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: www.thepathogenesisofcancer.com. Those with scientific or medical training and/or inclincation should find little difficulty in comprehending its contents.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
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.
Sincerely
Joseph Gold, M,D.
Director
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.
Sincerely
Joseph Gold, M,D.
Director
Please visit us at: scri.ngen.com
Syracuse Cancer Research Institute
600 East Genesee Street
Syracuse, NY 13202
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
OUTRAGEOUS CANCER INSTITUTE
“If people knew what we’re planning....”
“They’d think it outrageous!”
“By the way,” he said to his boss, “how’d this place get that funny name?”
“Because everything we do,” Marvin Dairywhimple replied, “our critics say is outrageous.” A crooked smile crossed his face. “So at first we replied, ‘You’re right, everything we do is outrageous.’ And just to lampoon them we further stated, ‘If you want to be treated for cancer, go to all those snake-oil salesmen with their roots and nostrums and see how far you get. If you want anything that’s effective—you’ll have to come to us: the “outrageous” ones.’ So we became known as the Outrageous Cancer Institute—the ‘OCI.’ Even Congress recognizes us. We’ve become the largest cancer institute in America, the most important in the world!”
Dexter Weinblut, deputy Director of Outrageous, regarded his boss. “But, Marv,” he said with a hint of rectitude, “we just can’t go through with this. This might be an effective drug!”
"And an inexpensive one! Remember, all our money comes from the fact that cancer drugs are expensive! The pharmaceutical companies that fund our programs! The people who stand up and volunteer hundreds of millions every year! The academic community that runs our protocols! Even the hick members of Congress who want to start giving us public funds!”
“But Marv, if they ever catch wind of—”
“They won’t! By the time we’re through with ‘blueberry lincture,’ they won’t want to hear those two words again!
“And that goes for the Boom-Bay Cancer Institute!” Dairywhimple asserted.
“But, Boss. They’re a legitimate cancer institute—even though they’re tiny. What’s wrong with them?”
“They’re the ones that developed ‘blueberry lincture,’ you idiot. Do you want the public to begin thinking that a small institute located on an obscure lagoon in Michigan has developed a cancer drug—from blueberries of all things—that is eclipsing our work, when Congress is getting ready to shell big bucks out of its pockets for us?”
“But, Marv. It’s a legitimate drug. A phtheric alcohol extract fraction of blueberry skin, I’m told.”
“Yes, and it works! We’ve already tested it in mice. But if the news gets out—a small institute on a small budget coming up with the first drug that’s useful against all cancers—it’ll wreck our cancer program. Our institute will really become ‘Outrageous.’ We won’t get any big money from Congress. We won’t be the national leader of cancer research anymore. And we won’t be the world’s clinical headquarters of cancer treatment.
“And besides,” Marvin Dairywhimple heaved his chest. “What if blueberry lincture achieves nationwide clinical testing—where does that leave us?”
Dexter Weinblut watched the expression of sudden revelation enter his boss’ face. “Yes…” Dairywhimple breathed. “What if blueberry lincture achieves nationwide testing—and fails?”
“Boss, we couldn’t....”
“We could!”
“We’d never get away with it!”
“Won’t we?” The misshapen smile returned to Dairywhimple’s face.
“Dexter. I want you to put out a bulletin on blueberry lincture. Say we recognize it is promising—say something nice about Boom-Bay in Michigan. Say we think the drug’s so promising, we’re going to sponsor nationwide testing of it—to confirm its effectiveness and safety. And say if it’s effective, we’ll be looking for a pharmaceutical partner to make it available to the world. And then get me Gardner Crookshank on the phone!”
“Crookshank!—But he’s head of the Creme-Cone Cancer Center. That’s where we send all our studies when we want them to come out negative!” The oblique smile became pronounced on Dairywhimple’s face.
“Yes, isn’t it, Dexter…. Sometimes I’m amazed at your lack of vision.”
“Boss…you’re a genius!”
“So why did you want to meet me here?”
He watched the hundreds of people milling about the indoor promenade. “Because at the Fifth European Congress of Cancer Therapeutics, no one would think it unusual seeing us together.”
“All the way in London?”
“So much the better,” Dairywhimple replied. “There’s a pub nearby. Let’s go grab something.”
The two were seated at an old-fashioned wooden booth, a matching, highly varnished table between them. Two glasses of sparkling amber liquid occupied its shiny surface.
“Mmm. This beer tastes good,” Crookshank said. “Different. You know you’re on the continent.”
“Have you thought over my proposition?”
“Yeah, Marv. I have. I don’t mind accommodating you, but it’s risky. Risky business. For me, that is. What’s in it for me? For Creme-Cone? We’re one of the most reputable cancer centers in the country. Cutting edge research, clinical programs unmatched by any other—”
“You know as well as I,” Dairywhimple interjected, “if blueberry lincture makes it, we’re all finished! Our country’s cancer leadership—the big fund raisers—Congress—will all think that all it takes is one organization—even a small one—with one idea—to come up with a drug that is effective against all kinds of cancer—and at every stage! What will they need us for? We’ll be scientific dinosaurs. We’ll go out of existence!”
Crookshank looked straight ahead, his eyes focused beyond the figure of his companion. “Yes,” he muttered. “I suppose you’re right.”
“Our cancer hospitals,” Dairywhimple pronounced. “Our cancer centers. Our cancer programs. The respect people accord us. All gone!”
“Don’t forget the funds.”
“Yes…the moneys.”
“Marvin, your face is too long. Remember, we’ve been there before. All those other alternative medications and treatments—”
“Yes, but this one’s different. The science behind it is impeccable!
“Even people like Dexter, they know it’s—”
“Effective?” Crookshank lifted his gaze directly to Dairywhimple’s face. “Some of the others had good science, too. Where are they now? But assure Dexter—and others of his ilk—our programs are always coming up with new, effective drugs….”
The two emptied their glasses. “Well,” Dairywhimple said, “what do you say we go back to the meetings?” A distorted smile occupied his face.
“We can’t do that,” Dexter remarked, his voice approaching self-righteousness.
“Yes, we can and we will. Thiotonizone is our best anti-emetic. We use it in all our studies—prevents vomiting.”
“Yes, but blueberry lincture doesn’t produce vomiting.”
“Doesn’t matter. The disease itself produces vomiting. It’s so common, it’s known as ‘Tony.’ It’s used in the emergency rooms to treat food poisoning. People have it in their medicine cabinets....”
“Boss, blueberry lincture is a triethylamine reductase inhibitor—a TEAR inhibitor. And ‘Tony’ is incompatible with TEAR inhibitors. The pharmacology textbooks—over the last thirty years—all say that the two together are a ‘clinical hazard.’”
“Look, everybody knows that ‘Tony’ is the mildest of sedatives. And besides, we’ll challenge that blueberry lincture is a TEAR inhibitor—”
“But the pharmacology textbooks all say—”
“Damn the pharmacology textbooks! We’ll say they’re wrong! Who should know better, the writers of those stale chapters of the last century—or the most highly regarded contemporary experts of today—” The crafty smile returned to his face. “Who happen to be on our staff?”
“But, Boss. The Informed Consent Form that each patient is required to sign. We’ve got to put down somewhere in it that the use of blueberry lincture and 'Tony' together may cause sickness—even death.”
“What are you talking about?”
“That a TEAR inhibitor plus ‘Tony’—or any sedative—may result in morbidity or mortality!”
“A TEAR inhibitor? What TEAR inhibitor?”
“But, Boss, they’ll die….”
“They’ll die anyway.”
She sat on the couch, across the way from him, the open sheet of paper dangling in his hand. The letterhead on the paper said, “Chicago Northwest Medical University,” the address block: “Adam Mohr, M.D., Ph.D., Distinguished Professor of Experimental Oncology.”
“I can’t understand it,” the woman was saying. “They actively campaigned—for over a year—to get you here. They just can’t fire you!”
“Oh yes they can!” His eyes scanned the computer-written page once again, as the woman had before him. “Dear Dr. Mohr,” the page had cryptically read, “the Division of Experimental Studies, which you chair, by action of the Trustees, has been abolished commencing immediately. We regretfully have to ask your departure from your post at your earliest convenience, in that the funding for the Division’s activities has terminated. The faculty joins me in wishing you bonne chance in your search for a new position.” It was signed by Jerry Bernard Henry, Dean.
“I don’t have tenure here,” he said to his wife. “I was hired ‘at the behest’ of the Chancellor, like so many of the main people here at the university. And I can be fired the same way…but why?
“I don’t know…” he answered his own question. A look of sudden introspection came over him. He let his mind go to about three weeks previously. It was on the blueberry lincture study. They were accruing 57 patients in the 400-patient nationwide study sponsored by Outrageous and under the protocols of Creme-Cone. They were non-small cell lung cancer—NSCLC—patients. He had reviewed all their charts and noticed that a sub-group of early patients—23 in all—were beginning to do well until they were placed on thiotonizone—‘Tony.’ Hey, wait a minute! an inner voice reminded. Wasn’t blueberry lincture a triethylamine reductase—TEAR—inhibitor and wasn’t ‘Tony’ incompatible with that? He pulled those 23 patients off ‘Tony’ right away and they once again began to improve.
