Note to visitors : The Director of B. Barooah Cancer Institute, Guwahati sent one rejoinder to my first article under the caption “Canceror Answer” published on 3rd & 4th November,08 in Assamese Daily ‘Amar Asom’ a copy of which was also mailed to me. Though I have replied to his rejoinder they have posted only their rejoinder in their website without any mention about my reply. Therefore, in order to put the records straight, I have posted the reply sent to the Director in this website for everybody’s perusal.
MY REPLY TO BBCI
To, 1st December,2008.
The Director,
Dr. B. Barua Cancer Institute,
Guwahati.
I have received the copy of your rejoinder sent to the Editor, ‘Amar Asom’ to my article published on 3rd & 4th November,08. Kindly find below my issue-wise replies for your kind perusal & study. My replies are in bold letters inserted in your letter itself.
Our attention has been drawn to an article titled ‘CANCEROR ANSWER’ written by Sri Dilip Kumar Goswami and published in Assamese Daily AMAR ASOM on 3rd and 4th November 2008. The article is undoubtedly, an excellent ‘review of the book’ ‘CANCER STEP OUTSIDE THE BOX’ written by Ty M. Bollinger, but certainly cannot be considered as a medical review article on cancer. We have little scientific knowledge on the modality of the treatment called ‘INSULIN POTENTIATION THERAPY’ in the management of Cancer. This form of therapy in real sense cannot be termed as an alternative discipline of medicine, as the drugs used in IPT are allopathic in nature. As students of Science and also as physicians, we respect all forms of alternative medicine, which are based on sound scientific foundation. I have discussed the subject with my colleagues in the Institute since I strongly believe that it is not possible to know each and everything in the medical field. It is a vast sea of knowledge. We have also consulted renowned oncologists of our country about IPT and they too have expressed serious reservations. We have perused the website mentioned in the article advocating IPT and also reviewed the medical literature written on the subject.
In the article, Mr. Goswami has almost in unequivocal terms - with the help of Bollinger’s book - tried to give an impression to the public that cure for cancer has not been made possible due to the greed of the doctors for money, across the world in connivance with the pharmaceutical companies. The statement like this is derogatory and is an act of over simplification to belittle the contemporary history of research and development in the field of oncology.
The statement was not mine, I copied from Bollinger’s book only. I will be glad to know your comment on the following additional statements :
“The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) reported in February 2002 that 87% of the physicians involved in the establishment of national guideline on disease have financial ties to Big Pharma”.
For 25 years, Patrick McGrady, Sr., was science editor of the ACS and its principal “ spin doctor” in the media. In 1978, he made an interesting statement ; ‘Nobody in the science and medical departments ( at the ACS) is capable of doing real science. They are wonderful pros who know how to raise money. They don’t know how to prevent cancer or cure patients’ www.viableherbal.com/herbology/herbs27.htm”.
The contribution made by two-time Nobel Laureate Madame Curie (1903 Nobel Prize in Physics, 1911 Nobel Prize in Chemistry) towards discovery of radium and its subsequent application in the field of radiation oncology cannot be termed a meaningless discovery.
Contribution made by Madam Curie by discovering radium was almost 100 years back. Stagnancy of medical science for the last 100 years is surprising.
In the same way, the Nobel Prize in Medicine for the year 2008, which was awarded to Chairman and the Director of German Cancer Research Centre, Dr. Zerald zur Hausen, for his contribution in the development of HPV Vaccine for control of cervical cancer in woman, cannot be viewed as a discovery for minting money.
Discovery of vaccine by Dr. Herald (not Zerald) Zur Hausen against HPV is remarkable. There are lot many dedicated scientists who devote there full life for benefit of mankind. Important to note that Dr. Herald is from Germany where alternative cancer treatments are being practiced. But that does not mean that all are same. Even in Assam, Dr. Dhaniram Barooah has recently claimed that he has cured a terminal cancer patient through genetic treatment. It may so happen that one day Dr. Dhaniram Barooah also get Nobel Prize. But when he tried to replace human heart with that of a Pig, he was put behind the bar. The same effort when it is now made by American Surgeons that has become a science news in India. The public remembers the statement of the Assam Health Minister in TV that a Medical Enquiry was constituted to enquire the claim of Dr. Barooah that he had Vaccinated children for cancer and if found guilty, action would be taken against him. But the public is not aware of the outcome, the issue has died down. I had made the statement about greed of money of ‘cancer industry’ in the context of what is happening in USA specifically mentioning that “ this is not true here”. I have found such doctor in Guwahati itself who had explained to me the cause of palpitation of the heart by drawing electrical system of the heart, apart from prescribing medicine, when I suddenly faced it about 18 years back. However, there are also doctors who do not find time to write the prescription properly. This reminds me a song sung by Shri Dwipen Barooah-“Kak bulilu kune nije gat pati lolehi…”
Today, whatever is our knowledge and understanding of the disease called Cancer, it is because of numerous painful research works of medical scientists and molecular biologists. In 1971, United States embarked on National Cancer Plan, and its aim was to find a cure for cancer, using the similar kind of massive, precisely targeted research work that put the man on the moon. The various treatment strategies, which have come out today, are the results of scientific works and research.
