Wednesday, July 18, 2012

What Is Cancer?

   Instead of the usual blog here on MedTruth I want  to call your attention to a new paper (manuscript) I have recently published on a new, actually revolutionary, theory on cancer, What Is Cancer?, defining cancer as a normal body process which serves to "protect" the body from perhaps the most devastating environmental threat imposed on it during a person's lifetime.  This environmental threat translates into tissue and organ damage--culminating in such disorders as heart attacks, diabetes and neurodegenerative diseases--aging (senescence) and cellular and whole-body mortallity (death).  This fundamental threat from the environment is the development of oxidative stress--resulting from the oxygen environment in which we live and our oxygen-based metabolism.

   In 1931 Otto Warburg received the Nobel Prize for his demonstration that cancer cells utilize a process known as glycolysis as their chief means of energy production, rather than the more energy-efficient oxidative respiration, as in normal cells.  The present paper, What Is Cancer?, proposes that glycolysis serves a much more vital and deep-seated process to the overall integrity--and, paradoxically, downfall--of the body.  In the present paper it is proposed that the basic "defect" of cancer is not glycolysis in cancer cells but a metabolic "shift" to enhanced  glycolysis in normal cells, and that therapy of this "shift" in normal cells may constitute an effective treatment for cancer.

   What Is Cancer? is published on the Internet by the author to secure wide dissemination in the professional and lay medical community and can be accessed at:  Those with scientific or medical training and/or inclincation should find little difficulty in comprehending its contents.

Tuesday, June 5, 2012

Cancer scammery (again!)

   MedTruth is a commentary on truth in medicine and the current--May/June 2012--Newsletter of the Syracuse (NY) Cancer Research Institute lends itself well to illustrating the frequent lack of truth promulgated to the public especially in the field of cancer and especially as concerns hydrazine sulfate, which has been discussed previously.  Accordingly, this Newletter is presented in toto.

                                                                                          May/June 2012

Dear Friend,

   Syracuse has been one of the spots in the nation that has enjoyed unusually warm conditions this winter.  Characteristically the snowiest major city in the United States, we have enjoyed sunny, spring-like weather throughout the winter with less than one-fifth the normal amount of snow.  And with the approach of summer we all look forward with expectation  to a continuation of those conditions that not only warm the body, but the soul.

   Today I want to discuss with you an important question, one that frequently comes up and that can have great importance in our personal health and the health of the people we love.

   The frequent question pertains to the work of the Syracuse Cancer Research Institute, the institute's development of the cancer drug hydrazine sulfate, which has been the subject of previous Newsletters and which controlled clinical trials performed in accordance with internationally accepted criteria have shown, without exception, to be efficacious and safe.

   The question is: If hydrazine sulfate were such a good drug, why does the medical profession in general discourage its use?  This is a most important question, especially since the incidence of cancer increases as we get older.  That is, as we progress in life, the chances that we ourselves--our families, our friends and loved ones--acquire this disease become ever greater.

   There are answers to this question.  Direct answers.  Challenging fallacious statements of the  National Cancer Institute: "There are no randomized clinical trials demonstrating anticancer activity of hydrazine sulfate."  Challenging the patient-confusing statements of trusted physicians: "If hydrazine sulfate were any good, don't you think we would be using it?"  But minds cannot seem to override these fallacious statements, no matter how they are shown to be untrue.

  I want to acquaint you with a "60 Minutes" broadcast several Sundays ago.  The broadcast concerned the work of the Nevins laboratory of Duke University Cancer Center--and one of the most substantial advances in cancer medicine ever made.  Considered one of the outstanding cancer laboratories in the world, the Nevins laboratory had recently reported breakthrough methodology whereby it became possible to "decode" the genetic makeup of each individual's cancerous tumor with the promise and hope of curing each patient of this disease.  This advance excited a large segment of those engaged in cancer research and in particular received the endorsement of our country's National Cancer Institute, the largest cancer agency in the world.  Many of the involved scientists, including some in the NCI itself, applied for patents regarding one aspect or another of this new discovery, with the understanding that not millions--but billions--of dollars could be individually forthcoming.  The potential importance of the Duke University findings was repeated at every opportunity to the American people by scientists and administrators alike at all echelons in this cancer center as well as at leading cancer organizations around the United States.  This "recitation" and "reiteration" was not the bottom of the cancer establishment talking--it was the very top.  The most authoritative and valid.  And therefore the most ethically credible.

   The only trouble was that other cancer centers were having trouble reduplicating the Duke findings.  No matter what their reputation, no matter the expertise of their individual scientists, word was beginning to get around that the Duke findings were "erroneous."  The National Cancer Institute decided to finally settle the matter by launching a detailed investigation into the data.  After careful study of these data, the NCI declared the Duke findings to be totally valid.