About three days later he was asked to see Dean Henry.
“Adam,” Jerry Henry had expressed, “do you have any idea why I’ve asked you to drop by?”
“No.”
“It’s that we’ve gone off protocol on part of the blueberry lincture study. By your doings. Creme-Cone and Outrageous have heard about it and they’re raising hell! To our Chancellor and Trustees. They know why you changed the protocol—you think blueberry lincture is a TEAR inhibitor and they want you to restore the protocol—to follow the original protocol as stated—with no changes!”
“But blueberry lincture is a TEAR inhibitor and adding ‘Tony’ to it will only make those patients die and make the study fail!”
“Not according to the experts they’ve assembled who all say to a person that the textbooks are wrong, blueberry lincture is NOT a TEAR inhibitor.”
“I don’t care what they say. The proof is in the pudding. Once I pulled these 23 off ‘Tony,’ they improved immediately. You don’t think I’m going to permit these patients to die and permit these studies to fail because blueberry lincture is cheap and a bunch of cocked-up, so-called academic scientists say that the lincture is not something that every book published on drug interactions in the world says that it is?”
“Adam, what we are threatened with is not only a loss of our major cancer grants but also a loss to our university’s largest bloc grants. I am going to have to insist that you adhere to the study’s original protocols.”
Adam Mohr sat facing his wife, no further word said between them. The page in his hand dropped to the floor, neither of the two figures bending to pick it up again.
“’Boom-Bay is beginning to raise Cain!”
“About their studies?”
“Yes,” Dexter answered. “They’re all positive.”
“But small,” Marvin Dairywhimple responded. “Thirty-six patients, 65, 44—not enough in all these to establish statistical validity. Too few patients to achieve any semblance of statistical significance. The only thing these studies show is statistical deficiency.”
“But, Boss, that’s not so. The studies are smaller than ours but statistically accurate. Our own statisticians can’t find anything wrong with them....”
“Maybe privately so,” Dairywhimple answered. “But did you know, The Journal of Biostatistical Applications is coming out with a paper—in a few weeks actually—that will blast the Boom-Bay studies out of the water!” The slanted smile once again appeared on Dairywhimple’s face. “Yes, the Journal will claim—in the strongest language—I’ve seen the proof sheets myself—that each of the studies was ‘too small’ to achieve statistical validity, ‘that the power to detect the treatment effect was statistically low, leading to “false-positive” results,’ and—get this—‘the biological reasons for believing in a treatment effect due to blueberry lincture are not compelling.’ The article ends by recommending: ‘the scientific community must remain skeptical of Boom-Bay’s results.’
“No, Dexter, I don’t think we’ve got anything to worry about in Boom-Bay’s studies.”
Dexter Weinblut looked at his boss’ face a long moment before continuing. “That’s not all,” he advised. “Boom-Bay has put out the word that all our studies are in violation of the Nuremberg Declaration!” He watched the slanted smile and all other expression disappear from his boss’ face.
“They’ve pointed out,” Weinblut continued, “that our country is a major signatory to this international ratification—that governs the conduct of all human biomedical research. You’ll remember that it’s an outgrowth of the Nuremberg War Trials—against the Nazis’ horrific ‘experimentations’ on helpless people—adopted to guarantee that no patient in a new study is harmed by the conduct and procedures of the study. As you know, every new study published in the medical literature is required to carry the statement: ‘Performed in conformity with the Nuremberg Declaration.’” Weinblut paused, allowing his boss to digest the news. “Boom-Bay states that our studies have violated the ‘generally accepted standards’ rule—Principle 1—of the Nuremberg Declaration. They spell it out: ‘Biomedical research involving human subjects must conform to generally accepted scientific principles and be based on a thorough knowledge of the scientific literature.’ Boom-Bay goes on to say our studies are using an incompatible agent—‘Tony’—in the presence of a TEAR inhibitor—blueberry lincture—and that never in the history of drug testing has an incompatible agent been used with a test drug—since the two together can sicken or kill patients and bring down a study."
Marvin Dairywhimple screwed up his face and addressed Dexter without heightened emotion.
“Hrrumphh! Well, we were expecting that—and it all rests on whether blueberry lincture is a triethylamine reductase inhibitor. A TEAR inhibitor. Our experts all insist it’s not. Many—not all—of the textbooks say it is. But they offer no proof. So it’s our word against theirs. As long as our scientific advisors maintain there is no incompatibility here, we have not violated any Declarations nor are our studies flawed....”
“It’s not that simple,” Dexter interjected. “Boom-Bay’s caused an Office of Scientific Assessment investigation of our studies.”
“I know. They’re in their seventh month. The government’s watchdog agency.”
“The lead investigator is Bob Doyle,” Weinblut supplied. “He’s a thirty-year veteran investigator of the OSA and I’m told he’s put together a hard-hitting Final Draft Report against us that’s soon to be published. I’m told he’s of the opinion—but doesn’t know for sure—that blueberry lincture is a TEAR inhibitor.”
“I know,” Dairywhimple repeated. “A 28-page diatribe—with a bad title: ‘Outrageous Studies Spur Continued Controversy Over Blueberry Lincture Therapy.’ The report says the issue of incompatibility of blueberry lincture and thiotonizone is not ‘settled.’ It says our studies are flawed.”
Weinblut eyed his boss cautiously, unaware of Dairywhimple’s apparent, thorough intimacy with the OSA report. “Maybe we can send a delegation to speak to Doyle,” he offered.
“That smart-ass’ll be removed.”
“What about his report?”
“It’s already being rewritten,” Dairywhimple replied, a look of self-satisfaction overspreading his features. “Its title: ‘Outrageous Studies of Blueberry Lincture Not Flawed.’”
Weinblut again eyed his boss, this time for a long moment. “There’s a fly in the ointment,” he said at last.
“What’s that?”
“I was speaking to some of my contacts at Human Services the other day and they told me the government’s quarterly, Alternative Medicine, will soon feature a report on blueberry lincture. I’m told its first sentence will be: ‘Blueberry lincture is a triethylamine reductase—TEAR—inhibitor.’”
“Yes,” Dairywhimple replied, his eyebrows rising. “I’ve heard about it too. In fact, I went to see Philip Grun, Assistant Secretary of Health Affairs. I explained to him that because of the confusion surrounding blueberry lincture, bringing out the article in Alternative Medicine at this time may result in more injury to the public health than in anything positive. He agreed. We agreed that the article will be put off until four years from the time the newly rewritten OSA report is issued.” Dairywhimple paused, then continued.
“By then, I will assure you, Dexter, no one will care whether blueberry lincture is a TEAR inhibitor or not.”
Weinblut sat motionless, stunned by his boss’ words. At last he spoke: “But Boss, if patients keep calling us—like they have—what are we supposed to say to them?”
“We’ll simply tell them that doctors get cancer too, that doctors’ families get cancer—don’t you think if blueberry lincture were any good we’d use it for our own selves?”
“But Boss. Boom-Bay says it receives about twenty calls a day from doctors—for their own selves….”
Dolores Jaynes sat before the expansive desk, awaiting word from the grey-haired, middle-aged gentleman seated behind, having met him for the first time a few weeks prior.
“I am afraid I have no good news for you, Mrs. Jaynes,” the middle-aged man spoke. “Your tests show the cancer has spread. To the bones and liver. There’s no curative treatment I can recommend, but we’ll use chemotherapy and radiation to try to slow it down.”
“Doctor,” she responded, “you know I’m a schoolteacher. I teach computer science. I’ve been on the Internet and reading a lot about something called blueberry lincture.”
She saw a frown immediately displace his previously pleasant expression.
“There are reports it could be very helpful in my condition. Without exerting serious side effects.”
“Yes, we’ve been hearing a lot about blueberry lincture lately,” the doctor agreed. “But I’m afraid I can’t recommend it to you.
“It’s been shown to be ineffective in nationwide tests sponsored by Outrageous Cancer Institute and under the direct conduct of Creme-Cone Cancer Center protocols. I suppose you know they’re the two leading cancer authorities in the world. I’d have to pay strict attention to their recommendations.”
“But there’s a controversy to those studies. There’re smaller studies showing the drug to be effective and safe.”
“I know, I know. Something about Outrageous using incompatible medications in a drug study. You don’t believe that, do you? The largest cancer institute in the world making such a basic mistake? Outrageous convened a panel of experts—who affirmed there were no irregularities whatsoever in its studies. I’d have to go with that.
“And those smaller studies,” he continued “—done by Boom-Bay Cancer Center in Michigan—a tiny cancer institute, really. Yes they were positive, but they were also too small to be conclusive. They did not achieve what is called statistical significance.” His face showed no emotion as he said, “I’m sorry, they’re clinically meaningless.”
“Did you read them, doctor?”
“Read them?” He looked toward the door leading to his office. “Take a look at the waiting room. All the patients. Waiting to see me. Think I have time—a morning or afternoon—to spend before a computer or in a medical library every week reading studies? No, I haven’t read them. In fact, I haven’t read a medical journal from cover to cover in years.”
“Then you don’t know the Outrageous/Creme-Cone studies are said to be in violation of the Nuremberg Declaration?”
“The what?”
“Nuremberg Declaration.”