“ According to Dr. John Bailer, who spent 20 years on the staff of the NCI and was editor of its journal, speaking at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in May 1985, ‘my overall assessment is that the national cancer program must be judged a qualified failure”’. Dr. Samuel Epstein, in his book Cancer-Gate : How to Win The Losing cancer War, demonstrates that over the past century, the ACS, NCI and AMA have all corroded with major institutional and personal conflicts of interest with Big Pharma. As candidly admitted by a recent NCI director, the NCI has become a ‘government pharmaceutical company’. Since 1971, two trillion dollars ( Rs. 10lakh crore) spent on cancer research & treatments all over the world. This money has gone to cancer industry only, i.e. mostly to Big Pharmas. If the aim & sole intention of National Cancer Plan is to find out “ CURE” for cancer, why the State Machinery & Judiciary of USA are assisting the Big Pharma by prosecuting anybody who becomes successful in curing even terminal cancer patients ? To know the details you may kindly buy the e-book & read thoroughly. If you desire to contradict anything contained in the book you may do so by contacting Bollinger through various means. I am only writing some extracts of the book after cross-checking the truth in internet. But I fail to understand why you are trying to defend instead of trying to find out the facts. Whatever statement I made in the article was in the context of America only as mentioned in the book.
Over the years, Cancer survivals have improved largely due to contribution in the field of oncology. Data collected from Population Based Cancer Registry in the United States through SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results) programme of the National Cancer Institute have showed significant improvement in treatment results from 1988 to 1997 than the earlier period of 1975 to 1987. This study was conducted on 17,79,458 number of cancer patients from 1975 to 1997. This report was published in the journal ‘Arch Intern Med’ in 2002. These findings have continued to inspire many people involved in the practice of medicine to work for further improvement in treatment outcome in a systematic scientific manner.
The SEER report is nothing but manipulation of data. It may be established from the following observations recorded in the report itself:
1) The SEER had defined the term “cure” to apply to a cancer patient who lived over 5 years from the date of diagnosis. It does not mean “healed” nor does it mean “free of cancer”. Due to improvements in cancer diagnosis, we are now able to see a tumor months if not years earlier than we could previously, with sophisticated blood tests and imaging equipment. As a result, patients are now living longer from the point of diagnosis, since diagnosis happen earlier. However, if a patient develops the same cancer again after the period is up, or if they are disfigured by the disease or treatment, or if they drop dead 2 days after the period is up, they are still deemed to be “cured”.
2) The SEER Report typically omitted certain groups of people from their statistics and included certain groups based upon what would make their statistics look more favorable for the “Big 3”. For example, lung cancer patients were typically excluded from their statistics, despite the fact that lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in America. And certain cancers like non-melanoma skin cancers were included in their samples, since 99% of non-melanoma skin cancer patients live over 5 years, so they increased the “cure” percentage.
3) SEER had typically removed patient who died during a “Big 3” treatment protocol from the population of the sample. What does this mean? It means that if there are 10 patients on a chemotherapy protocol which is to last 60 days, and 9 of them die before the 60th day while only 1 patient makes it to the end of the treatment, then the 9 are removed and the treatment is said to have a 100% cure rate !!!
4) Another trick the SEER used in their statistics is to ignore counting people who die from the effects of the “Big 3”. In other words, let’s assume one had chosen chemotherapy, and as a result of his/her newly compromised immune system, he/she catches pneumonia and died. That death was not counted as a death from cancer?
According to Dr. John Bailer, who spent 20 years on the staff of the NCI and was editor of its journal, “the five year survival statistics of the American Cancer Society are very misleading. They now count things that are not cancer, and, because we are able to diagnose at an earlier stage of the disease, patients falsely appear to live longer. Our whole cancer research in the past 20 years has been a total failure. More people over 30 are dying from cancer than ever before… More women with mild or benign diseases are being included in statistics and reported as being ‘cured’. When government officials point to survival figures and say they are winning the war against cancer they are using those survival rates improperly.”
www.ghchealth.com/chemotherapy-quotes.html
The purpose of such manipulation is to extract more money under the National Cancer Plan. Therefore, if somebody is getting inspired from such manipulated findings, it is their fault.
Gone are the days of ‘opinion based’ management of diseases and today it has been replaced by ‘evidence based practice’. Present day treatment of cancer today is globally carried out based on evidence gathered through collection and evaluation of large amount of data, clinical trials and multi-centric meta analysis etc. A variety of tools and techniques have been developed to assess efficacy and effectiveness of various options of treatment. One can’t simply start or advocate a policy without examining various issues like cost effectiveness, scientific, legal or ethical considerations. Anything that is sensational may not be science.
In the 1980s, Dr. Ulrich Abel, a German epidemiologist, did a comprehensive analysis of every major study and clinical trial of chemotherapy that has ever been done. To ensure that he did not leave anyone out, he contacted over 350 medical centers world wide requesting them to furnish him with anything they had published on the subject of cancer. The results were amazing. In his report, published in The Lancet, August 1991, he stated, “ Success of most chemotherapies is appalling… There is ‘no scientific evidence’ for its ability to extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancer…..Chemotherapy for malignancies too advanced for surgery, which accounts for 80% of all cancers, is a scientific wasteland.” Even after such published reports, there is no dearth of people advocating for chemotherapy.
Alternative cancer treatments are not only sensational as mentioned by you, but also having scientific evidences. According to Webster Kehr, “ The scientific evidence for alternative treatments can be compared to a ship the size of the Queen Mary II. The scientific evidence for orthodox treatments, by comparison, would be compared to a ship that could fit in a bathtub. I am not exaggerating. Yet the FDA says chemotherapy and orthodox medicine has ‘scientific evidence’ and there is ‘no scientific evidence’ for alternative treatments. It is nothing but pure corruption, it is nothing but lies.” Should we continue to praise chemotherapy now?
It is difficult to imagine how can a so-called effective treatment modality be suppressed in the world since its introduction in 1932 by a ‘greedy’ group of doctors. The circumstances which led Dr. Linus Pauling, the two-time Nobel Laureate, to comment “Most cancer research is largely a fraud” as referred to, is very much unclear.
