| References | Disclaimer | Abstracts | Print Version
Cancer: Clinics Offering Alternative Therapies
BURZYNSKI CLINIC
Antineoplaston Therapy,
a Therapy Unique to the Burzynski Clinic
Although under ongoing scrutiny, a Texas clinic (run by Stanislaw Burzynski)
continues to treat many afflicted with terminal cancer. After 20 years
of testing and more than 3000 patient trials, anti-neoplastons have emerged
as a means of confronting some types of cancer. Dr. Burzynski explains
that anti-neoplastons, small peptide and amino acid derivatives, regulate
the cancer process through gene manipulation.
Reducing a remarkably complex disease to one of simplistic nature, cancer
occurs when genes that regulate cell growth become dysfunctional. For
example, oncogenes (genes involved in cell growth) and tumor suppressor
genes (genes that turn off replicative mechanisms) lose their biological
control. With cell division up-regulated and tumor suppressor activity
down-regulated, cancer takes control. Antineoplastons, the core of the
Burzynski program, reestablish cellular control by reducing rampant cell
division and activating a tumor suppressor gene. With the cells' replicative
patterns restored, the tumor typically shrinks and (in some cases) dies.
ras Oncogenes are involved in the genesis of approximately 40% of all
cancers. The simplest anti-neoplaston (phenylacetate) is capable of turning
off the signal sent by ras oncogenes, curtailing the constant multiplication
of malignant cells. It appears phenylacetate also regulates the activity
of p53, a tumor suppressor gene (Bland et al.1998) (please refer to the
protocol on Cancer Treatment: The
Critical Factors to learn more about Ras oncogenes, as well as tumor
suppressor genes). Unlike traditional cancer therapies that kill both
healthy and diseased cells, antineoplastons have no significant side effects.
The intent of antineoplastons is not to poison the cell, but rather to
restore genetic awareness, normalizing cell growth. Natural medicine aims
to treat the cause of the disease, not the result; this is the precise
logic behind anti-neoplaston therapy.
The Burzynski protocol is safely given to patients 24 hours a day. The
therapy is delivered intravenously through a catheter inserted in a central
venous line. A pump infuses the medications at scheduled intervals, with
the dose and dosing schedule dependent upon the type of cancer. The pump
and the therapy bags are small and light enough to be carried around by
even a young child. The length of treatment depends on the patient's response.
When patients achieve a complete response of long duration, IV therapy
is discontinued and the therapy is then administered in capsule form for
an additional 8-12 months.
Dr. Burzynski (of international renown) has particular success with non-Hodgkin's
lymphoma, as well as two brain cancers: glioblastoma multiforme and astrocytoma,
both extremely difficult to control using conventional therapy. Patients
with brain tumors had a rate of survival and complete and partial remissions
7 times greater than successes recorded to surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy.
As an example, a clinical trial of mixed glioma showed that half of the
patients responded to anti-neoplastons. Patients had to have at least
a 50% reduction in the size of their tumors to count as responders. Twenty-five
percent of those patients had their tumor disappear completely although
conventional chemotherapy is virtually useless against this type of cancer
(Mouscher 1997).
Although many patients attest to their good health because of anti-neoplaston
therapy, Dr. Burzynski has been forced to engage the FDA and the Texas
Medical Society, as well as the American Cancer Society and the National
Cancer Institute. Because of the politics of medicine, nontraditional
oncologists face an ongoing struggle to prove their professional and personal
worth.
BURZYNSKI CLINIC
9432 Old Katy Rd., Suite 200
Houston, TX 77055
(713) 335-5697 or (713) 335-5699
GONZALEZ CANCER THERAPY
Proteolytic Enzymes--Diet, Supplements,
and Detoxification
The following overview of the Gonzalez nutritional/metabolic program should
not be interpreted as a complete account of the therapy, nor as a pattern
for treatment. Cancer is a deadly disease; without professional guidance,
the odds favor treatment failure.
Various scientists/physicians have devoted the entirety of their professional
careers searching for nontoxic solutions to cancer. Instead of being heralded
for their incredible commitment and personal sacrifice, accusations have
often been threatening and accusing. Individuals of lesser stature would
have abandoned their vision, but a medical martyr stays the course. Dr.
Nicholas Gonzalez, a graduate of Cornell Medical College with postgraduate
training at Vanderbilt University, has (after countless personal attacks)
emerged on stronger footing than at any time in his committed career.
The once castigated oncologist is now in demand, and doctors at one time
hostile to his treatment (on occasion) refer patients and family members
for his help.