“Look, Mrs. Jaynes. I never heard of the ‘Nuremberg Declaration!’ I don’t know what it is.” His expression was filled with genuine empathy. “I know what you’re going through. I see it with many of my patients. I’d like to recommend blueberry lincture to you, but we doctors—we can’t read all the studies. We’ve got to take the word of somebody. And the best authorities we know are Outrageous and Creme-Cone. They’re the very best in cancer. We’ve got to take their word for it. Even the government—the Office of Scientific Assessment—has done a months-long investigation of the Outrageous studies and found them not to be lacking and unflawed.”
“I still don’t believe that blueberry lincture can’t be helpful. Those smaller studies—that are not in violation of the Nuremberg Declaration—show it to be therapeutic for a number of cancers.”
The doctor leaned over to the patient and saw the tears welling up in her eyes as she prepared to leave. His heart went out to her, wondering what words he might express to erase any further thoughts of the medication on which she placed so much hope.
“Mrs. Jaynes,” his voice was kind. “We doctors get cancer, too. Our families get cancer. Don’t you think if blueberry lincture were any good, we’d use it for ourselves…?”
“Mrs. Jaynes,” his voice was kind. “We doctors get cancer, too. Our families get cancer. Don’t you think if blueberry lincture were any good, we’d use it for ourselves…?”
DON’T THINK THIS COULDN’T HAPPEN
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Are we winning the war against cancer?
Numerous bulletins to the public from time to time have announced our progress in the fight against cancer, advising of breakthroughs or significant inroads against this disease, in the form of new drugs and treatments, preventive measures, dietary updates, major discoveries and advances and financing. And much of the population has become involved in this fight. Such activities as the Race for the Cure and similar events have attracted hundreds of thousands nationwide to become personally involved in the ongoing endeavor to defeat this disease.
As a result it is felt by many that these activities, in combination with the frequent communiques that the incidence of one form or another of cancer was decreasing--was being trimmed--by major advances, that the "cure" was just around the corner, that we are on the verge of significantly silencing this ruthless killer.
But is this the case?
Unfortunately, it is not. In an investigative report to the public in the April 24, 2009, issue of The New York Times, respected science writer Gina Kolata reports that 'As Other Death Rates Fall, Cancer's Scarcely Moves.' In this article the author indicates that in the last 60 years, for example, the death rate--the number of deaths adjusted for population age and size--has plummeted for heart disease, stroke and other disease modalities. But for cancer it has hadly budged.
Kolata indicates the decrease in death rate for cancer in those 60 years is only 5 percent, compared to a decrease of 67 percent for heart disease in that same time.
But is death rate a credible measure of progress in cancer? Yes, researchers say. While death rates are not perfect, they are considered the most valid measure, used by the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute to assess progress in this disease.
But why?-- Why has there been virtually no progress in cancer death rates in the last half-century or more? Because of the lack of "transforming discoveries" in prevention and treatment, according to scientists quoted in this New York Times article. What is a "transforming discovery?" It is a major discovery capable of interdicting a disease or disease process. An example of a 'transforming discovery' in treatment would be the advent of insulin, whose discovery virtually normalized the lives of millions of diabetics the world over. A 'transforming discovery' in prevention would be the Salk polio vaccine, the first medical treatment which prevented the contraction of poliomyelitis in millions of people worldwide and brought this disease to a virtual standstill in every nation on earth. Transforming discoveries have the capacity to beneficially affect great portions of the population.
Have there been any 'transforming discoveries' in cancer? In order to have a transforming discovery, one has to first undertand the disease. In the case of cancer, we don't even know what cancer is. Is it a disease? Is it more than one disease? Is it caused by heredity? By diet? By viruses? Bacteria? DNA mutations? Environmental pollution? We don't know. And until we know--and can understand--we are not likely to come up with a 'transforming discovery.'
So which is correct? The constant barrage of promising new advances that are causing cancer mortality and incidence to decrease in the general population, that we are on the verge of curing major cancers? --Or that the death rate in cancer has virtually not improved in the last 50 years--i.e., since the advent of modern cancer treatment?
Have the messages meted out to the public by the cancer establishment--the cancer organizations, the pharmaceutical industry, the academic institutions, the medical news media--been misleading, evasive?
We must decide this. If we decide that the decades-long death rates in this disease have remained stationary, we must send a message to our cancer leadership: and that message must be that we will no longer be duped into believing significant progress is being made, when statistics show it is not. That we will no longer contribute our energies, our resouces or acceptance to another decade of pursuing the same tired, old methods in defeating this disease.
We must send a message to our cancer leadership that the reason the death rate in this disease has remained the same--is that obviously there is something wrong with the way we understand cancer. Something wrong in what our comprehension of this disease is. Something wrong perhaps with our equation of the tumor with cancer.
For the past half-century or more our attention has been focused on the tumor. But all attempts to treat the tumor--to kill the tumor and therefore wipe out the disease--have in general been futile. Cytotoxic chemotheray, the major weapon to defeat cancer in the last 50 years, has succeeded in killing cancer cells, but in killing normal cells, too, and has been itself a cause of cancer mortality. Even the newer methods of treating this disease, genetic, monoclonal (antibodies) and other recombinant therapies, are posing limitations due to drug resistance and major drug toxicity. Every "push" we have made against the cancer, the cancer has seemed to "push back" harder.
In the case of diabetes we have made a basic understanding that the clinical symptoms of this disease--which kill patients--are due to a basic lack of insulin. A lack of a hormonal agent that facilitates the entry of glucose into a cell. We did not make the mistake of thinking that in diabetes it was the cells themselves that were "resistant" to the entry of glucose. That there was some pathologic process inherent in the body's cellular makeup that caused the cells to resist the passage of glucose. We did not spend our nation's entire bankroll or direct our country's almost total research programs to "fixing" the cell so that it would admit glucose. The discovery of insulin was indeed a "transforming discovery."
We must now do the same with cancer. It is obvious that treatment of the"tumor" will bring us more of the same, as in the last 50 years. It is obvious that the "tumor" is but the endpoint of the cancerous process, that the "tumor" is not the same as "the cancer." It is obvious that what have 'led up' to the tumor--the biochemical processes that have "caused" the tumor--are the vulnerable aspects of cancer where drug therapy may indeed be effective in stopping or reversing the cancerous process. Until we can understand cancer on a more 'intimate' basis--its biochemical or metabolic underpinnings--a "transforming discovery" in this disease is not likely to occur.
When we can finally turn our attention to the reality that even though it is the "tumor" that kills, it is in an understanding of those processes that lead up to tumor formation--its metabolic and biochemical fundamentals--that the war on cancer will truly be won.
As a result it is felt by many that these activities, in combination with the frequent communiques that the incidence of one form or another of cancer was decreasing--was being trimmed--by major advances, that the "cure" was just around the corner, that we are on the verge of significantly silencing this ruthless killer.
But is this the case?
Unfortunately, it is not. In an investigative report to the public in the April 24, 2009, issue of The New York Times, respected science writer Gina Kolata reports that 'As Other Death Rates Fall, Cancer's Scarcely Moves.' In this article the author indicates that in the last 60 years, for example, the death rate--the number of deaths adjusted for population age and size--has plummeted for heart disease, stroke and other disease modalities. But for cancer it has hadly budged.
Kolata indicates the decrease in death rate for cancer in those 60 years is only 5 percent, compared to a decrease of 67 percent for heart disease in that same time.
But is death rate a credible measure of progress in cancer? Yes, researchers say. While death rates are not perfect, they are considered the most valid measure, used by the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute to assess progress in this disease.
But why?-- Why has there been virtually no progress in cancer death rates in the last half-century or more? Because of the lack of "transforming discoveries" in prevention and treatment, according to scientists quoted in this New York Times article. What is a "transforming discovery?" It is a major discovery capable of interdicting a disease or disease process. An example of a 'transforming discovery' in treatment would be the advent of insulin, whose discovery virtually normalized the lives of millions of diabetics the world over. A 'transforming discovery' in prevention would be the Salk polio vaccine, the first medical treatment which prevented the contraction of poliomyelitis in millions of people worldwide and brought this disease to a virtual standstill in every nation on earth. Transforming discoveries have the capacity to beneficially affect great portions of the population.
Have there been any 'transforming discoveries' in cancer? In order to have a transforming discovery, one has to first undertand the disease. In the case of cancer, we don't even know what cancer is. Is it a disease? Is it more than one disease? Is it caused by heredity? By diet? By viruses? Bacteria? DNA mutations? Environmental pollution? We don't know. And until we know--and can understand--we are not likely to come up with a 'transforming discovery.'
So which is correct? The constant barrage of promising new advances that are causing cancer mortality and incidence to decrease in the general population, that we are on the verge of curing major cancers? --Or that the death rate in cancer has virtually not improved in the last 50 years--i.e., since the advent of modern cancer treatment?
Have the messages meted out to the public by the cancer establishment--the cancer organizations, the pharmaceutical industry, the academic institutions, the medical news media--been misleading, evasive?
We must decide this. If we decide that the decades-long death rates in this disease have remained stationary, we must send a message to our cancer leadership: and that message must be that we will no longer be duped into believing significant progress is being made, when statistics show it is not. That we will no longer contribute our energies, our resouces or acceptance to another decade of pursuing the same tired, old methods in defeating this disease.