Dr. Linus Pauling was awarded Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1954 for his research into the nature of the chemical bond and its application to the elucidation of the structure of complex substances. He was again awarded Nobel Peace Prize in 1963 for his contribution towards nuclear disarmament. We don’t have the audacity to question the knowledge and integrity of Dr. Pauling. It is however known that Dr. Pauling published a paper in 1978, which claimed high cure rate of cancer patients treated with high dose of Vitamin-C. Subsequent 3 different studies conducted in Mayo Clinic (one study was International Multi-institutional) involving 367 patients failed to observe improvement in survival by this modality of treatment. In 1982, William D.DeWys, Chief of the clinical investigations branch of the National Cancer Institute’s Cancer therapy programme, pointed out faulty study design carried out by Scottish Surgeon Ewan Cameron and Linus Pauling.
Why there is no mention about subsequent 4 independent studies which found the same results with Dr. Linus Pauling & Dr. Cameron ? This is how the Cancer Industry denounce alternative treatments with “predetermined” study results. American Cancer Society, in their own version in their website said, “…the Mayo Clinic trials have also been criticized for not fully addressing all the issues related to the effect of Vitamin C, which still left questions about whether or not it is effective in treating cancer”( www.cancer.org). That is why Dr. Pauling made the statement that “ most cancer research is largely a fraud”. If the ACS is aware that Mayo Clinic studies were criticized for not following the same protocol, why the claim of Dr. Pauling is still remaining as a question? What does it reflect? Dr. Cameron & Pauling’s findings are documented in their book “Cancer & Vitamin C”. Vitamin C therapy is still being performed in Clinics, namely Bright Spot for Health,Wichita, Kanas, Contemporary Medicine, Burr Ridge, Illinois, New Hope Medical Center, Scottsdale, Arizona, etc. Whom should we believe now ?
In medical science, we hear about individual (anecdotal) case reports claiming better results. These individual reports guide us for further scientific study on large number of subjects through Phase-III clinical trial for meaningful conclusion.
We would like to mention an article written by Robert Baratz, M.D., D.D.S., Ph.D., who is the President of the National Council Against Health Fraud in United States. In his article ‘Why You Should Stay Away from Insulin Potentiation Therapy’ he has made startling revelations in the context of the Ayre’s Website claim on the efficacy of IPT. In the article, Baratz has mentioned that Ayre did attend a meeting of NIH (National Institute of Health) Advisory Panel at which possible preliminary investigation was discussed. However, there has been no visible evidence that the suggested data collection had taken place. The study was ordered to shut down in January 2001 after the FDA concluded that it was run improperly. It is curious that the study is still mentioned on Ayre’s website even though it was cancelled. The article also says that treatment with Insulin in a non-diabetic patient can result in rapid fall of blood sugar level leading to coma, shock and even death. No major medical school, hospital or other institutions has embarked on a clinical trial largely because the therapy is dangerous, potentially lethal if too much insulin is administered, and does not have a sound biological basis. Besides the danger of insulin shock and death, use of low dose chemotherapy can foster the development of resistant cancer cell strains. Thus, IPT can prevent appropriate chemotherapy from working later and make an otherwise curable cancer incurable.
If IPT is so dangerous how then Clinics which I mentioned are regularly treating patients with this therapy is surprising. Is there any meaning of ‘danger’ to a dying patient after doing all available conventional treatments? Factually, there are two different stream of Cancer Treatments going on in the world. Those who follow AMA, FDA, ACS, etc. like in India are following conventional treatments and those who do not follow dictates of such organizations, like Germany, Maxico, Brazil, China, partially in Canada are freely following alternative treatments. Without getting good results how they are continuing the treatment? Dr. Hans Nieper, who used a cesium chloride protocol in Hanover, Germany, said, “You wouldn’t believe how many FDA officials or relatives or acquaintances of FDA come to see me as patients in Hanover, as well as directors of the AMA, ACS and orthodox cancer institutes” (www.whale.to/vaccine/quotes2.html). Are you aware of the fact that no FDA official go for chemotherapy if they themselves have Cancer ?
In 2003, a scientific journal reported that women with breast cancer treated with methotrexate plus insulin did better than women treated with methotrexate alone. Although the report suggests that insulin may have a short-term effect, it did not have any data on long-term effects or health outcomes. Moreover, in 2007, two of its five authors were charged with fraud in connection with another cancer scam, which may mean that their 2003 data are not trustworthy.
Long-term effect of insulin is not required in IPT as the subsequent chemo is applied immediately and blood glucose level is brought to normal by injecting glucose after the treatment. Application of insulin is so controlled in this treatment that normal level of 80-100mg is reduced to 55-70mg only for a few minutes which is not considered as danger to the patient( www.IPTQ.com). It is surprising how long-term health outcome is considered more important to a dieing patient ? )
There is no published evidence that insulin causes more drug to enter the cancer cells or that giving insulin enables chemotherapy drugs to build up within these cells while sparing normal cells.
Kindly read again the statement of Webster Kehr as mentioned above. In 1978, the office of Technology Assessment( an arm of American Congress) issued a major research report that concluded “ only 10-20 % of all procedures currently used in medical practices have been shown to be efficacious by controlled trial.” That means, 80-90% of what doctors do is ‘scientifically unproven guesswork’. Then , what is wrong in applying that 80% guesswork to cancer patients even if one is not convinced with alternative treatments ?
