A TECHNICAL DISCUSSION ON CANCER BACTERIA


A Brief Overview

Livingston's Findings

The NCI Investigation

The ACS Disputes a Cancer Bacterium

Compelling New Evidence

Mycoplasma and AIDS

Conclusion

A Brief Overview
Since the 1920s, researchers have consistently isolated and cultured bacterial forms from cancer patients. Perhaps the first pioneer to have made the discovery was a Canadian physician named Thomas Glover. Glover found the bacterium to have a number of different life cycles including a filter-passing form which closely resembled viruses. In what was perhaps the first long-term clinical trial involving a cancer therapy, two of Glover's colleagues---Dr.'s Clark and White---reported unusually favorable results for a variety of cancers using an anti-sera originally developed by Glover (see TABLE 1.) The anti-sera was made from horse antibodies derived from inoculation of human cancer bacteria (see this link for how the anti-sera was prepared ).

The results of the Clark and White study were announced in 1953, at the 6th Annual Congress of Microbiology, in Rome.
LESION NO. OF PATIENTS 5 YEAR SURVIVAL %
Breast 23 65.2%
Lip 11 82%
Skin 10 70%
Mouth 7 57%
Tongue 3 0%
Colon 3 100%
Rectum 5 40%
Prostate 5 20%
Bladder 2 0%
Cervix 6 66%
Ovary 6 50%
Bone 2 100%
Lymphoma 1 0%

[NOTE: The above study is not proof positive of the merits of Glover's vaccine. However, we include it to show the potential possibilities in lieu of the fact that the above trial hasn't been disproved, and in lieu of all other evidence which has accumulated since that time, as presented herein. It should also be pointed out that the above patients were treated with the cooperation of accredited hospitals, and though diagnostic procedures were limited, every effort was made to document bona-fide cancers in the above patients by the best available methods of the day (i.e. biopsy and X-ray) and by second opinion rendered by qualified pathologists.]

While Glover, White, Clark and Scott were the first group of physicians to document and then use as an anti-bacterial cancer vaccine in a clinical trial, a New-Jersey physician named Virginia Livingston advanced Glover's controversial theories starting in the late 1940's.


Livingston's Findings
After conducting a number of experiments which included the darkfield and electron microscope, Livingston and several colleagues claimed to vindicate Glover's bacteria theory via the famed tenets of Robert Koch (i.e. "Koch's Postulates). Livingston named her cancer bacterium Progenitor Cryptocides and she described it as a highly pleomorphic entity that behaved, in many ways, like
M ycobacteria. Mycobacteria are responsible for certain forms of pneumonia, leprosy, TB and other infectious diseases. These are microorganisms with cell walls that can be stained with a special laboratory dye for identification purposes; further identification is made based on the fact that Myocbacteria are generally resistant to removal of the stain once it's been applied (a phenomena scientists refer to as "acid-fastness"). Later, as we will see, scientists began identifiying yet another type of bacterium known as Mycoplasma. The latter are considered among the smallest of bacteria and belong to a different family of bacteria than Mycobacteria. Mycoplasma lack true cell walls, display virus like properties, and are also acid-fast.

Throughout this article you will see various references to "Mycobacteria" as well as "Mycoplasma." Please bear in mind that a number of different investigators have reported different species of organisms in their studies of cancer and current research is suggesting that different bacterial forms may play different or possibly combined roles in cancer. Further, new research is also suggesting that various microbial species might share some similar genes or characteristics which make them hard to absolutely quantify or fully identify---an idea that is a departure from classical microbiology but one that reflects research still in its infancy. Said Alan Cantwell MD a physician we quote throughout this website, a number of bacteria---in their most minute forms---often resemble Mycoplasma but may not necessarily be true Mycoplasma.  

Getting back to Livingston's study of Mycobacteria, it must be noted that she ascribed qualities to it that aren't usually considered typical. For example, Livingston noted filter-passing virus phases (similar to Mycoplasma) and also intermittent acid-fastness depending on the life cycle phase the Mycobacterium was in at a given moment ('intermittent' meaning acid and non-acid fast phases). 