We must send a message to our cancer leadership that the reason the death rate in this disease has remained the same--is that obviously there is something wrong with the way we understand cancer. Something wrong in what our comprehension of this disease is. Something wrong perhaps with our equation of the tumor with cancer.
For the past half-century or more our attention has been focused on the tumor. But all attempts to treat the tumor--to kill the tumor and therefore wipe out the disease--have in general been futile. Cytotoxic chemotheray, the major weapon to defeat cancer in the last 50 years, has succeeded in killing cancer cells, but in killing normal cells, too, and has been itself a cause of cancer mortality. Even the newer methods of treating this disease, genetic, monoclonal (antibodies) and other recombinant therapies, are posing limitations due to drug resistance and major drug toxicity. Every "push" we have made against the cancer, the cancer has seemed to "push back" harder.
In the case of diabetes we have made a basic understanding that the clinical symptoms of this disease--which kill patients--are due to a basic lack of insulin. A lack of a hormonal agent that facilitates the entry of glucose into a cell. We did not make the mistake of thinking that in diabetes it was the cells themselves that were "resistant" to the entry of glucose. That there was some pathologic process inherent in the body's cellular makeup that caused the cells to resist the passage of glucose. We did not spend our nation's entire bankroll or direct our country's almost total research programs to "fixing" the cell so that it would admit glucose. The discovery of insulin was indeed a "transforming discovery."
We must now do the same with cancer. It is obvious that treatment of the"tumor" will bring us more of the same, as in the last 50 years. It is obvious that the "tumor" is but the endpoint of the cancerous process, that the "tumor" is not the same as "the cancer." It is obvious that what have 'led up' to the tumor--the biochemical processes that have "caused" the tumor--are the vulnerable aspects of cancer where drug therapy may indeed be effective in stopping or reversing the cancerous process. Until we can understand cancer on a more 'intimate' basis--its biochemical or metabolic underpinnings--a "transforming discovery" in this disease is not likely to occur.
When we can finally turn our attention to the reality that even though it is the "tumor" that kills, it is in an understanding of those processes that lead up to tumor formation--its metabolic and biochemical fundamentals--that the war on cancer will truly be won.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
SCRI Newsletter
Dear Readers,
It has been some time since a new entry has been placed on MedTruth, and this has been due to a new paper I have been writing for publication, "What Is Cancer?" This paper details a new causation for cancer and, based on this, new treatment options. More details will be forthcoming upon publication of this paper.
Meantime I thought it might be of interest to enter on MedTruth the Syracuse Cancer Research Intitute's latest semi-annual Newsletter.
Syracuse Cancer Research Institute
600 East Genesee Street
Syracuse, NY 13202
June 2010
Dear Friend,
Summer of 2010 is upon us and I am happy to inform you that the use of hydrazine sulfate for general cancer is beginning to spread rapidly worldwide. That is because more and more doctors are becoming acquainted with the controlled clinical trials of hydrazine sulfate in the medical literature, performed in accordance with international standards, and their specific results of efficacy and safety. And the reason this has happened is that the Internet has called special attention of the medical profession that these studies exist and should be consulted as part of any treatment-making decision.
I want to emphasize to each and every one of you that if you or a friend or loved one has cancer, the doctor should consider a course of hydrazine sulfate--whether or not other treatments are used, such as chemotherapy, radiation or some of the newer recombinant pharmaceuticals. Consider the statistics: those controlled clinical trials, done in conformity with the "generally accepted standards" rule (the Helsinki Declaration) demonstrate that for every million late-stage, unresponsive cancer patients given hydrazine sulfate, 500,000 will show measurable symptomatic improvements, 400,000 will have their tumors stop growing or regress and some will go on to long term (>10 years) survival. These are "factually terminal" patients. No studies have yet assessed earlier patients, who are known to respond more favorably to almost all drugs.
These hard-to-believe results are becoming known to many physicians, since they are now reportedly seeing these results in their own initial patients. And this is a worldwide phenomenon. Overseas Pharmsynthez, a pharmaceutical company, has been registering and marketing hydrazine sulfate as an approved drug in European countries and also in Canada, under the trade name Sehydrin. And in the United States the drug remains obtainable by a doctor's prescription.
It is really regretful that progress on this drug has moved so slowly. But for those who are regular readers of this Newsletter, the reasons for this are well known. Nevertheless, no matter what the past bottlenecks, hydrazine sulfate is now beginning to emerge globally as a drug capable of helping patients with common and recently diagnosed cancers, those who are advanced and those who literally have no further treatment options available.
I urge that if you or a loved one are diagnosed with cancer, that you consult your doctor about the advisability of including hydrazine sulfate in whatever treatment option may be considered. The actual statistics of permissibly performed studies indicate that doing so may well tip the scale of clinical response in your favor.
If we can be of help in providing you or your doctor with information or with clinical studies, please let us know. In the meantime we would appreciate your remembering us with a mid-year gift, as these gifts are the fuel that makes possible our continuing work.
With every best wish.
Sincerly,
Joseph Gold, M.D.
Director
P.S. Your gifts are tax-deductible to the extent allowed by law.
Visit us at: scri.ngen.com
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
If you have cancer, you may have an added adversary: the National Cancer Institute
Preposterous? Think it couldn't happen? Yes, the National Cancer Institute has historically been involved in multiple scandals. Scientific. Financial. Administrative. But treatment-wise? --The NCI, part of the federal government, established to battle cancer? To aid the cancer patient? To work tirelessly to devise new treatments, drugs, vaccines? To fund research efforts nationwide devoted to new--what the NCI has deemed effective--cancer treatments? What it has decreed acceptable to the nation's welfare? Acceptable to the nation's--i.e., NCI's--national cancer program? And preserve its stringent control over all cancer funds and its central position in the constellation of all cancer efforts?
Could NCI be exerting its resources--its dominance over all cancer undertakings--against the cancer patient?
Sometimes--actually not infrequently--organizations set up for one purpose go 'over the line' to its opposite purpose, because of a 'confusion of power.'
Is it possible that the NCI--set up to safeguard this nation's cancer program and the development of adequate treatments that might ameliorate this disease--has grown so powerful as to exclude any therapy which it might perceive threatening to its existence?
The answer to this vexing question is 'yes.' The NCI has been an adversary to a cancer drug--hydrazine sulfate--which controlled clinical trials performed in accordance with internationally accepted standards of biomedical research have demonstrated to be safe and effective in most types, and stages, of cancer. This drug is inexpensive, active by itself or in combination with chemotherapy or radiation therapy and is free from serious clinical side effects.
Our NCI? Against this drug? The agency that is supposed to be acting to help cancer patients?
This adversarial relationship to hydrazine sulfate--and therefore to cancer patients--is long-standing, beginning in the mid 1970s.
On March 8, 1976, because of concerns regarding controversy and irregularities by cancer authorities in the early stages of clinical testing of the drug hydrazine sulfate, developed by the Syracuse (New York) Cancer Research Institute, veteran Syracuse Congressman James M. Hanley (Chair of the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee and a member of many important subcommittees) requested a "status report" on hydrazine sulfate from the director of the National Cancer Institute. Within two weeks he received a reply that stated: "Hydrazine sulfate has been tested in the Soviet Union at the Petrov Institute in Leningrad [St. Petersburg]. In a clinical study directed by Dr. Michael Gershanovich, no evidence of meaningful anticancer activity was reported. This information was communicated to the NCI under the Joint U.S.-U.S.S.R. Health Agreement of 1972." Congressman Hanley forwarded the reply to the Syracuse Cancer Research Institute.
Shortly after receiving the reply, the SCRI received--from Leningrad--an unexpected, unsealed, registered manilla envelope in the mail. Inside of this was a reprint of a scientific study--all in Russian, except for the English abstract (summary) at the end of the article. The principal investigator was indicated as Dr. Michael L. Gershanovich and the study site as the N.N. Petrov Research Institute of Oncology. The title of the paper was "Experimental and Clinical Data on Antitumor Action of Hydrazine Sulfate."
It was the same Russian study to which the NCI reply to Congressman Hanley referred--only it said exactly the opposite of what was communicated to Congressman Hanley. The English summary read: "Clinical observations enabled us to state a definite therapeutic effect of hydrazine sulfate in patients with lymphogranulomatosis [Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma] and malignant tumors of various localizations in far-advanced stages, where other measures of specific therapy failed." The summary added that because of the favorable outcome, the study was being enlarged immediately.
Translation of the entire study of 48 "factually terminal" (stage 4) patients--with different types of cancer--revealed the following therapeutic effects. "Diminution or disappearance of pleural effusions and ascites [fluid accumulation in the chest cavity and abdomen, containing individual cancer cells], lowering of fever, normalization of laboratory indices, diminution or disappearance of pain, increase in strength, disappearance of hemoptysis [spitting of blood in patients with lung cancer], increased overall performance status [ability to ambulate and perform work], tumor stabilization [no further increase in tumor size], tumor regression [tumor shrinkage]." Therapeutic benefits were registered without significant clinical side effects. "Pharmacological characteristics of this compound demonstrate that the antitumor effect is observed in doses which do not produce toxicity."