The American Cancer Society (ACS) says that despite individual (anecdotal) reports, there are no published scientific studies available showing that IPT is safe or effective in treating cancer in humans. IPT may also have serious side effects. One very small-published study that looked at IPT was done in Uruguay. It included 30 women with breast cancer that was resistant to mainstream therapies. This study did not look at survival, quality of life, well-being, or lasting effects. No long-term improvements were shown by this study. There is no evidence that people who reported being helped by IPT were followed up long enough to find out if the treatment worked.
In a report of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre, New York, states that IPT remains an unproven cancer therapy until there are more studies available to validate its benefit.
Despite supporters’ claims that IPT has been well researched, scientific studies that show safety and effectiveness have not been published in available peer reviewed journals. These claims cannot be verified.
Insulin has not been approved by the FDA to lower blood sugar to abnormal levels. Even when used as prescribed, it can be dangerous in some: An estimated 2-4% of deaths in people with Type-1 diabetes are due to low blood sugar.
Relying on this type of treatment alone, and avoiding or delaying standard medical care for cancer, may have serious health consequences.
If application of insulin is so dangerous, it is surprising how the treatment is being followed in those clinics mentioned as above. Should we believe ACS ignoring these facts ? Why ACS cannot go for ‘more studies’ to validate its benefit ? Whether the purpose of ACS, FDA, AMA, etc. are only to research for costlier & costlier chemotherapy drugs and to try to denounce the alternative cancer treatments ? If the target of these organizations is only to find out ‘cure’ for cancer, I would be glad to know about any research done by them so far beyond radiation & chemotherapy.
It is not understood why the alternative treatments cannot be tried even to terminal patients at the first instance? Since IPT is also an allopathic treatment, unlike other alternative treatments, I request Dr. B. Barua Cancer Institute to take the lead. Otherwise, I am afraid whether you would agree with Dr. Dhaniram Barua if he raise a similar claim in future.
Now let us hear about chemotherapy which is being widely used as recommended by AMA, FDA, ACS, etc. The McGill Cancer Centre in Montreal, one of the largest and most esteemed cancer treatment centers in the world, surveyed 79 oncologists to see how they would respond to a diagnosis of cancer. The results will blow your mind. Are you sitting down? Of the 79 oncologists surveyed, 58 said that All chemotherapy programs were unacceptable to them and their family members due to the fact that the drugs don’t work and are toxic to one’s system (Philip Day, Cancer: Why We’re Still Dying to know the Truth). When they were asked why then they apply chemotherapy to the patients, their replies were that otherwise they would be thrown out of the clinics. Of course these were all private clinics.
The cost of treatment of IPT over a period of 3-4 weeks in USA is approximately $15,500 to $17,500. This means, in Indian context, it will be approximately Rs.7,00,000 – Rs.8,00,000/- for such treatment.
You have very tactfully avoided to compare with Chemotherapy cost in USA which ranges from Rs. 10.0 lacs to Rs.15.0 lacs for the drug alone for the latest drugs in market in order to show that IPT is very costly. For combination therapy it would be even much more( Ref. www.johnshopkinshealthalerts.com). The mean cost of 6 cycle chemotherapy for Pulmonary resection is $ 99,000, i.e. Rs. 45.0 lacs in USA( Ref. journals.elsevierhealth.com). It is against simple mathematics that a 10% strength chemo( in IPT) would be costlier than full strength Chemotherapy. However, the fact that you could give the cost of IPT in USA, itself proves that such treatment is not rare even in USA. One should remember that any medical treatment in USA is 10 times costlier than in India on an average.
Rising interest in alternative medicine has, of late, come from the fact that some cancers are not curable despite best efforts. Many people continue to die from this disease. It is natural, as the Swiss Psychologist Elizabeth Kublar Ross says, that cancer patients and relatives go through some stages like that of denial, anger and depression before finally accepting the harsh reality of life and ravages of cancer. No doctor will wish any new option to fail, which can bring cure to cancer patients. The medical fraternity would be glad to embrace effective cure, if it is based on scientific evaluation. Doctors have nothing to loose, rather gain, God forbids, at least in a situation when cancer befallen on them.
How could the statement be generalized on behalf of entire fraternity of Doctors including those who are in USA ? You are perhaps not aware that as per a Clause in Charter of American Cancer Society the day the cure for cancer is found the Society will disband ? To ask the ACS to find a cancer cure is to say, “ Now you go and be successful. And then, once you have achieved your goal, promptly commit suicide. They are not expected to do so, more so when they look at the huge amount of money involved in the Industry?
We will be more than happy to accept this modality of treatment if all the unanswered questions involving IPT are addressed through large, well-controlled, prospective, randomized, multi-institutional international trial. Its clinical use should be preceded by a phase-I trial on animal models followed by phase-II trial on small number of human subjects before undertaking a phase-III clinical trial on large number of patients.
There are at least 35-45 clinics operating in Maxico mostly at the border of USA where alternative treatments are being utilized on regular basis where patients are mostly from USA and being run mostly by Doctors who fled from USA, as these treatments are banned in USA. Thousands of cancer patients from America go to these clinics every year for treatment. If Dr. B. Barua Cancer Institute is really serious about introducing any such treatment, they may visit these clinics mentioned in my article and if found a success rate of even 50%, it may be tried at least on terminal cancer patients who are otherwise dying. If it works, it would be considered as a great service of BBCI to the people of the region .
Last but not the least, I am not a doctor, so I do not have equal knowledge of an oncologist. But with little study about cancer treatment through internet, as a lay man, I am inclined to believe whatever Bollinger has alleged in his book about ACS, AMA, FDA, NCI, etc. I am happy that the only Cancer Hospital in the region has responded to my article. However, my request to you as an oncologist, not as the Director of the Institute, to study the issue in further detail without any preconception & biasness to AMA, FDA, NCI, ACS, etc. Kindly ‘step outside the Box’.