Whatever the true nature of Livingston's bacterium, she made what some consider a seminal discovery in  1974, discovering that cancer bacteria could produce the oncofetal growth hormone HCG. Adding to this discovery were the findings of other independent researchers who discovered that cancer cells are also capable of producing or synthesizing HCG. Livingston summed up her research findings this way:

In 1969, Livingston established a cancer treatment clinic in San Diego, and began administering an autogenous anti-bacterial vaccine (made from urine-derived bacterial isolates). Livingston prepared the vaccines by first screening individual bacterial cultures via darkfield microscopy and examining the organisms for acid-fastness. She also conducted growth inhibition studies to determine antibiotic sensitivity. After Livingston noted that a dark, reddish-brown material growing in her bacterial cultures yielded the hormone HCG, she began assaying her cultures for that hormone and incorporated this additional test in her vaccine preparation. In fact, the entire cornerstone of her therapy was dependent on the ability to neutralize HCG---a factor which is now being investigated in mainstream research and via clinical trials. (Click here to review Virginia Livingston's achievements).

The NCI Investigation
A centerpiece of the National Cancer Institute's rejection of a bacterial cause of cancer lies in an investigation that agency conducted between 1963 and 1974.

Prior to 1963, a number of researchers were reporting "virus" type bodies, as well as bacteria in the blood of leukemia patients. Preliminary reports suggested the bacteria to be Mycoplasma. So the NCI decided to launch its investigation.

A review of all Journal of the National Cancer Institute (JNCI ) indexes for the years 1963-1974 by this author turned up 7 studies specifically focusing on cancer bacteria, and particularly Mycoplasma. The primary objectives of these studies were to establish a consistent pattern of Mycoplasma infection in cancer patients---many of whom suffered from leukemia . [The consistent or inconsistent isolation of Mycoplasma from leukemia may not fully reflect the potential role of Mycoplasma in solid, or soft tissue cancers since the brunt of cancer bacteria research as conducted by Glover, von Brehmer, Villesquez, L'Esperance, Fonti, and currently Lo has involved non-leukemic cancers]. As earlier discussed, Livingston's primary work was not with Mycoplasma or leukemia.

NCI investigators later concluded that Mycoplasma didn't appear to be an etiological agent of cancer or leukemia based on the low percentage of these isolates found in diseased cultures. For example in one study involving 1,950 leukemic cultures, only 71 were positive for Mycoplasma. Yet in other studies, conflicting results were noted, with as many as 40% of leukemic cultures testing positive. Indeed, one NCI investigator wrote that "only patients with leukemia and other malignancies most consistently yielded Mycoplasma."

The NCI investigators did not appear focused on Livingston's claim of a Mycobacterium as a cancer-causing bacterium. They didn't perform darkfield or hanging-drop examination of live blood, or fresh tissue sections as Livingston and her colleagues had recommended, or utilize the specific culture media or triple-staining techniques as described by Jackson in her published papers describing the Livingston organism.

A question concerning the NCI studies centers over what researchers were attempting to isolate. As mentioned earlier, Mycoplasma as well as viral bodies were often reported in cancer and leukemic tissues, but the NCI studies didn't focus on examination of filter-passing phases or forms of the Mycoplasma  they were examining. Recall that Livingston and Jackson claimed to have grown  bacterial isolates from pure, uncontaminated cultures of Rous sarcoma virus---a cancer-causing agent which predominantly affects chickens. The two scientists also claimed to demonstrate  the viral phases of cancer bacteria using electron microscopy. These and other peer-reviewed studies performed by Livingston and Jackson were not duplicated  or referenced in any of the NCI papers.

The 1963-1974 investigations centered on isolating several Mycoplasma  species, including  Mycoplasma neurolyticum, M.pneumonia, M.orales and M.pneumoniae neither of which fit into current day models of Mycoplasma carcinogenesis. Very little mention was made of M fe rmentans or M m.hyorhinis ---organisms which today are the focus of cancer causation.

Other NCI studies have been criticized because results appear to have been pre-determined, and conclusions drawn from those determinations. For example, investigators declared that Mycoplasma weren't a factor in cancer causation in mice first rendered "germ free".