No meaningful anticancer activity? A drug that took away much of the patients' harsh symptomatology, improving them greatly and--with some patients--took away the disease itself?
As to the question of whether the NCI's response to Congressman Hanley represented an innocent error on the part of the NCI or a deliberate fabrication, a further letter from the NCI, dated June 22, 1976, stated: "An abstract [summary] of the Gershanovich study appeared in Cancer Therapy Abstracts (Vol. 16: No. 4 [19]75-2046), a journal published under contract to the NCI." This published abstract antedated the NCI's response to Congressman Hanley by more than six months. Thus, at the time the NCI was writing to Congressman Hanley that the Soviet data were negative, the NCI had already known for months these data were positive.
What was the meaning of the misinformative response by the NCI?
Hydrazine sulfate was the first drug for generalized--any type of--cancer. It was developed by the Syracuse Cancer Research Institute, a small, private cancer research organization with an annual budget not exceeding $200,000. If you were a member of the House or Senate Appropriations Committees of Congress, would you authorize billions of dollars annually, as a result of the National Cancer Act of 1971, directly to the NCI-- in the face of a small private laboratory which had just come up with the first useful drug for all cancers, on a budget of less than $200,000? You'd have to say "Whoa--let's reevaluate this whole situation."
Thus, in framing a deliberate lie to Congressman Hanley--in turning its guns against hydrazine sulfate--the NCI was fighting for its life. In perceiving hydrazine sulfate as a threat to its existence, the NCI was fighting to preserve its dominance, centrality--and preeminence--over all cancer endeavors and cancer funding. In its opposition to hydrazine sulfate, NCI gave little thought it could be jeopardizing the lives of millions of cancer patients the world over.
Over the ensuing years the NCI hardened its resistance to hydrazine sulfate, referring in cancer textbooks to the ever-enlarging and positive Russian controlled clinical trials--demonstrating statistically significant antitumor and anti-cachexia effects in otherwise unresponse cancer patients--as showing only "hints of subjective activity," while at the same time totally ignoring the published Phase III randomized, double-blind Harbor-UCLA studies demonstrating, again statistically significantly, that hydrazine sulfate normalizes the abnormal metabolism associated with cancer cachexia--i.e., associated with more than 70 percent of all cancer deaths.
But not until 1989 did it occur to NCI that it would have to undertake controlled clinical trials of its own which might counter the Russian and Harbor-UCLA studies before its adversarial position on hydrazine sulfate might be believed by the scientific and medical communities. Accordingly, in 1989 the NCI took over all clinical testing of hydrazine sulfate in the U.S., prohibiting (by grant denial) Harbor-UCLA (which up to that time had performed and published almost 10 years of increasingly positive studies on hydrazine sulfate)--and by association any other U.S. cancer center--from any further clinical study of hydrazine sulfate. Thus, in 1989 the NCI became the only player in the clinical testing of hydrazine sulfate within the borders of the United States of America.
Before proceeding further--and in order to have a more complete understanding of clinical studies--it is necessary to become acquainted with the Helsinki Declaration.
The Helsinki Declaration--an outgrowth of the Nuremberg Trials (Doctors Trial) following World War II which uncovered the heinous human medical "experiments" inflicted on helpless human beings by the Nazis--is a multinational ratification of principles governing human biomedical research studies, to which the U.S. is a major signatory, put in place to guarantee that no harmful procedures be used in patients undergoing experimental medical treatment. This document lies at the very heart of all clinical studies and informed consent--and as such represents the international "law of the land," requiring all human biomedical research to conform to its stated principles, and to so acknowledge in all written experimental protocols and published studies.
Controlled clinical trials performed in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration have--without exception--demonstrated the efficacy and safety of hydrazine sulfate. These include the 17 years of multicentric Phase II Russian (Petrov) studies (with participation of the Herzen Institute of Oncology, Moscow; Oncological Institute of Lithuania, Vilnius; Institute of Oncology of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, Kiev; and Rostov Institute of Oncology and Radiology, Rostov an Donau) and the 10 years of Harbor-UCLA randomized Phase III studies--performed by scientists considered among the most outstanding and experienced clinical cancer investigators in the world and published chiefly in leading U.S. peer-reviewed cancer and medical journals.
The only controlled clinical trials to indicate non-efficacy of this drug--were three nationwide studies sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, parts of which were performed at various cancer centers and hospitals throughout the U.S. However, these were in violation of the Helsinki Declaration (the "generally accepted standards" rule) by virtue of their use of incompatible agents (medication) with the test drug and therefore declared by this Declaration to have no scientific standing. (Use of incompatible agents in a drug study is virtually unknown in human biomedical testing, since such use can result in the grave illness--or death--of a patient, as well as cause a negative drug study.) No written statement appears affirming that the protocols or published studies of NCI's sponsored trials were designed or carried out in conformity with the Helsinki Declaration.
The combined Russian and Harbor-UCLA studies, the only controlled clinical trials performed in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration, state that of every million late-stage, unresponsive cancer patients treated with hydrazine sulfate, more than 500,000 would receive measurable symptomatic improvement, 400,000 would demonstrate a halt or regression of tumor growth, and some would go on to long term (>10 years) "complete response," i.e., survival.
But the NCI continues its practice of knowingly misleading the worldwide lay and medical community. On the Internet it states there are no human studies of hydrazine sulfate that show anticancer activity: "There is only limited evidence from animal studies that hydrazine sulfate has anticancer activity." (Factually, there are 15 published human studies of hydrazine suflate that show anticancer activity, dating from 1975.) NCI states there are no randomized clinical trials (the "gold-standard" of clinical trials) of hydrazine sulfate that show anticancer activity: "Hydrazine sulfate has shown no anticancer activity in randomized clinical trials." (In reality, four of the five Harbor-UCLA studies are randomized clinical trials. All show clinical anticancer activity.)
The NCI has shown clearly and repeatedly it intends to defeat hydrazine sulfate as a valid anticancer drug by whatever means possible. Whether by lying to representatives of Congress, whether by placing distorted and untrue information on the Internet, whether by omission to the lay and medical public that its sponsored studies of hydrazine sulfate--the ones it uses in citing this drug's "ineffectiveness"--were all in violation of the Helsinki Declaration, using medical procedures well known to cause a negative drug study (and gravely ill patients), whether by failing to call attention of the medical profession and lay public to the 17 years of controlled clinical trials by the Petrov Group and the 10 years of controlled clinical trials by Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, all performed in conformity to the internationally accepted Helsinki Declaration's principles of medical research conduct--and all showing the efficacy and safety of hydrazine sulfate in cancer.
Regarding this drug, which may be life-restorative to you, no matter how advanced your cancer, the NCI--our own federal government--has been dealing you low. In this special instance the National Cancer Institute, the agency charged to safeguard your health, has been your long time adversary, acting to dissuade you from a drug which it has discredited for years, but one which competently performed clinical trials have explicitly demonstrated may help save your life.
Could NCI be exerting its resources--its dominance over all cancer undertakings--against the cancer patient?
Sometimes--actually not infrequently--organizations set up for one purpose go 'over the line' to its opposite purpose, because of a 'confusion of power.'
Is it possible that the NCI--set up to safeguard this nation's cancer program and the development of adequate treatments that might ameliorate this disease--has grown so powerful as to exclude any therapy which it might perceive threatening to its existence?
The answer to this vexing question is 'yes.' The NCI has been an adversary to a cancer drug--hydrazine sulfate--which controlled clinical trials performed in accordance with internationally accepted standards of biomedical research have demonstrated to be safe and effective in most types, and stages, of cancer. This drug is inexpensive, active by itself or in combination with chemotherapy or radiation therapy and is free from serious clinical side effects.
Our NCI? Against this drug? The agency that is supposed to be acting to help cancer patients?
This adversarial relationship to hydrazine sulfate--and therefore to cancer patients--is long-standing, beginning in the mid 1970s.
On March 8, 1976, because of concerns regarding controversy and irregularities by cancer authorities in the early stages of clinical testing of the drug hydrazine sulfate, developed by the Syracuse (New York) Cancer Research Institute, veteran Syracuse Congressman James M. Hanley (Chair of the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee and a member of many important subcommittees) requested a "status report" on hydrazine sulfate from the director of the National Cancer Institute. Within two weeks he received a reply that stated: "Hydrazine sulfate has been tested in the Soviet Union at the Petrov Institute in Leningrad [St. Petersburg]. In a clinical study directed by Dr. Michael Gershanovich, no evidence of meaningful anticancer activity was reported. This information was communicated to the NCI under the Joint U.S.-U.S.S.R. Health Agreement of 1972." Congressman Hanley forwarded the reply to the Syracuse Cancer Research Institute.
Shortly after receiving the reply, the SCRI received--from Leningrad--an unexpected, unsealed, registered manilla envelope in the mail. Inside of this was a reprint of a scientific study--all in Russian, except for the English abstract (summary) at the end of the article. The principal investigator was indicated as Dr. Michael L. Gershanovich and the study site as the N.N. Petrov Research Institute of Oncology. The title of the paper was "Experimental and Clinical Data on Antitumor Action of Hydrazine Sulfate."