Thanking you,
Yours truly,
( D.K. Goswami.)
NRL Township.
MY REPLY TO BBCI
To, 1st December,2008.
The Director,
Dr. B. Barua Cancer Institute,
Guwahati.
I have received the copy of your rejoinder sent to the Editor, ‘Amar Asom’ to my article published on 3rd & 4th November,08. Kindly find below my issue-wise replies for your kind perusal & study. My replies are in bold letters inserted in your letter itself.
Our attention has been drawn to an article titled ‘CANCEROR ANSWER’ written by Sri Dilip Kumar Goswami and published in Assamese Daily AMAR ASOM on 3rd and 4th November 2008. The article is undoubtedly, an excellent ‘review of the book’ ‘CANCER STEP OUTSIDE THE BOX’ written by Ty M. Bollinger, but certainly cannot be considered as a medical review article on cancer. We have little scientific knowledge on the modality of the treatment called ‘INSULIN POTENTIATION THERAPY’ in the management of Cancer. This form of therapy in real sense cannot be termed as an alternative discipline of medicine, as the drugs used in IPT are allopathic in nature. As students of Science and also as physicians, we respect all forms of alternative medicine, which are based on sound scientific foundation. I have discussed the subject with my colleagues in the Institute since I strongly believe that it is not possible to know each and everything in the medical field. It is a vast sea of knowledge. We have also consulted renowned oncologists of our country about IPT and they too have expressed serious reservations. We have perused the website mentioned in the article advocating IPT and also reviewed the medical literature written on the subject.
In the article, Mr. Goswami has almost in unequivocal terms - with the help of Bollinger’s book - tried to give an impression to the public that cure for cancer has not been made possible due to the greed of the doctors for money, across the world in connivance with the pharmaceutical companies. The statement like this is derogatory and is an act of over simplification to belittle the contemporary history of research and development in the field of oncology.
The statement was not mine, I copied from Bollinger’s book only. I will be glad to know your comment on the following additional statements :
“The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) reported in February 2002 that 87% of the physicians involved in the establishment of national guideline on disease have financial ties to Big Pharma”.
For 25 years, Patrick McGrady, Sr., was science editor of the ACS and its principal “ spin doctor” in the media. In 1978, he made an interesting statement ; ‘Nobody in the science and medical departments ( at the ACS) is capable of doing real science. They are wonderful pros who know how to raise money. They don’t know how to prevent cancer or cure patients’ www.viableherbal.com/herbology/herbs27.htm”.
The contribution made by two-time Nobel Laureate Madame Curie (1903 Nobel Prize in Physics, 1911 Nobel Prize in Chemistry) towards discovery of radium and its subsequent application in the field of radiation oncology cannot be termed a meaningless discovery.
Contribution made by Madam Curie by discovering radium was almost 100 years back. Stagnancy of medical science for the last 100 years is surprising.
In the same way, the Nobel Prize in Medicine for the year 2008, which was awarded to Chairman and the Director of German Cancer Research Centre, Dr. Zerald zur Hausen, for his contribution in the development of HPV Vaccine for control of cervical cancer in woman, cannot be viewed as a discovery for minting money.
Discovery of vaccine by Dr. Herald (not Zerald) Zur Hausen against HPV is remarkable. There are lot many dedicated scientists who devote there full life for benefit of mankind. Important to note that Dr. Herald is from Germany where alternative cancer treatments are being practiced. But that does not mean that all are same. Even in Assam, Dr. Dhaniram Barooah has recently claimed that he has cured a terminal cancer patient through genetic treatment. It may so happen that one day Dr. Dhaniram Barooah also get Nobel Prize. But when he tried to replace human heart with that of a Pig, he was put behind the bar. The same effort when it is now made by American Surgeons that has become a science news in India. The public remembers the statement of the Assam Health Minister in TV that a Medical Enquiry was constituted to enquire the claim of Dr. Barooah that he had Vaccinated children for cancer and if found guilty, action would be taken against him. But the public is not aware of the outcome, the issue has died down. I had made the statement about greed of money of ‘cancer industry’ in the context of what is happening in USA specifically mentioning that “ this is not true here”. I have found such doctor in Guwahati itself who had explained to me the cause of palpitation of the heart by drawing electrical system of the heart, apart from prescribing medicine, when I suddenly faced it about 18 years back. However, there are also doctors who do not find time to write the prescription properly. This reminds me a song sung by Shri Dwipen Barooah-“Kak bulilu kune nije gat pati lolehi…”
Today, whatever is our knowledge and understanding of the disease called Cancer, it is because of numerous painful research works of medical scientists and molecular biologists. In 1971, United States embarked on National Cancer Plan, and its aim was to find a cure for cancer, using the similar kind of massive, precisely targeted research work that put the man on the moon. The various treatment strategies, which have come out today, are the results of scientific works and research.
“ According to Dr. John Bailer, who spent 20 years on the staff of the NCI and was editor of its journal, speaking at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in May 1985, ‘my overall assessment is that the national cancer program must be judged a qualified failure”’. Dr. Samuel Epstein, in his book Cancer-Gate : How to Win The Losing cancer War, demonstrates that over the past century, the ACS, NCI and AMA have all corroded with major institutional and personal conflicts of interest with Big Pharma. As candidly admitted by a recent NCI director, the NCI has become a ‘government pharmaceutical company’. Since 1971, two trillion dollars ( Rs. 10lakh crore) spent on cancer research & treatments all over the world. This money has gone to cancer industry only, i.e. mostly to Big Pharmas. If the aim & sole intention of National Cancer Plan is to find out “ CURE” for cancer, why the State Machinery & Judiciary of USA are assisting the Big Pharma by prosecuting anybody who becomes successful in curing even terminal cancer patients ? To know the details you may kindly buy the e-book & read thoroughly. If you desire to contradict anything contained in the book you may do so by contacting Bollinger through various means. I am only writing some extracts of the book after cross-checking the truth in internet. But I fail to understand why you are trying to defend instead of trying to find out the facts. Whatever statement I made in the article was in the context of America only as mentioned in the book.