In a 1972 appraisal of the entire Mycoplasma controversy, IM Spence, reporting in the South Africa Journal of Medical Sciences wrote that while Mycoplasma may be "unable to induce malignancy on their own, the possibility exists that their presence on the surfaces of tissues, together with the presence of...other cancer agents might act...to trigger a carcinogenic response." Spence also urged future investigators to study cancer cultures taken from "biopsy and fresh necroscopy material" as a means of providing "confirmatory evidence for Mycoplasma infection" and for ruling out the long debated issue of Mycoplasmal contamination. According to the record, Livingston and colleagues had extensively performed such studies (via darkfield microscopy, hanging drop examination of live bloods, fresh tissue culture examinations, etc.) but these were not  referenced or duplicated in the NCI investigations. It might bear noting, the NCI investigation ended prior to Livingston's 1974 discovery involving cancer bacteria and the mammalian growth hormone HCG.

ACS Disputes Bacterium
 The long standing schism between mainstream medicine and proponents of a bacterial cancer theory reached a high point in 1990, when the American Cancer Society claimed to find "gross errors" in Virginia Livingston's research. Up until that time, Livingston had arguably become the most controversial and outspoken of the cancer-bacteria theory proponents, and debunking her theories was tantamount to setting back the entire field of cancer microbiology research.

The primary argument cited by the ACS was that Livingston had confused her cancer organism with unrelated species of bacteria. According to the ACS, "immunohistochemical techniques....used to analyze P.Cryptocides cultures supplied by Livingston.....were identified as Staphylococcus epidermidis and not Mycobacteria . Thus, Livingston's credibility in isolating a specific bacterium of malignancy was in question.

Dr. Alva Johnson, a professor of microbiology at the University of Virginia Medical School explained in a 1992 interview with this author, that Livingston had stopped performing laboratory analyses of live blood and fresh tissue cultures obtained from cancer patients. Instead, she began treating patients by preparing an autogenous vaccine made from urine assuming  that because her cultures showed the presence of HCG, they must be  proof that Progenitor Cryptocides (or a Mycobacterium) was the culprit . (Note: different forms of bacteria have now been shown to make HCG). Later, when asked to provide samples for independent review by the ACS, Livingston submitted bacteria derived from her 'Progenitor-infected' urine cultures . Instead, they were found to consist of Staphylococcus epidermidis a common skin contaminant. (Interestingly, Cantwell et al. had found evidence of extra and intracellular Staphylococcus epidermidis infection in tissues cultured from a breast cancer patient).

Despite Livingston's apparent errors, serious attempts were not made to repeat or corroborate her earlier experiments as chronichled in her comprehensive work Compendium . Thus, Livingston's studies  should have been duplicated and her claims analyzed before a complete rebuttal could be considered final. The ACS finding of Livingston's cultures being Staphylococcus epidermidis may have diverted from the fundamental theory of cancer-causing bacteria.

[RECENT UPDATE: New research appears to be pointing in the direction of multiple species of bacteria implicated in cancer---an idea that will undoubtedly stir debate among many traditional microbiologists trained in the paradigm of one species being responsible for a specific disease. Consider the following excerpt from a scientific paper appearing in the May 2006 issue of JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MICROBIOLOGY (see "Viable Bacteria Present within Oral Squamous Cell Carcinoma Tissue",  p. 1719–1725 Vol. 44, No. 5) and written by Samuel J. Hooper, et al.:

"Despite increasing interest in the possible relationships between bacteria and the different stages of cancer development, the association of bacteria with cancer of the oral cavity has yet to be adequately examined....Surface contamination was eliminated by immersion in Betadine and washing with phosphate-buffered saline....Isolates were identified by 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Twenty deep-tissue specimens, 19 with corresponding superficial tissues and 12 with control tissues, were successfully processed. A diversity of bacterial taxa were isolated and identified, including several putatively novel species. Most isolates were found to be...acid-tolerant species. Notably, some species were isolated only from either the tumorous or nontumorous tissue type, indicating a degree of restriction. Successful surface decontamination of the specimens indicates that the bacteria detected were from within the tissue. A diversity of bacterial groups have been isolated from within oral squamous cell carcinoma tissue. The significance of these bacteria within the tumor warrants further study."

 Not only were multiple species detected within the cancer tissues, but careful attention was given to eliminate the possibility of 'contamination'; the organisms were identified using genetic sequencing. There also existed a 'degree of restriction' meaning that certain species seemed exclusive to the cancerous, as opposed to the non-cancerous tissues. All of which underscores the complexity of cancer bacteria and the urgent need for scientists to remain open about rethinking traditional concepts.

