POSSIBLE THERAPEUTIC INTERVENTIONS for CANCER
It is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore
that cancer is inextricably related to the presence of bacteria in
the host. In addition, compelling evidence suggests that each
individual patient possesses a unique bacterial profile and that more than
one bacterium may be involved. It is also becoming apparent that the
pregnancy hormone HCG plays a critical role
in helping cancer cells avoid the immune system. If true, cancer therapies
designed to attack both bacteria and HCG might be theoretically valid as
possible treatment alternatives, or as concurrent therapies to be used with
standard, proven modalities in cancers which have been shown to respond
favorably to such therapies.
We include the following list of
therapies that have been used in part, or in combination by several independent physicians. These
therapies have not been approved or endorsed by leading cancer
agencies, and are not being including here as recommendations
or suggestions. I t must therefore be
emphasized that the following therapies are
only mentioned here for the sake of discussion, and as material for
further research. They are not meant to serve as the basis for an actual
treatment program. The therapeutic benefits
of the following therapies---should they at all be considered efficacious---is
still open to intelligent debate, discussion and clinical trial evaluation.
Consequently, author Ron Falcone or The Cancer Bacteria Homepage does not
endorse the following therapies and makes no claims or recommendations for their
benefits, or use.
Ron Falcone and The Cancer Bacteria
Homepage are not in any way responsible for the choice of therapies
adopted by any patient, physician or other health-practitioner based on the
information included in this website.
POSSIBLE TREATMENT
INTERVENTIONS
- AUTOGENOUS VACCINE (PASSIVE IMMUNIZATION) . Made from bacterial
cultures taken from cancer patients, autogenous vaccines are believed
to help control underlying cancer infection and also to neutralize HCG by
attacking the bacteria which produce it. One method for autogenous vaccine preparation was that used
by Livingston (see an excerpt on how this vaccine was prepared by clicking here
). Autogenous vaccines are considered "passive
immunization" because they don't actually target the bacteria, but stimulate
the body's own immune system to do so. Another method whose developer
recently applied for a patent (and who was a colleague of
Livingston's) can be seen here
.
- GLOVER'S SERUM (ACTIVE
IMMUNIZATION
). As a possible adjunct to passive
immunization. Though the Glover serum is more difficult to prepare than autogenous
vaccine, it did show very promising results----though on an admittedly limited
population of patients. In fact, the serum was never adequately
tested or refuted by independent laboratories and because it is an
active anti-sera against cancer-related bacteria, it might have excellent
potential either in its original form, or as a prototype for second generation
active vaccines. For those interested in how the serum was prepared, click here. To view Glover's original notes, click here. Glover's vaccine is considered "active immunization"
because it contains antibodies which are already programmed to target
bacteria.
- ANTI-HCG VACCINE . Anti-HCG vaccine has been in several clinical trials to effectively target
HCG markers on the cancer cell. The very favorable therapeutic effects
of this vaccine reinforces the idea of a relationship
between HCG and cancer, and increases the urgency for intensive research
into HCG, HCG-producing bacteria, and the critical role both play in the
cancer process. The bio-tech company
AVIBiopharma actively evaluated its anti-HCG product Avicine in clinical
trials against otherwise intractable cancers. [See throughout this site
for study papers referencing the impressive clinical trial results of
AVIBiopharma's Avicine].
- MONOCLONAL ANTIBODIES . During
the 1970's, there was a great deal of publicity and hope
over the curative potential of monoclonal antibodies (MAs) against cancer.
Made by introducing cancer cells into animals, the resultant antibodies were
then cloned to make virtually unlimited supplies of MAs. But
initial problems included inefficient targeting of cancer antigens, "clumping" of
immune-system antibodies around the MA's resulting in clots, and other
issues. In recent years, biotechnology companies have worked out the
kinks and developed more potent and effective MA's with better targeting
potential and fewer undesirable effects. At the current time, the National
Cancer Institute has listed more than half a dozen monoclonal antibody
vaccines which can target a wide range of different cancer cell antigens (see
the NCI link at http://www.cancer.gov/templates/drugdictionary.aspx?expand=M
and scroll down to the "monoclonal antibody"
subheaders).