Over the years, Cancer survivals have improved largely due to contribution in the field of oncology. Data collected from Population Based Cancer Registry in the United States through SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results) programme of the National Cancer Institute have showed significant improvement in treatment results from 1988 to 1997 than the earlier period of 1975 to 1987. This study was conducted on 17,79,458 number of cancer patients from 1975 to 1997. This report was published in the journal ‘Arch Intern Med’ in 2002. These findings have continued to inspire many people involved in the practice of medicine to work for further improvement in treatment outcome in a systematic scientific manner.
The SEER report is nothing but manipulation of data. It may be established from the following observations recorded in the report itself:
1) The SEER had defined the term “cure” to apply to a cancer patient who lived over 5 years from the date of diagnosis. It does not mean “healed” nor does it mean “free of cancer”. Due to improvements in cancer diagnosis, we are now able to see a tumor months if not years earlier than we could previously, with sophisticated blood tests and imaging equipment. As a result, patients are now living longer from the point of diagnosis, since diagnosis happen earlier. However, if a patient develops the same cancer again after the period is up, or if they are disfigured by the disease or treatment, or if they drop dead 2 days after the period is up, they are still deemed to be “cured”.
2) The SEER Report typically omitted certain groups of people from their statistics and included certain groups based upon what would make their statistics look more favorable for the “Big 3”. For example, lung cancer patients were typically excluded from their statistics, despite the fact that lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in America. And certain cancers like non-melanoma skin cancers were included in their samples, since 99% of non-melanoma skin cancer patients live over 5 years, so they increased the “cure” percentage.
3) SEER had typically removed patient who died during a “Big 3” treatment protocol from the population of the sample. What does this mean? It means that if there are 10 patients on a chemotherapy protocol which is to last 60 days, and 9 of them die before the 60th day while only 1 patient makes it to the end of the treatment, then the 9 are removed and the treatment is said to have a 100% cure rate !!!
4) Another trick the SEER used in their statistics is to ignore counting people who die from the effects of the “Big 3”. In other words, let’s assume one had chosen chemotherapy, and as a result of his/her newly compromised immune system, he/she catches pneumonia and died. That death was not counted as a death from cancer?
According to Dr. John Bailer, who spent 20 years on the staff of the NCI and was editor of its journal, “the five year survival statistics of the American Cancer Society are very misleading. They now count things that are not cancer, and, because we are able to diagnose at an earlier stage of the disease, patients falsely appear to live longer. Our whole cancer research in the past 20 years has been a total failure. More people over 30 are dying from cancer than ever before… More women with mild or benign diseases are being included in statistics and reported as being ‘cured’. When government officials point to survival figures and say they are winning the war against cancer they are using those survival rates improperly.”
www.ghchealth.com/chemotherapy-quotes.html
The purpose of such manipulation is to extract more money under the National Cancer Plan. Therefore, if somebody is getting inspired from such manipulated findings, it is their fault.
Gone are the days of ‘opinion based’ management of diseases and today it has been replaced by ‘evidence based practice’. Present day treatment of cancer today is globally carried out based on evidence gathered through collection and evaluation of large amount of data, clinical trials and multi-centric meta analysis etc. A variety of tools and techniques have been developed to assess efficacy and effectiveness of various options of treatment. One can’t simply start or advocate a policy without examining various issues like cost effectiveness, scientific, legal or ethical considerations. Anything that is sensational may not be science.
In the 1980s, Dr. Ulrich Abel, a German epidemiologist, did a comprehensive analysis of every major study and clinical trial of chemotherapy that has ever been done. To ensure that he did not leave anyone out, he contacted over 350 medical centers world wide requesting them to furnish him with anything they had published on the subject of cancer. The results were amazing. In his report, published in The Lancet, August 1991, he stated, “ Success of most chemotherapies is appalling… There is ‘no scientific evidence’ for its ability to extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancer…..Chemotherapy for malignancies too advanced for surgery, which accounts for 80% of all cancers, is a scientific wasteland.” Even after such published reports, there is no dearth of people advocating for chemotherapy.
Alternative cancer treatments are not only sensational as mentioned by you, but also having scientific evidences. According to Webster Kehr, “ The scientific evidence for alternative treatments can be compared to a ship the size of the Queen Mary II. The scientific evidence for orthodox treatments, by comparison, would be compared to a ship that could fit in a bathtub. I am not exaggerating. Yet the FDA says chemotherapy and orthodox medicine has ‘scientific evidence’ and there is ‘no scientific evidence’ for alternative treatments. It is nothing but pure corruption, it is nothing but lies.” Should we continue to praise chemotherapy now?
It is difficult to imagine how can a so-called effective treatment modality be suppressed in the world since its introduction in 1932 by a ‘greedy’ group of doctors. The circumstances which led Dr. Linus Pauling, the two-time Nobel Laureate, to comment “Most cancer research is largely a fraud” as referred to, is very much unclear.