Careful consideration must now be given to the possibility of a diverse group of organisms---bacterial in origin or perhaps deriving from cancer cells themselves as discussed elsewhere in this website---as playing critical roles in cancer.  

While having made errors in her research, the question remains: was Livingston in error on the issue of cancer-promoting bacteria? Recent research by Shy-Ching Lo, Chan, and others mentioned throughout this site have clearly shown compelling evidence in favor of Livingston's basic ideas. Either Livingston had amazingly guessed this association before the fact, or her lifelong dedication to intensive and painstaking research indeed pointed in the right direction.

Compelling New Evidence
Shy-Ching Lo and others have conducted a number of confirmatory experiments, in Lo's case, substantiating a link between M ycoplasma fermentans and oncogenesis. Lo's research confirms the multistage, malignant transformation of embryo cell lines persistently exposed to mycoplasma infection as well as animal models so exposed. Chan and colleagues also report the prevalence of Mycoplasma DNA in ovarian cancer.

In addition, studies conducted in Switzerland by Schmidhauser et al. show that a gene (p37) associated with FS9 mouse sarcoma cells originates from Mycoplasma hyorhinis. Schmidhauser writes that "p37 is part of a....high-affinity transport system in M.hyorhinis, a Gram-positive bacterium." The investigators also found that when they infected various cancer cells with M.hyorhinis, there was a proportionate increase in malignantinvasiveness. The study authors concluded that "a cellular protein..." (deriving from M.Hyorhinis) ...structurally related to P37 apparently influence invasive behavior (of cancer cells).

Another intriguing finding involves the isolation of cancer-related markers which are specific to various organs in the body. These markers are called "organ-specific neoantigens", or OSNs, and they elicit specific immune responses. After analyzing OSNs from human colon adenocarcinomas, researchers found the OSNs proteins to be M ycoplasmal in origin.

Yet in another study conducted at the Fujisaki Institute, Ushio and colleagues found that "Mycoplasma-infected cells have a higher ability to metastasize in vivothan non-infected cells." The researchers isolated a cancer-promoting molecule known as "Ag 243-5" from Mycoplasma hyorhinis (for a review of the previous studies, please click here)

Evidence collected by Bogoch shows that a polysaccharide-like substance is able to mask certain cancer antigens, thereby helping cancer cells avoid immune-system recognition. In addition, Mycoplasma also secrete polysaccharide substances such as galactan and may therefore be directly involved in the prevention of immune response against malignant cells.

How Mycoplasma and other cancer bacteria may further be involved in suppressing host immunity and cancer lies in an understanding of the pregnancy hormone HCG.

While it has been generally asserted that HCG is not a unique product of cancer bacteria and that it is produced both in healthy and diseased tissues, differences in HCG concentration between healthy people and those with cancer have not been actively addressed. According to several scientists, however, there are significant differences. For example in one study published in Int J Biol Markers(see vol. 10, no. 174-179, 1995 Jul-Sep), Lopez notes "...a statistically significant difference" between cancer patients and healthy individuals" in levels of an HCG sub-unit molecule known as sialic acid. Crook also reports "a highly significant difference between the serum SA in the myeloma patients compared to the control group"  in the study "Serum sialic acid in patients with multiple myeloma" ( Br J Biomed Sci 1996;53(3):185-6).

P.B. Macomber, writing in the British journal Medical Hypothesis makes the intriguing assertion that HCG subunit residues adhere to cell surfaces on cancer, trophoblast and sperm cells; these residues create an electrostatic repulsion between white blood cells and cancer cells (P. B. Macomber, 'Cancer and cell wall deficient bacteria', in Medical Hypothesis , U.K. 1990 32, 1-9)! This discovery was supported by the groundbreaking research of Van Beek W.D. et al. (see: "Changed Surface Glycoprotein as a Marker of Malignancy in Human Leukemic Cells," Nature 1975; 253:457-60). White  and Loke also performed crucial research on the role of sialic acid in protecting human tissues from attack by the immune system (see: "Increased Sialylation of Surface Glycopeptides of Human Trophoblasts Compared with Fetal Cells from the Same Conceptus." J Exp Med 1978;148:1087-92 ).