Might one of
the early failures of MAs have been due to the issue of HCG and the "electric
shield" effect? Would MAs have proven far more effective if they
were combined with anti-HCG and
anti-cancer bacteria vaccines? We have been informed by
several scientists that this is a theoretical possibility, but putting such a
combined therapy to the test would require a cooperative effort
between different and controversial areas of cancer
research that are simply not likely to take place anytime soon.
- ANTIBIOTIC THERAPIES . Some physicians have used
antibiotics alone, or in combination to help fight underlying bacterial
infection in cancer patients. The same bacteria used to produce autogenous
vaccine is used in cross sensitivity tests to determine antibiotic
activity. Note that antibiotics---while sometimes eliciting rather
impressive results including tumor remissions in some cases---may not always
prove effective because cancer bacteria often undergo a series of life cycle
changes, sometimes adopting forms that are small enough to simulate viruses
and other apparently non-bacterial type entities. Still, the rationale for
using antibiotics is that a one-two punch can, potentially, be delivered to
bacteria when they do revert to forms that were initially responsive to
antibiotics.
- HYDRAZINE SULFATE . After nearly thirty years
of controversy, thousands of cancer patients continue taking
hydrazine sulfate. While the hydrazine sulfate story is beyond the scope of
this website, we believe there is reasonable evidence suggesting that it
can be an effective drug to help reverse the nutritional
derangement caused by abnormal cancer cell metabolism. There have
been numerous scientific studies conducted in the United States and Russia published
in respected peer review journals showing a 'statistically significant'
response rate for patients taking hydrazine. Yet, a multi-center study conducted
by the National Cancer Institute in the late 1990's showed
no such response rate. However, there may be inherent
problems with the NCI studies. For example, the developer
and chief proponent of hydrazine Dr. Joseph Gold, has long argued
that the NCI studies and others like them have been flawed because of the
concurrent use of MAO inhibitors and other medications which might interfere
with hydrazine.
Another issue has been the
end-results sought after by researchers evaluating this controversial cancer drug.
Because it isn't considered a cure, but a control for the
abnormal weight loss and nutritional derangement associated with cancer, doctors looking for
objective responses such as "tumor kill" might consider hydrazine ineffective,
while subjective parameters of patient improvement such as weight gain,
decreased morbidity and improved nutrient absorption might be overlooked as
measures of improvement. For those wishing a full review of the hydrazine
sulfate controversy, and for physicians considering prescribing it, we suggest
visiting the Syracuse Research Institute homepage at http://scri.ngen.com/.
For a sober review of the
recent controversy over hydrazine sulfate, see Dr. Gold's comprehensive
article at: http://www.hydrazinesulfate.org.
TOP
- ADDITIONAL TREATMENTS include a sodium-free or restricted diet based on the original pioneering
work of Max Gerson, and later Lechner and colleagues under the auspices of the
Austrian Department of General Surgery. Gerson believed there was
a compelling association between sodium restriction, a whole-foods,
organic diet, and a reduction in tumor-related ascites, pain
levels, and better outcome for patients so
treated.
While Lechner's clinical trial results
were considered therapeutically effective---even to the point which a number of seriously
ill patients completely eliminated their need for narcotic pain medications---the
original Gerson protocol was only liberally followed, and many
modifications were made. In fact, the Gerson diet is considered much more stringent
and in the initial phases of treatment, generally prohibits the use of
table salt or sodium in any
form. Anyone
considering such a diet regimen should only do so under the careful
supervision of a qualified physician or clinic experienced
in this type of treatment, and one which can provide appropriate
credentials and references.
TOP
BACK TO HOMEPAGE