Dr. Linus Pauling was awarded Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1954 for his research into the nature of the chemical bond and its application to the elucidation of the structure of complex substances. He was again awarded Nobel Peace Prize in 1963 for his contribution towards nuclear disarmament. We don’t have the audacity to question the knowledge and integrity of Dr. Pauling. It is however known that Dr. Pauling published a paper in 1978, which claimed high cure rate of cancer patients treated with high dose of Vitamin-C. Subsequent 3 different studies conducted in Mayo Clinic (one study was International Multi-institutional) involving 367 patients failed to observe improvement in survival by this modality of treatment. In 1982, William D.DeWys, Chief of the clinical investigations branch of the National Cancer Institute’s Cancer therapy programme, pointed out faulty study design carried out by Scottish Surgeon Ewan Cameron and Linus Pauling.
Why there is no mention about subsequent 4 independent studies which found the same results with Dr. Linus Pauling & Dr. Cameron ? This is how the Cancer Industry denounce alternative treatments with “predetermined” study results. American Cancer Society, in their own version in their website said, “…the Mayo Clinic trials have also been criticized for not fully addressing all the issues related to the effect of Vitamin C, which still left questions about whether or not it is effective in treating cancer”( www.cancer.org). That is why Dr. Pauling made the statement that “ most cancer research is largely a fraud”. If the ACS is aware that Mayo Clinic studies were criticized for not following the same protocol, why the claim of Dr. Pauling is still remaining as a question? What does it reflect? Dr. Cameron & Pauling’s findings are documented in their book “Cancer & Vitamin C”. Vitamin C therapy is still being performed in Clinics, namely Bright Spot for Health,Wichita, Kanas, Contemporary Medicine, Burr Ridge, Illinois, New Hope Medical Center, Scottsdale, Arizona, etc. Whom should we believe now ?
In medical science, we hear about individual (anecdotal) case reports claiming better results. These individual reports guide us for further scientific study on large number of subjects through Phase-III clinical trial for meaningful conclusion.
We would like to mention an article written by Robert Baratz, M.D., D.D.S., Ph.D., who is the President of the National Council Against Health Fraud in United States. In his article ‘Why You Should Stay Away from Insulin Potentiation Therapy’ he has made startling revelations in the context of the Ayre’s Website claim on the efficacy of IPT. In the article, Baratz has mentioned that Ayre did attend a meeting of NIH (National Institute of Health) Advisory Panel at which possible preliminary investigation was discussed. However, there has been no visible evidence that the suggested data collection had taken place. The study was ordered to shut down in January 2001 after the FDA concluded that it was run improperly. It is curious that the study is still mentioned on Ayre’s website even though it was cancelled. The article also says that treatment with Insulin in a non-diabetic patient can result in rapid fall of blood sugar level leading to coma, shock and even death. No major medical school, hospital or other institutions has embarked on a clinical trial largely because the therapy is dangerous, potentially lethal if too much insulin is administered, and does not have a sound biological basis. Besides the danger of insulin shock and death, use of low dose chemotherapy can foster the development of resistant cancer cell strains. Thus, IPT can prevent appropriate chemotherapy from working later and make an otherwise curable cancer incurable.
If IPT is so dangerous how then Clinics which I mentioned are regularly treating patients with this therapy is surprising. Is there any meaning of ‘danger’ to a dying patient after doing all available conventional treatments? Factually, there are two different stream of Cancer Treatments going on in the world. Those who follow AMA, FDA, ACS, etc. like in India are following conventional treatments and those who do not follow dictates of such organizations, like Germany, Maxico, Brazil, China, partially in Canada are freely following alternative treatments. Without getting good results how they are continuing the treatment? Dr. Hans Nieper, who used a cesium chloride protocol in Hanover, Germany, said, “You wouldn’t believe how many FDA officials or relatives or acquaintances of FDA come to see me as patients in Hanover, as well as directors of the AMA, ACS and orthodox cancer institutes” (www.whale.to/vaccine/quotes2.html). Are you aware of the fact that no FDA official go for chemotherapy if they themselves have Cancer ?
In 2003, a scientific journal reported that women with breast cancer treated with methotrexate plus insulin did better than women treated with methotrexate alone. Although the report suggests that insulin may have a short-term effect, it did not have any data on long-term effects or health outcomes. Moreover, in 2007, two of its five authors were charged with fraud in connection with another cancer scam, which may mean that their 2003 data are not trustworthy.
Long-term effect of insulin is not required in IPT as the subsequent chemo is applied immediately and blood glucose level is brought to normal by injecting glucose after the treatment. Application of insulin is so controlled in this treatment that normal level of 80-100mg is reduced to 55-70mg only for a few minutes which is not considered as danger to the patient( www.IPTQ.com). It is surprising how long-term health outcome is considered more important to a dieing patient ? )
There is no published evidence that insulin causes more drug to enter the cancer cells or that giving insulin enables chemotherapy drugs to build up within these cells while sparing normal cells.
Kindly read again the statement of Webster Kehr as mentioned above. In 1978, the office of Technology Assessment( an arm of American Congress) issued a major research report that concluded “ only 10-20 % of all procedures currently used in medical practices have been shown to be efficacious by controlled trial.” That means, 80-90% of what doctors do is ‘scientifically unproven guesswork’. Then , what is wrong in applying that 80% guesswork to cancer patients even if one is not convinced with alternative treatments ?
The American Cancer Society (ACS) says that despite individual (anecdotal) reports, there are no published scientific studies available showing that IPT is safe or effective in treating cancer in humans. IPT may also have serious side effects. One very small-published study that looked at IPT was done in Uruguay. It included 30 women with breast cancer that was resistant to mainstream therapies. This study did not look at survival, quality of life, well-being, or lasting effects. No long-term improvements were shown by this study. There is no evidence that people who reported being helped by IPT were followed up long enough to find out if the treatment worked.
