7	32
Died while still only in our care	23	2.2	0	1
Iatrogenic death in hospitals or by MDs	16	2.7	7	6
Of those who left before finishing treatment, number who died after leaving	29	2.7	4	7
Still being treated, not yet in remission	21	4.0	0	7
No current information but never known to be in remission	23	1.4	3	1
Waiting to know status, or conflicting information	3	No data	0	3
Total	243		21	57

*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.

I call all the cancer survivors every summer 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, with no further cancer treatment since leaving our clinic, have been grouped together in the category of “remission” in this study. Beginning in July 2009 and continuing through the summer of 2012, I found all the patients who were in remission stayed in remission by self-reporting, with the exception of 10 people. 6 of those 10 now have a recurrent cancer, one died after recurrence, and three are back in remission for more than one year. I could not reach 23 patients.

71 patients left our practice before completing our treatments. 16 patients 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, because their complete data is not yet available. Of the 151 patients who continued with our treatment until remission or death, 128 went into remission, and 23 died while still our patients in our care alone. This reflects a success rate of 84% (= 128 in remission of 151 who were steadfast in the treatments.) This percentage is considerably lower than last year’s reported 93% remission rate. It is likely that this happened because between July 2011 and July 2012, more late stage IV cancer patients came to our clinic than in all other years combined, and we do not turn anyone away for being too ill. 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. Indeed, 32 early Stage IV patients went into remission with our treatments, while 8 early Stage IV patients died. 36 of the cancer patients who went into remission on our treatments alone, or with surgery also, were Stage IV at start of treatment (Table 4, subscripts a+b). For early Stage IV cancer, this is a treatment success rate of 80% (Table 5).

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 80% and 100% (Table 5). However, for late Stage IV, the success rate has been an abysmal 25%. After a certain critical juncture of loss of vitality and overwhelming tumor burden, our treatments are 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.

20 of 23 patients who died while only being treated by us 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 #132). Three others began treatment with a tumor load that was almost a cubic foot in the abdomen (Patients #77, 91 and 195). Another chose not to follow our main dietary recommendation during the last month of his treatment, i.e. not to eat sweetened foods (Patient #171). 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 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, extensive 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 #116). 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 #112). And yet another had an unfortunate combination of severe constipation with fast tumor breakdown (Patient #137). 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 that had been untreated for years.

Table 3: Patients who died while only in our care, and stage at diagnosis

Stage	Number of patients
I	1
II	0
III	2
Early Stage IV, still functioning, activities of daily living	8
Late Stage IV, very sick, very late arrival to our clinic	12
Total	23

Table 4: Patients in remission or assumed remission during our care, 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	57	4	2	4	16
II	24	3	0	1	9
III	11	6	0	0	1
Early IV	32 _(a)	9	5	2	7
Late IV	4 _(b)	1	0	0	0
Total	128	23	7	7	33

Table 5: Success rate by stage of cancer

Stage	Total patients treated until remission or death	Remission	Died	Remission / Total = Success rate
I	58	57	1	98%
II	24	24	0	100%
III	13	11	2	85%
Early IV	40	32	8	80%
Late IV	16	4	12	25%
Total	151	128	23	85%

Only 7 of the 128 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 effects on the health of such drugs and our respect for the individual’s right to make his/her own healthcare decisions.

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 #158).

33 of our 128 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.

Table 6: Results for patients completing our program with all dietary recommendations and choosing not to have chemotherapy

Outcome	Number of patients
Remission without chemotherapy	121
Now out of remission after stopping our treatments, but maintaining diet	5

Table 6 shows that our treatments are likely to ensure continued remission. 121 / 128 = 95% of those who went into remission with our treatments and maintained our dietary recommendations afterward were found to be in remission as of July – August, 2012. We are not aware of such a high rate of sustained remission achieved at other clinics or with 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 #197), 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 7: Results for patients who left to have chemotherapy

Went into remission following chemotherapy

Died following chemotherapy

Not now in remission, but surviving both chemotherapy and cancer at this time

Evidence of remission from our treatments alone prior to starting chemotherapy

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

Table 7 shows that leaving our treatments to pursue chemotherapy only possibly benefited 4 of the 14 patients who left. However, it is possible that those 4 would have gone into remission if they had continued with our treatments alone.

Table 8: Results for patients for whom the treatments had no apparent effect

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	2	0
Early Stage IV	3	5	0
Late Stage IV	12	2	5
Total	17	9	5

Table 8 shows that 14 of the 17 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 a 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?”) 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, our contact is one time per year with each patient, every summer, by telephone, to inquire about the current state of health. However, many of the patients in remission choose to maintain an ongoing intravenous nutrient treatment one time per month.

If one considers that the treatment failed for the 23 people who died with only our care, then of the 243 total patients, whether they followed our recommendations or not, or completed the treatments or not, the success rate may be seen as 91%, if success means just keeping people alive at the same or better level of wellbeing. Or rather the failure rate is then 9%.

However, our success rate is even higher than 84% or 91%, if you consider a factor that we have kept track of from July 2010 to July 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 and her disease state began to worsen dramatically (Patient #120). 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 #68) 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. Many other patients also 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 quickly declined and died.

For the 71 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 is expected to change in 2014 when the Affordable Care Act mandates insurance reimbursement of naturopathic medicine.

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.

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 9: 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

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 infection, rapid tumor breakdown with poor elimination, chemotherapy intolerance, complications from previous surgery, 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 has generally been much better during the last year than previously.

Ten of our cancer patients have come out of remission. Three of those are now back in remission. Three of the ten 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. (She had smoked all through our treatments.) Months later, she went off of the diet, and then developed recurrence of cancer and died. Another patient went quickly back into remission. Another opted to be treated by chemotherapy for her recurrence. Eight of the ten who came out of remission are living productive lives, as confirmed by recent contact with them. Five of the ten are currently back in our treatments.

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 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.

Medical Choice Editions Abstract