Dr. Gonzalez shares his concept of treating cancer with several pioneers,
that is, Robert Beard (a Scottish embryologist), Francis Marion Pottenger
(who in 1919 authored Symptoms of Visceral Disease, a landmark
contribution describing the activities of the autonomic nervous system),
and William Donald Kelley, a Texas orthodontist who (using Beard/Pottenger
logic) developed a remarkably successful nutritional and metabolic approach
to treat cancer. Kelley treated himself for undiagnosed pancreatic cancer
and 20 years hence was applying the same principles, caring for hundreds
of terminally ill patients.
Dr. Gonzalez, inherently interested in the nutrition/cancer link, was
invited to investigate Dr. Kelley's files. Perusing the case histories
of more than 1000 patients and contacting scores of those numbers, Dr.
Gonzalez discovered that hundreds of patients (with terminal disease)
were alive 5, 10, and 15 years following diagnosis.
The men (Kelley and Gonzalez) were at opposite ends of their careers.
Kelley's work had not been accepted by orthodoxy; in fact the therapy
was denounced by the American Cancer Society and put on the unproven-methods
blacklist. Constantly castigated, stripped of his license, and weary,
he renounced his practice and fled Texas. Dr. Gonzalez, young and bedecked
with impeccable credentials (merits Kelley lacked), enthusiastically opened
his own office in Manhattan in the late 1980s.
Dr. Gonzalez and Dr. Linda Isaacs (a co-physician), wanting to validate
the therapy, compared the outcome of 11 of their patients with inoperable
Stage II-IV pancreatic adenocarcinoma to similar patients, who were treated
with conventional therapies. Typically, only about 20% of patients with
pancreatic cancer survive 1 year, with statistics dropping dramatically
thereafter. In a trial using gemcitabine, a costly and debilitating drug,
of 126 subjects, not a single patient lived longer than 19 months.
Patients adhering to the Gonzalez program responded far better, and in
1999 he and Isaacs published their data in the peer-reviewed journal Nutrition
Cancer (Gonzalez et al. 1999). Although the numbers involved in the study
were small, the results were unmistakably impressive: 9 survived 1 year;
5 lived 2 years; 4 survived 3 years; 2 lived 4 years; and 1 survived almost
5 years.
The strength of the Gonzalez/Isaacs study led to a large-scale NCI/NIH
funded clinical trial (a 5-year $l.4-million study) conducted by the Columbia
Presbyterian Medical Center. This study will compare the effectiveness
of a nutritional approach against gemcitabine in patients with advanced
pancreatic cancer. The study has full FDA, IND (Investigational New Drug)
approval. Half of the participants will receive the best drugs and hospital
care available and will be treated by Dr. John Chabot, chief of surgical
oncology at Columbia. The others will be placed on the nutritional/metabolic
regime and supervised by Drs. Gonzalez and Isaacs. Patients are allowed
to choose which treatment they prefer (natural or conventional), but to
date it has been difficult to interest patients in enrolling in the chemotherapeutic
group: 200 patients inquired and 197 refused the 50% chance of randomization
to the chemotherapy arm.
A nutritional/metabolic approach to treating cancer is nontoxic and (though
rigorous) does not compare to the stress of conventional compliance. The
Gonzalez program requires an aggressive number of daily supplements (130-160
capsules). The pancreatic enzymes (central to the treatment), vitamins,
minerals, amino acids, and antioxidants are normally taken for 15 days,
then flushed from the system for 5 days, and then started anew.
Coffee enemas, liver flushes, and a whole-body purge with psyllium husks,
which Dr. Gonzalez calls "the clean sweep," are essential to
the success of the program. It appears that critics have singled out the
coffee enemas as the area of greatest contention. Dr. Gonzalez depends
upon coffee enemas (detoxification) to assist the body in processing enormous
amounts of toxic debris that can be produced as tumors break down. Few
are aware that from 1899-1977 coffee enemas were included in the Merck
Manual, a compendium of orthodox research techniques. Coffee enemas were
not removed from the Manual because of their ineffectiveness, but rather
to make room for newer material.
One of the many nutritional therapies utilized by Dr. Gonzalez is proteolytic
enzymes. Scientific and clinical studies corroborate the benefits of enzymes
in the maintenance of good health and the management of age-related frailties.
For example, researchers in Austria found that enzymes help maintain healthy
levels of transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-beta). TGF-beta plays an
important role in the body's ability to repair and heal itself, but excessive
levels of TGF-beta, trigger abnormal growths that can give rise to cancer.
Drs. Lucia Desser (Institute for Cancer Research, University of Vienna)
and Karl Ransberger (Mucos Pharma, Munich, Germany) studied the effect
of enzymes on TGF-beta, and found that pancreatic enzymes consistently
brought levels back into the normal range (Blobe et al. 2000).