It was the same Russian study to which the NCI reply to Congressman Hanley referred--only it said exactly the opposite of what was communicated to Congressman Hanley. The English summary read: "Clinical observations enabled us to state a definite therapeutic effect of hydrazine sulfate in patients with lymphogranulomatosis [Hodgkin's and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma] and malignant tumors of various localizations in far-advanced stages, where other measures of specific therapy failed." The summary added that because of the favorable outcome, the study was being enlarged immediately.
Translation of the entire study of 48 "factually terminal" (stage 4) patients--with different types of cancer--revealed the following therapeutic effects. "Diminution or disappearance of pleural effusions and ascites [fluid accumulation in the chest cavity and abdomen, containing individual cancer cells], lowering of fever, normalization of laboratory indices, diminution or disappearance of pain, increase in strength, disappearance of hemoptysis [spitting of blood in patients with lung cancer], increased overall performance status [ability to ambulate and perform work], tumor stabilization [no further increase in tumor size], tumor regression [tumor shrinkage]." Therapeutic benefits were registered without significant clinical side effects. "Pharmacological characteristics of this compound demonstrate that the antitumor effect is observed in doses which do not produce toxicity."
No meaningful anticancer activity? A drug that took away much of the patients' harsh symptomatology, improving them greatly and--with some patients--took away the disease itself?
As to the question of whether the NCI's response to Congressman Hanley represented an innocent error on the part of the NCI or a deliberate fabrication, a further letter from the NCI, dated June 22, 1976, stated: "An abstract [summary] of the Gershanovich study appeared in Cancer Therapy Abstracts (Vol. 16: No. 4 [19]75-2046), a journal published under contract to the NCI." This published abstract antedated the NCI's response to Congressman Hanley by more than six months. Thus, at the time the NCI was writing to Congressman Hanley that the Soviet data were negative, the NCI had already known for months these data were positive.
What was the meaning of the misinformative response by the NCI?
Hydrazine sulfate was the first drug for generalized--any type of--cancer. It was developed by the Syracuse Cancer Research Institute, a small, private cancer research organization with an annual budget not exceeding $200,000. If you were a member of the House or Senate Appropriations Committees of Congress, would you authorize billions of dollars annually, as a result of the National Cancer Act of 1971, directly to the NCI-- in the face of a small private laboratory which had just come up with the first useful drug for all cancers, on a budget of less than $200,000? You'd have to say "Whoa--let's reevaluate this whole situation."
Thus, in framing a deliberate lie to Congressman Hanley--in turning its guns against hydrazine sulfate--the NCI was fighting for its life. In perceiving hydrazine sulfate as a threat to its existence, the NCI was fighting to preserve its dominance, centrality--and preeminence--over all cancer endeavors and cancer funding. In its opposition to hydrazine sulfate, NCI gave little thought it could be jeopardizing the lives of millions of cancer patients the world over.
Over the ensuing years the NCI hardened its resistance to hydrazine sulfate, referring in cancer textbooks to the ever-enlarging and positive Russian controlled clinical trials--demonstrating statistically significant antitumor and anti-cachexia effects in otherwise unresponse cancer patients--as showing only "hints of subjective activity," while at the same time totally ignoring the published Phase III randomized, double-blind Harbor-UCLA studies demonstrating, again statistically significantly, that hydrazine sulfate normalizes the abnormal metabolism associated with cancer cachexia--i.e., associated with more than 70 percent of all cancer deaths.
But not until 1989 did it occur to NCI that it would have to undertake controlled clinical trials of its own which might counter the Russian and Harbor-UCLA studies before its adversarial position on hydrazine sulfate might be believed by the scientific and medical communities. Accordingly, in 1989 the NCI took over all clinical testing of hydrazine sulfate in the U.S., prohibiting (by grant denial) Harbor-UCLA (which up to that time had performed and published almost 10 years of increasingly positive studies on hydrazine sulfate)--and by association any other U.S. cancer center--from any further clinical study of hydrazine sulfate. Thus, in 1989 the NCI became the only player in the clinical testing of hydrazine sulfate within the borders of the United States of America.
Before proceeding further--and in order to have a more complete understanding of clinical studies--it is necessary to become acquainted with the Helsinki Declaration.
The Helsinki Declaration--an outgrowth of the Nuremberg Trials (Doctors Trial) following World War II which uncovered the heinous human medical "experiments" inflicted on helpless human beings by the Nazis--is a multinational ratification of principles governing human biomedical research studies, to which the U.S. is a major signatory, put in place to guarantee that no harmful procedures be used in patients undergoing experimental medical treatment. This document lies at the very heart of all clinical studies and informed consent--and as such represents the international "law of the land," requiring all human biomedical research to conform to its stated principles, and to so acknowledge in all written experimental protocols and published studies.
Controlled clinical trials performed in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration have--without exception--demonstrated the efficacy and safety of hydrazine sulfate. These include the 17 years of multicentric Phase II Russian (Petrov) studies (with participation of the Herzen Institute of Oncology, Moscow; Oncological Institute of Lithuania, Vilnius; Institute of Oncology of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences, Kiev; and Rostov Institute of Oncology and Radiology, Rostov an Donau) and the 10 years of Harbor-UCLA randomized Phase III studies--performed by scientists considered among the most outstanding and experienced clinical cancer investigators in the world and published chiefly in leading U.S. peer-reviewed cancer and medical journals.
The only controlled clinical trials to indicate non-efficacy of this drug--were three nationwide studies sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, parts of which were performed at various cancer centers and hospitals throughout the U.S. However, these were in violation of the Helsinki Declaration (the "generally accepted standards" rule) by virtue of their use of incompatible agents (medication) with the test drug and therefore declared by this Declaration to have no scientific standing. (Use of incompatible agents in a drug study is virtually unknown in human biomedical testing, since such use can result in the grave illness--or death--of a patient, as well as cause a negative drug study.) No written statement appears affirming that the protocols or published studies of NCI's sponsored trials were designed or carried out in conformity with the Helsinki Declaration.
The combined Russian and Harbor-UCLA studies, the only controlled clinical trials performed in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration, state that of every million late-stage, unresponsive cancer patients treated with hydrazine sulfate, more than 500,000 would receive measurable symptomatic improvement, 400,000 would demonstrate a halt or regression of tumor growth, and some would go on to long term (>10 years) "complete response," i.e., survival.
But the NCI continues its practice of knowingly misleading the worldwide lay and medical community. On the Internet it states there are no human studies of hydrazine sulfate that show anticancer activity: "There is only limited evidence from animal studies that hydrazine sulfate has anticancer activity." (Factually, there are 15 published human studies of hydrazine suflate that show anticancer activity, dating from 1975.) NCI states there are no randomized clinical trials (the "gold-standard" of clinical trials) of hydrazine sulfate that show anticancer activity: "Hydrazine sulfate has shown no anticancer activity in randomized clinical trials." (In reality, four of the five Harbor-UCLA studies are randomized clinical trials. All show clinical anticancer activity.)
The NCI has shown clearly and repeatedly it intends to defeat hydrazine sulfate as a valid anticancer drug by whatever means possible. Whether by lying to representatives of Congress, whether by placing distorted and untrue information on the Internet, whether by omission to the lay and medical public that its sponsored studies of hydrazine sulfate--the ones it uses in citing this drug's "ineffectiveness"--were all in violation of the Helsinki Declaration, using medical procedures well known to cause a negative drug study (and gravely ill patients), whether by failing to call attention of the medical profession and lay public to the 17 years of controlled clinical trials by the Petrov Group and the 10 years of controlled clinical trials by Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, all performed in conformity to the internationally accepted Helsinki Declaration's principles of medical research conduct--and all showing the efficacy and safety of hydrazine sulfate in cancer.
Regarding this drug, which may be life-restorative to you, no matter how advanced your cancer, the NCI--our own federal government--has been dealing you low. In this special instance the National Cancer Institute, the agency charged to safeguard your health, has been your long time adversary, acting to dissuade you from a drug which it has discredited for years, but one which competently performed clinical trials have explicitly demonstrated may help save your life.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Would the government lie about the existence of an effective treatment for cancer?
Would the government deny that competent, controlled clinical trials have demonstrated there is a drug that is effective against most types--and stages--of cancer, that is safe, inexpensive and free from serious clinical side effects?
The answer is 'yes.' The drug's name is hydrazine sulfate. If you're a reader of the blog MedTruth, you've already seen several articles on this drug. But perhaps you'd like to witness the actual commencement of this official lying and opposition to this drug.
The year was 1976, the date, March 8. Because of my concern regarding controversy and irregularities by cancer authorities in the early stages of clinical testing of the drug hydrazine sulfate, developed by the Syracuse (New York) Cancer Research Institute, veteran Syracuse Congressman James M. Hanley (Chair of the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee and a member of several important subcommittees, including Manpower and Civil Service, Housing and Community Development, Institutions and Finance, Small Business Oversight and Minority Enterprise, Small Business Administration Legislation), requested a "status report" on hydrazine sulfate from the director of the National Cancer Institute (NCI)--part of the federal government and this country's, and the world's, most influential cancer agency. Within two weeks he received a reply that stated: "Hydrazine sulfate has been tested in the Soviet Union at the Petrov Institute in Leningrad [St Petersburg]. In a clinical study directed by Dr. Michael Gershanovich, no evidence of meaningful anticancer activity was reported. This information was communicated to the NCI under the Joint U.S.-U.S.S.R. Health Agreement of 1972." Congresman Hanley forwarded me the reply.