In a report of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre, New York, states that IPT remains an unproven cancer therapy until there are more studies available to validate its benefit.
Despite supporters’ claims that IPT has been well researched, scientific studies that show safety and effectiveness have not been published in available peer reviewed journals. These claims cannot be verified.
Insulin has not been approved by the FDA to lower blood sugar to abnormal levels. Even when used as prescribed, it can be dangerous in some: An estimated 2-4% of deaths in people with Type-1 diabetes are due to low blood sugar.
Relying on this type of treatment alone, and avoiding or delaying standard medical care for cancer, may have serious health consequences.
If application of insulin is so dangerous, it is surprising how the treatment is being followed in those clinics mentioned as above. Should we believe ACS ignoring these facts ? Why ACS cannot go for ‘more studies’ to validate its benefit ? Whether the purpose of ACS, FDA, AMA, etc. are only to research for costlier & costlier chemotherapy drugs and to try to denounce the alternative cancer treatments ? If the target of these organizations is only to find out ‘cure’ for cancer, I would be glad to know about any research done by them so far beyond radiation & chemotherapy.
It is not understood why the alternative treatments cannot be tried even to terminal patients at the first instance? Since IPT is also an allopathic treatment, unlike other alternative treatments, I request Dr. B. Barua Cancer Institute to take the lead. Otherwise, I am afraid whether you would agree with Dr. Dhaniram Barua if he raise a similar claim in future.
Now let us hear about chemotherapy which is being widely used as recommended by AMA, FDA, ACS, etc. The McGill Cancer Centre in Montreal, one of the largest and most esteemed cancer treatment centers in the world, surveyed 79 oncologists to see how they would respond to a diagnosis of cancer. The results will blow your mind. Are you sitting down? Of the 79 oncologists surveyed, 58 said that All chemotherapy programs were unacceptable to them and their family members due to the fact that the drugs don’t work and are toxic to one’s system (Philip Day, Cancer: Why We’re Still Dying to know the Truth). When they were asked why then they apply chemotherapy to the patients, their replies were that otherwise they would be thrown out of the clinics. Of course these were all private clinics.
The cost of treatment of IPT over a period of 3-4 weeks in USA is approximately $15,500 to $17,500. This means, in Indian context, it will be approximately Rs.7,00,000 – Rs.8,00,000/- for such treatment.
You have very tactfully avoided to compare with Chemotherapy cost in USA which ranges from Rs. 10.0 lacs to Rs.15.0 lacs for the drug alone for the latest drugs in market in order to show that IPT is very costly. For combination therapy it would be even much more( Ref. www.johnshopkinshealthalerts.com). The mean cost of 6 cycle chemotherapy for Pulmonary resection is $ 99,000, i.e. Rs. 45.0 lacs in USA( Ref. journals.elsevierhealth.com). It is against simple mathematics that a 10% strength chemo( in IPT) would be costlier than full strength Chemotherapy. However, the fact that you could give the cost of IPT in USA, itself proves that such treatment is not rare even in USA. One should remember that any medical treatment in USA is 10 times costlier than in India on an average.
Rising interest in alternative medicine has, of late, come from the fact that some cancers are not curable despite best efforts. Many people continue to die from this disease. It is natural, as the Swiss Psychologist Elizabeth Kublar Ross says, that cancer patients and relatives go through some stages like that of denial, anger and depression before finally accepting the harsh reality of life and ravages of cancer. No doctor will wish any new option to fail, which can bring cure to cancer patients. The medical fraternity would be glad to embrace effective cure, if it is based on scientific evaluation. Doctors have nothing to loose, rather gain, God forbids, at least in a situation when cancer befallen on them.
How could the statement be generalized on behalf of entire fraternity of Doctors including those who are in USA ? You are perhaps not aware that as per a Clause in Charter of American Cancer Society the day the cure for cancer is found the Society will disband ? To ask the ACS to find a cancer cure is to say, “ Now you go and be successful. And then, once you have achieved your goal, promptly commit suicide. They are not expected to do so, more so when they look at the huge amount of money involved in the Industry?
We will be more than happy to accept this modality of treatment if all the unanswered questions involving IPT are addressed through large, well-controlled, prospective, randomized, multi-institutional international trial. Its clinical use should be preceded by a phase-I trial on animal models followed by phase-II trial on small number of human subjects before undertaking a phase-III clinical trial on large number of patients.
There are at least 35-45 clinics operating in Maxico mostly at the border of USA where alternative treatments are being utilized on regular basis where patients are mostly from USA and being run mostly by Doctors who fled from USA, as these treatments are banned in USA. Thousands of cancer patients from America go to these clinics every year for treatment. If Dr. B. Barua Cancer Institute is really serious about introducing any such treatment, they may visit these clinics mentioned in my article and if found a success rate of even 50%, it may be tried at least on terminal cancer patients who are otherwise dying. If it works, it would be considered as a great service of BBCI to the people of the region .
Last but not the least, I am not a doctor, so I do not have equal knowledge of an oncologist. But with little study about cancer treatment through internet, as a lay man, I am inclined to believe whatever Bollinger has alleged in his book about ACS, AMA, FDA, NCI, etc. I am happy that the only Cancer Hospital in the region has responded to my article. However, my request to you as an oncologist, not as the Director of the Institute, to study the issue in further detail without any preconception & biasness to AMA, FDA, NCI, ACS, etc. Kindly ‘step outside the Box’.
Thanking you,
Yours truly,
( D.K. Goswami.)
NRL Township.
RSS Feed