Proteolytic enzymes also reduce the stickiness of cancer cells and the
progression of metastasis. The sticky nature of cancer is thought to be
initiated by an enzyme deficiency, resulting in excessive fibrin production,
a protein having the nature of barbed wire. Fibrin performs another task
that strongly favors the tumor. As fibrin forms on the tumor cell membrane,
it cloaks the tumor in a protective barrier, making tumor recognition
extremely difficult.
The close relationship between fibrin deposits, invasive tissue growth,
and metastasis is well-documented and generally accepted. For example,
the European Journal of Cancer reported on the adhesiveness of
cancer cells in the article "No Grip, No Growth" (Reijerkerk
et al. 2000). Overcoming the inherent traits of cancer (cell adhesion
or stickiness, migration, proliferation, and survival) are functions specific
to proteolytic enzymes.
Proteolytic enzymes are powerful anti-inflammatories (Maurer 2001). The
Life Extension Foundation has been deliberate, instructing members that
systemic inflammation is instrumental in initiating most cancers. The
endothelium of tissue displaying inflammatory alterations (a thickened
layer of adhesion molecules) is a site for metastasis. As proteolytic
enzymes reduce inflammation, the risk of metastasis is further reduced.
The literature (largely) shows that proteolytic enzyme therapy extends
survival (from months to years) in patients with both blood borne and
solid tumors (Golaszewski et al. 1997; Lokshina et al. 1993).
Dr. Gonzalez accepts post-chemotherapy patients, but the nutritional/metabolic
program is not implemented in tandem with other treatments. For further
information or to determine eligibility for a trial, contact Michelle
Gabay, R.N., at (212) 305-9468 or visit the Gonzalez
Web site. Dr. Gonzalez treats all types of cancers; pancreatic cancer
was selected for ongoing clinical trials because of the poor survival
rate of patients with this malignancy.
RADIOFREQUENCY ABLATION (RFA)
High-frequency electric current is being used to heat tumors from within
(Gazelle et al. 2000). In cardiology, high-frequency radio waves have
been used for decades to ablate cardiac nerves in patients with dangerous
heart rhythms that resisted drug therapy. The concept segued into oncology
with radiofrequency ablation (RFA) initially used to provide palliative
relief to inoperable, terminal patients, particularly those with liver
cancer (Branda et al. 2003).
But momentum is growing for this technique, and the therapeutic focus
is changing. So strong are the prospects for RFA that this pioneering
treatment appears (according to researchers) to have the potential to
replace both surgery and radiation therapy. Because of its therapeutic
value and cost effectiveness, along with its noninvasive, low-risk profile,
RFA has the attention of both physicians and patients. The National Institutes
of Health consider RFA the most predictable, safest, and simplest method
for thermal ablation in bone, liver, kidney, prostate, breast, and brain
cancers.
Using open MRI, doctors gain access to the tumor through a needle puncture,
a process requiring no surgery. Using specially designed titanium or stainless
steel instruments, doctors are directed by the MRI image to the site of
malignancy. A titanium electrode is guided to the tumor and enough heat
is generated (just below the boiling point) to kill the cancerous cells.
After 10-12 minutes of continuous contact with the tumor tissue, the radiofrequency
energy "ablates" a sphere of 1-2 inches. By "ablating"
adjacent spheres, larger tumors can be treated.
Dr. Jonathan Lewin, director of magnetic resonance imaging at University
Hospitals of Cleveland, says that tumorous areas that earlier appeared
white are now black, a black hole of dead tumor tissue. It is immediately
possible to determine the amount of tumor destruction and to plan treatments
(should additional treatment be necessary). The dead cells are not removed,
but become scar tissue and eventually shrink. The procedure is done under
local anesthesia, with minimal discomfort to patients. There are no cumulative
dose effects as with radiation therapy, so patients can be treated repeatedly
if the cancer returns to other sites. Hospitalization is usually limited
to several hours rather than days.
Dr. Patrick Sewell (University of Mississippi Medical Center) performed
this procedure on nine lung cancer patients in China, ranging in age from
38-78 years. Five had primary tumors, two had primary lung tumors with
metastasis, and two had metastasized cancer that had spread to the lungs
from other locations. When the PET scans came back (3 days following treatment),
all tumors had been killed (Sewell 2000).