The letter was devastating to me personally. Although I had known that cancer scientists in the Soviet Union were performing mouse and rat studies with hydrazine sulfate (they had picked up from our original work published in the medical literature), I had no idea they had already performed human studies--and that these studies were negative. Reading this letter--and what it said--constituted the lowest point in my professional career. I was dejected the entire day, unable to believe the contents of the letter.
The very next day a scenario occurred that could only have been fashioned in Hollywood. The mailman came to the large plate-glass front doors of our reception suite (where I was at the time) and I could see he was holding a five-by-seven inch shiny manilla envelope in his hand, the kind one used to see in the Depression days of the 1930s, and to boot it was totally unsealed. He entered the suite and handed the receptionist the envelope, for which she had to sign. It was registered and postmarked "Leningrad." We did not know anybody in Leningrad, nor were we expecting mail from Leningrad. The receptionist handed me the unsealed envelope and we all--several of our laboratory staff had gathered in the reception area--looked at each other puzzled. I removed the contents of the envelope. It was a reprint of a scientific study--all in Russian, except for the English abstract (summary) at the end of the article. The principal investigator was indicated as Dr. Michael L. Gershanovich and the study site as the N. N. Petrov Research Institute of Oncology. The title of the paper was "Experimental and Clinical Data on Antitumor Action of Hydrazine Sulfate," and the English summary read:
"Clinical observations enabled us to state a definite
therapeutic effect of hydrazine sulfate in patients
with lymphogranulomatosis [Hodgkin's and non-
Hodgkin's lymphoma] and malignant tumors of
various localizations in far-advanced stages, where
other measures of specific therapy failed." [The
summary added that because of the favorable
outcome, the study was being enlarged immediately.]
I was stunned to read this summary. It was from the same Russian study to which the NCI reply to Congressman Hanley referred--only it was exactly opposite of what was communicated to Congressman Hanley. Upon translation of the entire study, the following therapeutic effects of hydrazine sulfate in 48 "factually terminal" [stage 4] patients--with different types of cancer--were detailed: "diminution or disappearance of pleural effusions and ascites [fluid accumulation in the chest cavity and abdomen, containing individual cancer cells], lowering of fever, normalization of laboratory indices, diminution or disappeance of pain, increased appetite with cessation of weight loss or weight gain, increase in strength, disappeance of hemoptysis [spitting of blood in patients with lung cancer], increased overall performance status [ability to ambulate and perform work], tumor stabilization [no increase in tumor size], tumor regression." Therapeutic benefits were registered without significant clinical side effects: "Pharmacological characteristics of this compound demonstrate that the antitumor effect is observed in doses which do not produce toxicity."
No meaningful anticancer activity?
As to the important question whether the NCI response to Congressman Hanley represented an innocent error on the part of the NCI or a deliberate fabrication, a further letter from the NCI, dated June 22, 1976, stated: "An abstract [summary] of the Gershanovich study appeared in Cancer Therapy Abstracts (Vol. 16: No. 4 [19]75-2046), a journal published under contract to the NCI." This published abstract antedated the NCI's response to Congressman Hanley by more than six months. Thus, at the time the NCI was writing to Congressman Hanley that the Soviet data were negative, the NCI already knew these data were positive.
Why the deception?
What was the meaning of this misinformative response by the NCI?
Hydrazine sulfate was the first drug for generalized--any type of--cancer. It was developed by the Syracuse Cancer Research Institute, a small, private cancer research organization with an annual budget not exceeding $200,000. If you were a member of the House or Senate Appropriations Committees, would you authorize billions of dollars annually, as a result of the National Cancer Act of 1971, directly to the NCI--in the face of a small private laboratory which had just come up with the first useful drug for all cancers, on a budget of less than $200,000? You'd have to say "Whoa--let's reevaluate this whole situation."
Thus, in framing a deliberate lie to Congressman Hanley--in turning its guns against hydrazine sulfate--the NCI was fighting for its life. In perceiving hydrazine sulfate as a threat to its existence, the NCI was fighting to preserve its hegemony over the network of all cancer funds and its central position in the constellation of all cancer efforts.
As many readers of MedTruth know, over the ensuing years the NCI maintained its resistance to hydrazine sulfate, referring in cancer textbooks to the ever-enlarging Russian controlled clinical trials demonstrating statistically significant antitumor and anti-cachexia effects (see above) in otherwise unresponsive patients--as showing only "hints of subjective activity," while at the same time not even acknowledging the published Phase III randomized, double-blind Harbor-UCLA studies demonstrating, again statistically significantly, that hydrazine sulfate normalizes the abnormal metabolism associated with cancer cachexia--(i.e., associated with over 70 percent of all cancer deaths).
But not until 1989 did it occur to NCI that it would have to undertake controlled clinical trials of its own which might counter the Russian and Harbor-UCLA studies before the scientific and medical communities might believe its adversarial position on hydrazine sulfate. Accordingly, in 1989 NCI took over all clinical testing of hydrazine sulfate in the U.S., prohibiting (by grant denial) Harbor-UCLA--which up to that time had performed and published almost 10 years of increasingly positive studies on hydrazine sulfate--and by association any other U.S. cancer center from any further clinical study of hydrazine sulfate. Thus, in 1989 the NCI became the only player in the clinical testing of hydrazine sulfate within the United States.
The NCI sponsored three studies of hydrazine sulfate, parts of which were performed at various cancer centers and hospitals throughout the U.S. But before going further, it is necessary for you to become acquainted with the Helsinki Declaration.
The Helsinki Declaration--a multinational ratification of principles governing human biomedical research studies, to which the U.S. is a major signatory-- is an outgrowth of the Nuremberg Trials (Doctors Trial) following World War II which uncovered the heinous human medical "experiments" inflicted on helpless human beings by the Nazis, put in place to guarantee that no harmful procedures be used in patients undergoing experimental medical treatment. This document lies at the very heart of all clinical studies and informed consent--and as such represents the international "law of the land," requiring all human biomedical research to conform to its stated principles, and to so acknowledge in all experimental protocols and published studies.
All controlled clinical trials performed in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration indicate--without exception--the efficacy and safety of hydrazine sulfate. These include the 17 years of multicentric Phase II Russian studies and the 10 years of Harbor-UCLA randomized Phase III studies--performed by scientists considered among the most outstanding and experienced clinical cancer investigators in the world and published chiefly in leading U.S. peer-reviewed cancer and medical journals.
The only controlled clinical trials to indicate the non-efficacy of this drug were those sponsored by the National Cancer Institute. However, these were in violation of the Helsinki Declaration (the "generally accepted standards" rule) by virtue of their use of incompatible agents (medications) with the test drug and therefore declared by this Declaration to have no scientific standing. (Use of incompatible medication in the presence of a test drug can result in the grave illness--or death--of a patient, as well as cause a negative drug study. Use of incompatible agents in a drug study is virtually unknown in human biomedical testing.)
Most major media science writers and personnel are reluctant--even fearful--to touch this story. The idea that there could be an existent, effective cancer treatment--which the government refuses to acknowledge--is almost preposterous. But in those instances where reporters and other media representatives have made inquiries to the National Cancer Institute, stating their plans for a possible story on hydrazine sulfate, they receive the following type of reply:
"How could you perpetrate such a cruel hoax on the American people? You would be giving hundreds of thousands of people false hope."
Here is the 'cruel hoax': The combined Russian and Harbor-UCLA studies, the only controlled clinical trials performed in conformity with the Helsinki Declaration, state that of every million late-stage, unresponsive cancer patients treated with hydrazine sulfate, more than half a million would receive measurable symptomatic improvement, 400,000 would demonstrate a halt or regression in tumor growth, and some would go on to long term (> 10 years) "complete response," i.e., survival.
This 'cruel hoax' must out. NCI's well-kept 'secret' must out. The major media must have the courage to take on this difficult story and inform the American people that there is an effective cancer treatment out there, one that competently performed clinical trials have identified as capable of extending benefits to even very advanced cancer patients.
I am asking each of you who reads this communication to send a copy to anyone you know who has cancer, to anyone you know who may be in a position to majorly publicize--to "break"--this story. To your doctor. Your health care provider. To the earnest people in hospice who care for human beings in their last weeks and months of life. To your Congressmen and Congresswomen. Ask them to do something about this tragic situation which keeps really ill people from a drug which competently performed clinical studies say might help them and only incompetently performed studies say otherwise....
The answer is 'yes.' The drug's name is hydrazine sulfate. If you're a reader of the blog MedTruth, you've already seen several articles on this drug. But perhaps you'd like to witness the actual commencement of this official lying and opposition to this drug.