   However, there was continued grumbling about these findings.  Other laboratories were still not able to reduplicate them.  Finally an article appeared in a small scientific monthly, giving words to the rumor that was beginning to circulate that the reason behind other laboratories having difficulties in redupicating the Duke findings was because, as some scientists were alleging, the input data were fraudulent.  That is, not true.  Made up.  The NCI, which had just investigated the Duke findings, vigorously denied this.

   But once the ice had been broken, other laboratories, other scientists joined the increasing chorus of those not only alleging fraud, but actually pointing out specific places where the data were falsified.  Able to stand this increasing chorus no longer, the Duke University scientists responsible for these data admitted that the whole study was bogus.  Fiction.  That the data were totally false, that they were aware of the vast amounts of money to be gained by a positive study.  The NCI was naturally embarrassed--for no one could be sure whether the institution was merely incompetent or it and its offficials were also in on the "take."

   It is to be stressed that the Duke data were not merely a "mistake."  They were fictitious.  The Duke scientists and their NCI cohorts were engaged in a hoax--from the start--for reasons of money.  And it was the very top, the most prestigious, the most honorable of the cancer establishment that was willing to trade lives for dollars.  To allege progress in cancer treatment--when there was none--to lie at the expense of human life.

   If these same people--the very leaders of our cancer programs--are willing to lie about a fictitious cancer drug/procedure that can make them a lot of money, when they know it is entirely fraudulent,would they not also be willing to lie about a genuine, inexpensive drug they know is effective--but cannot make them any money?  Even though so doing would or could cost cancer patients their lives?  That is the question you must decide.

   But that's not all.

   The deception by our government and trusted physicians extends yet deeper.  There was another broadcast aired several weeks ago.  This was an NBC Dateline expose about how drug companies test many of  their drugs, including cancer drugs.  And it's not here in the United States.  It's in countries where the costs of human testing are much smaller.  And it's not under FDA auspices.  Dateline commissioned an Indian company to test a drug given a phony name, similar to one that had been recalled in the United States because of its great toxicity, including deaths--and was able to show  that the Indian pharmaceutical company that elected to test it did in fact learn of the drug's toxicity but still assured the NBC "drug executives" that they could get it through the FDA and no one would be the wiser.  The Dateline staff then revealed they were not a pharmaceutical company and that the drug under consideration was one already recalled in the U.S. because of its toxicity.  Whereupon the NBC journalists were forcibly held prisoners (shown by Dateline hidden cameras) in company headquarters for five hours and subsequently released.  Our FDA commented that too many drugs were tested in outside companies like this and many of them managed to navigate FDA hurdles and become successfully marketed in the United States.

   I hope what I've written here might help save your life--if you or your family or friends or loved ones become ill with cancer.  Upon making an inquiry of the possible merit of hydrazine sulfate in your loved one's case, should you learn that the medical profession actually discourages the use of this drug, know also there's another side of the mirror.  The very same people who are doing the discouraging--because there's no money in it for them--are the ones doing the encouraging when it comes to expensive, relatively ineffective--even fraudulent--drugs and procedures they've developed, because there's a mountain of money in it for them.  Know their intent--to dissuade you from a drug demonstrated by internationally accepted controlled clinical trials as effective and safe--emanates from the same sewer levels of the cancer establishment as--in the "60 Minutes" broadcast--the worst cases of cancer fraud.

   And please realize also that the safety of all, especially new, drugs must be questioned, since the FDA does not have as tight control over drug safety and efficacy as generally considered.

   If you think this Newsletter has been of help to you, we are hopeful you might respond in kind.  This year we must ask a special favor of you.  Not only your continued assistance--it has made the restoration of many lives possible.  But a gift of special consideration.  We must all provide for our families.  For our health.  For our children and their education.  For our communities.  For our special projects and undertakings that have loomed important to us.  But short of those many of us find ourselves fortunate to be able to extend ourselves in unexpected directions.  To our friends, to our loved ones.  To strangers.  To be part of the human condition.  Today we ask your special consideration in extending the circle of your life to include the institute.  We are greatly in need of funds to continue our important work.  Your substantive gift at this time can make a great difference in our ability to deliver our life-sustaining programs and help enable us to extend the bridge of life to all who may be in need.

   With best wishes for the upcoming summer season.


                                                                                            Joseph Gold, M,D.

Please visit us at:

Syracuse Cancer Research Institute
600 East Genesee Street
Syracuse, NY 13202