Acevedo has also reported the expression of HCG from bacterial species isolated from cancer. He writes that "...morphological alterations in the bacterial cell walls and cytoplasmic material and/or bizarre forms of reproduction in 6 of the 9 strains expressing hCG- like material" is observable.
Perhaps the most notable findings concerning HCG were summarized in the following study abstract, published in the Journal Cancer (see: Acevedo, "Human chorionic gonadotropin-beta subunit gene expression in cultured human fetal and cancer cells of different types and origins," vol.76, pp.1467-1475, Oct.15, 1995):
Abstract: The authors' previous investigations using living cultured human cancer cells and cells isolated from cancer tissues, analytical flow cytometry, and monoclonal antibodies directed to epitopes located in five different sites of the human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) molecule, identified the presence of membrane-associated hCG, its subunits and fragments, by cells from all cancers, irrespective of type and origin, indicating that the expression of these sialoglycoproteins is a common phenotypic characteristic of cancer. Although benign neoplasms do not express these compounds, cultured human embryonic and fetal cells also express the same materials. To corroborate these findings, five fetal cell lines and 28 cancer cell lines were randomly selected from those previously studied, to determine the presence of translatable levels of hCG-beta (hCG beta) mRNA......

RESULTS. The results showed single and multiple hCG beta gene activation by the fetal cells and the different types of cancer, indicating that at any given time, there is the possibility of activation of as many as four genes of the six genes of the hCG beta-hLH beta gene cluster, even though alternative gene splicing cannot be ruled out.

CONCLUSIONS. In addition to the authors' previous findings, the results of these studies support the concept that cancer is a problem of development and differentiation, and, to the authors' knowledge, prove definitively for the first time that synthesis and expression of hCG, its subunits, and its fragments, is a common biochemical denominator of cancer,* providing the scientific basis for studies of its prevention and/or control by active and/or passive immunization against these sialoglycoproteins.
[*bold highlight, ours]

Interestingly, Mycoplasma may not be directly involved in the production of HCG, but Lo and others have demonstrated their ability to act as plasmid vectors of this hormone and other DNA proteins capable of instigating tumorogenesis. In addition, t oxic chemicals synthesized by Mycoplasma have recently been shown to induce in-vitro nuclear transformation of animal fibroblast cell lines (see "Recent Advances in Mycoplasmology', 1988 QR 201.M97 I57 1988 pp 145 pp 202-212).

The above-cited studies, beside corroborating the central thesis advanced by Livingston, also create a significant argument against the notion of cancer bacteria being simply 'contaminants.'

As of this writing, multi-institutional trials involving a pure anti-HCG vaccine have shown a statistically significant responses for some advanced cancer patients.

In 1990, a Virginia physician named Vincent Speckhart---in collaboration with Dr. Alva Johnson---noted favorable responses via use of an autogenous vaccine similar to Livingston's. Speckhart treated 40 cancer patients in a preliminary study and reported 3 complete responses for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia, malignant lymphoma, and breast cancer. Additional partial responses were also noted. Unfortunately, Speckhart's treatment was never fully evaluated after state authorities issued an injunction and threatened disciplinary action the physician for using an "unproven" vaccine to treat cancer.

Japanese physicians have claimed some important successes with Maruyama vaccine made from Mycobacteria tuberculosis isolates, in some cases citing complete remissions in poor-prognosis cancers.

Conclusion
The ability of bacteria s ynthesizing HCG and related substances, coupled with a growing understanding of HCG and the riddle of immune-system suppression may open the door to a revolutionary way of approaching cancer treatment.

The means now exist to create effective vaccines from HCG-positive bacterial cultures as one possible weapon in a multi-pronged attack against cancer. It is quite possible that HCG-positive bacteria may also serve as excellent sources for vaccines used against HCG---given the growing evidence of HCG as a universal cancer marker.

Indeed, a mode of attack involving vaccines and immunological methods which undermine both HCG, its constituents, and the underlying bacteria which help to synthesize HCG appears logical---at least in theory. As a result, this is an area we feel should be actively and intensely investigated.



To read important peer-reviewed articles on cancer bacteria, click here.


To read important peer-reviewed articles on HCG and cancer, click here.


To learn more about anti-HCG clinical trials, please click here.


BACK TO THE TOP


RETURN TO THE CANCER BACTERIA HOMEPAGE