At the 85th Annual Meeting of the Radiological Society of North America
(Chicago), Dr. Tito Livraghi of Vimercate Hospital (Italy) presented the
results of a study designed to evaluate the efficacy of RFA in breast
cancer-to-liver metastasis. The study consisted of 15 lesions in 10 patients
(mean age 51 years). Eight of the patients had progressive metastatic
disease following chemotherapy; two patients with hepatic metastasis had
not undergone chemotherapy.
Following RFA, the value of the treatment was assessed by biphasic helical
computed tomography (CT) performed at 4-month intervals. Complete necrosis
was obtained in 14 out of 15 lesions (93%). Follow-up imaging studies
(at 4-30 months) were unable to detect a recurrence in any of the 14 lesions.
Four patients have remained disease free; five (later) have developed
new hepatic and/or extra-hepatic metastasis; and one has died with diffuse
metastasis. RFA resulted in no treatment-induced complications (Pullen
1999).
Early results (from an NIH Clinical Center Study) look promising for
the use of RF energy in patients with certain kidney and adrenal tumors
(Zagoria 2003; Wood et al. 2003). Of 18 kidney tumors treated, 13 (72%)
showed no x-ray evidence of residual tumors immediately following treatment.
One patient remains cancer-free 2 years following treatment. In a related
NIH study involving adrenal gland tumors, 7 of 11 tumors (64%) showed
no active disease following RFA. Though the remaining 36% of patients
had evidence of residual tumors on follow-up imaging, all patients treated
had x-ray confirmation that most of the targeted tumor was killed by treatment
(Gervais et al. 2000).
Dr. Steven Curley (University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center)
says that within a 12-month timeframe more data will be available to physicians
and patients. But in the interim, Dr. Curley says that inoperable colorectal
patients have enjoyed a 3-year survival using RFA. In some cases, RFA
is sufficient in itself; for those less fortunate, the process buys the
immeasurable gift of time. With the advent of integrated medicine, groundbreaking
finds are stockpiling. It is felt that scientists are significantly advancing
on this dread disease, and a 3-year reprieve could "just make the
difference."
M.D. Anderson Cancer Center
Houston, Texas
Telephone: (713) 792-2121
University Hospitals of Cleveland
Cleveland, Ohio
Telephone: (216) 844-1000
SUMMARY
Although it would be wholly inappropriate for the Life Extension Foundation
to steer individuals in decisions of omission or commission regarding
therapies, it would be equally improper to shun responsibility. Because
we are challenged by a professional and moral commitment to assist in
overcoming appalling statistics, we have discussed some controversial
issues in this protocol.
Cancer treatment has always resulted in a political battle, even within
the confines of conventional medicine. Surgeons, for instance, strongly
endorse surgical removal of the tumor(s), although radiologists often
recommend various forms of radiotherapy to kill cancer cells. Medical
oncologists, on the other hand, are proponents of chemotherapy, immune-augmentative,
and hormone modulation therapies. In many cases, a particular type of
cancer may warrant utilization of all conventional therapies, that is,
surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy.
When it comes to alternative approaches, there are a wide variety of
choices that can be accessed on the Internet. The challenge is separating
the hype from credible science. The difficulty in achieving control over
many forms of cancer has enabled inexperienced practitioners to flourish.
Conventional oncology has long criticized the efficacy of alternative
methods. The irony is that the treatments offered at mainstream cancer
centers provide little hope for those afflicted with the most deadly cancers.
Until a cure is found, there will be a constant political and scientific
struggle to capture the attention and gain financially from the 1.3 million
Americans who are diagnosed with cancer each year.
The purpose of this protocol is to provide options that would not normally
be offered by practicing oncologists. These various alternative therapies
raise many issues that are subject to change as new data emerges. Patients
are encouraged to check www.lefcancer.org
for updated information about reported successes or failures of treatments
offered by alternative cancer clinics.
It is important that cancer patients also read the protocols in this
book titled Cancer Adjuvant Therapies
and Cancer Treatment: The Critical
Factors to learn about other potential treatment strategies.
STAYING INFORMED
The information published in this protocol is only as current as the
day the manuscript was sent to the printer. This protocol raises many
issues that are subject to change as new data emerge. Furthermore, cancer
is still a disease with unacceptably high mortality rates, and none of
our suggested regimens can guarantee a cure.
The Life Extension Foundation is constantly uncovering information to
provide to cancer patients. A special website has been established for
the purpose of updating patients on new findings that directly pertain
to the published cancer protocols. Whenever Life Extension discovers information
that may benefit cancer patients, it will be posted on the website www.lefcancer.org.
Before utilizing this cancer protocol, we suggest that you log on to
www.lefcancer.org to see if any
substantive changes have been made to the recommendations described herein.
Based on the sheer number of newly published findings, there could be
significant alterations to the information you have just read.
|