The year was 1976, the date, March 8. Because of my concern regarding controversy and irregularities by cancer authorities in the early stages of clinical testing of the drug hydrazine sulfate, developed by the Syracuse (New York) Cancer Research Institute, veteran Syracuse Congressman James M. Hanley (Chair of the House Post Office and Civil Service Committee and a member of several important subcommittees, including Manpower and Civil Service, Housing and Community Development, Institutions and Finance, Small Business Oversight and Minority Enterprise, Small Business Administration Legislation), requested a "status report" on hydrazine sulfate from the director of the National Cancer Institute (NCI)--part of the federal government and this country's, and the world's, most influential cancer agency. Within two weeks he received a reply that stated: "Hydrazine sulfate has been tested in the Soviet Union at the Petrov Institute in Leningrad [St Petersburg]. In a clinical study directed by Dr. Michael Gershanovich, no evidence of meaningful anticancer activity was reported. This information was communicated to the NCI under the Joint U.S.-U.S.S.R. Health Agreement of 1972." Congresman Hanley forwarded me the reply.
The letter was devastating to me personally. Although I had known that cancer scientists in the Soviet Union were performing mouse and rat studies with hydrazine sulfate (they had picked up from our original work published in the medical literature), I had no idea they had already performed human studies--and that these studies were negative. Reading this letter--and what it said--constituted the lowest point in my professional career. I was dejected the entire day, unable to believe the contents of the letter.
The very next day a scenario occurred that could only have been fashioned in Hollywood. The mailman came to the large plate-glass front doors of our reception suite (where I was at the time) and I could see he was holding a five-by-seven inch shiny manilla envelope in his hand, the kind one used to see in the Depression days of the 1930s, and to boot it was totally unsealed. He entered the suite and handed the receptionist the envelope, for which she had to sign. It was registered and postmarked "Leningrad." We did not know anybody in Leningrad, nor were we expecting mail from Leningrad. The receptionist handed me the unsealed envelope and we all--several of our laboratory staff had gathered in the reception area--looked at each other puzzled. I removed the contents of the envelope. It was a reprint of a scientific study--all in Russian, except for the English abstract (summary) at the end of the article. The principal investigator was indicated as Dr. Michael L. Gershanovich and the study site as the N. N. Petrov Research Institute of Oncology. The title of the paper was "Experimental and Clinical Data on Antitumor Action of Hydrazine Sulfate," and the English summary read:
"Clinical observations enabled us to state a definite
therapeutic effect of hydrazine sulfate in patients
with lymphogranulomatosis [Hodgkin's and non-
Hodgkin's lymphoma] and malignant tumors of
various localizations in far-advanced stages, where
other measures of specific therapy failed." [The
summary added that because of the favorable
outcome, the study was being enlarged immediately.]
I was stunned to read this summary. It was from the same Russian study to which the NCI reply to Congressman Hanley referred--only it was exactly opposite of what was communicated to Congressman Hanley. Upon translation of the entire study, the following therapeutic effects of hydrazine sulfate in 48 "factually terminal" [stage 4] patients--with different types of cancer--were detailed: "diminution or disappearance of pleural effusions and ascites [fluid accumulation in the chest cavity and abdomen, containing individual cancer cells], lowering of fever, normalization of laboratory indices, diminution or disappeance of pain, increased appetite with cessation of weight loss or weight gain, increase in strength, disappeance of hemoptysis [spitting of blood in patients with lung cancer], increased overall performance status [ability to ambulate and perform work], tumor stabilization [no increase in tumor size], tumor regression." Therapeutic benefits were registered without significant clinical side effects: "Pharmacological characteristics of this compound demonstrate that the antitumor effect is observed in doses which do not produce toxicity."
No meaningful anticancer activity?
As to the important question whether the NCI response to Congressman Hanley represented an innocent error on the part of the NCI or a deliberate fabrication, a further letter from the NCI, dated June 22, 1976, stated: "An abstract [summary] of the Gershanovich study appeared in Cancer Therapy Abstracts (Vol. 16: No. 4 [19]75-2046), a journal published under contract to the NCI." This published abstract antedated the NCI's response to Congressman Hanley by more than six months. Thus, at the time the NCI was writing to Congressman Hanley that the Soviet data were negative, the NCI already knew these data were positive.
Why the deception?
What was the meaning of this misinformative response by the NCI?
Hydrazine sulfate was the first drug for generalized--any type of--cancer. It was developed by the Syracuse Cancer Research Institute, a small, private cancer research organization with an annual budget not exceeding $200,000. If you were a member of the House or Senate Appropriations Committees, would you authorize billions of dollars annually, as a result of the National Cancer Act of 1971, directly to the NCI--in the face of a small private laboratory which had just come up with the first useful drug for all cancers, on a budget of less than $200,000? You'd have to say "Whoa--let's reevaluate this whole situation."
Thus, in framing a deliberate lie to Congressman Hanley--in turning its guns against hydrazine sulfate--the NCI was fighting for its life. In perceiving hydrazine sulfate as a threat to its existence, the NCI was fighting to preserve its hegemony over the network of all cancer funds and its central position in the constellation of all cancer efforts.
As many readers of MedTruth know, over the ensuing years the NCI maintained its resistance to hydrazine sulfate, referring in cancer textbooks to the ever-enlarging Russian controlled clinical trials demonstrating statistically significant antitumor and anti-cachexia effects (see above) in otherwise unresponsive patients--as showing only "hints of subjective activity," while at the same time not even acknowledging the published Phase III randomized, double-blind Harbor-UCLA studies demonstrating, again statistically significantly, that hydrazine sulfate normalizes the abnormal metabolism associated with cancer cachexia--(i.e., associated with over 70 percent of all cancer deaths).
But not until 1989 did it occur to NCI that it would have to undertake controlled clinical trials of its own which might counter the Russian and Harbor-UCLA studies before the scientific and medical communities might believe its adversarial position on hydrazine sulfate. Accordingly, in 1989 NCI took over all clinical testing of hydrazine sulfate in the U.S., prohibiting (by grant denial) Harbor-UCLA--which up to that time had performed and published almost 10 years of increasingly positive studies on hydrazine sulfate--and by association any other U.S. cancer center from any further clinical study of hydrazine sulfate. Thus, in 1989 the NCI became the only player in the clinical testing of hydrazine sulfate within the United States.
The NCI sponsored three studies of hydrazine sulfate, parts of which were performed at various cancer centers and hospitals throughout the U.S. But before going further, it is necessary for you to become acquainted with the Helsinki Declaration.
The Helsinki Declaration--a multinational ratification of principles governing human biomedical research studies, to which the U.S. is a major signatory-- is an outgrowth of the Nuremberg Trials (Doctors Trial) following World War II which uncovered the heinous human medical "experiments" inflicted on helpless human beings by the Nazis, put in place to guarantee that no harmful procedures be used in patients undergoing experimental medical treatment. This document lies at the very heart of all clinical studies and informed consent--and as such represents the international "law of the land," requiring all human biomedical research to conform to its stated principles, and to so acknowledge in all experimental protocols and published studies.
All controlled clinical trials performed in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration indicate--without exception--the efficacy and safety of hydrazine sulfate. These include the 17 years of multicentric Phase II Russian studies and the 10 years of Harbor-UCLA randomized Phase III studies--performed by scientists considered among the most outstanding and experienced clinical cancer investigators in the world and published chiefly in leading U.S. peer-reviewed cancer and medical journals.
The only controlled clinical trials to indicate the non-efficacy of this drug were those sponsored by the National Cancer Institute. However, these were in violation of the Helsinki Declaration (the "generally accepted standards" rule) by virtue of their use of incompatible agents (medications) with the test drug and therefore declared by this Declaration to have no scientific standing. (Use of incompatible medication in the presence of a test drug can result in the grave illness--or death--of a patient, as well as cause a negative drug study. Use of incompatible agents in a drug study is virtually unknown in human biomedical testing.)
Most major media science writers and personnel are reluctant--even fearful--to touch this story. The idea that there could be an existent, effective cancer treatment--which the government refuses to acknowledge--is almost preposterous. But in those instances where reporters and other media representatives have made inquiries to the National Cancer Institute, stating their plans for a possible story on hydrazine sulfate, they receive the following type of reply:
"How could you perpetrate such a cruel hoax on the American people? You would be giving hundreds of thousands of people false hope."
Here is the 'cruel hoax': The combined Russian and Harbor-UCLA studies, the only controlled clinical trials performed in conformity with the Helsinki Declaration, state that of every million late-stage, unresponsive cancer patients treated with hydrazine sulfate, more than half a million would receive measurable symptomatic improvement, 400,000 would demonstrate a halt or regression in tumor growth, and some would go on to long term (> 10 years) "complete response," i.e., survival.
This 'cruel hoax' must out. NCI's well-kept 'secret' must out. The major media must have the courage to take on this difficult story and inform the American people that there is an effective cancer treatment out there, one that competently performed clinical trials have identified as capable of extending benefits to even very advanced cancer patients.
I am asking each of you who reads this communication to send a copy to anyone you know who has cancer, to anyone you know who may be in a position to majorly publicize--to "break"--this story. To your doctor. Your health care provider. To the earnest people in hospice who care for human beings in their last weeks and months of life. To your Congressmen and Congresswomen. Ask them to do something about this tragic situation which keeps really ill people from a drug which competently performed clinical studies say might help them and only incompetently performed studies say otherwise....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
