Positive Health Online

The End of Toxic Chemo and Radiation

by Dr Mark Sircus Ac OMD DM (P)

There is a revolution occurring in cancer treatment, and it could mean the end of chemotherapy, as we know it now. Chemotherapy is a brutal crushing treatment has no place in the future of medicine. Orthodox oncology is looking at new pharmaceuticals that not only are less toxic but also more targeted. Dr Martin Tallman, chief of the leukemia service at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. “I think we are definitely moving farther and farther away from chemotherapy, and more toward molecularly targeted therapy.” 

Chemotherapy and radiation, as presently practised, attack both cancer cells and healthy cells, which is why chemotherapy and radiation are terrible to endure. The essence of chemotherapy is to use chemicals strong enough to kill cancer cells. This is a good idea as long as the chemo agents do not harm the host meaning they do not harm us. That is not the case!

Biochemists discovered a long time ago that cancer cells grow at a much faster rate than regular cells, so if a chemical can be injected that only kills fast-growing cells (cytotoxic), cancer cells and tumours will be killed. The problem is cancer cells are not the only fast growing cells in the body. Anywhere where there is cellular rejuvenation occurring it will get hit with chemo including hair, mouth, digestive tract, and our all-important white blood cells. Like radiation therapy, the loss of white blood cells is the part of chemo that doctors are most concerned about when administering it. The immune system is toasted, yet this is considered acceptable collateral damage. For this oncologists put themselves in an extraordinarily weak position that history will not remember them fondly for.

Oncologists have it wrong in their choice of rays for radiation therapy and chemicals chosen for chemotherapy. They chose the heavy killing nuclear type of radiation that causes cancer, as opposed to the intense life-generating kind of radiation (near and far infrared and Bioresonance frequencies) that offers healing. Their choice of chemicals that destroy life and health, instead of those that bring immune strength and healing, will brand the present generations of oncologists in a way that they will not enjoy.

The Biomat, which I love to use, increases the generation of heat shock proteins which pharmaceutical companies are trying to target with nasty vaccines! Basic medical science agrees on the value of heat shock proteins. The interplay between the immune system and cancer, specifically, the role of heat shock proteins in viral infections and tumorigenesis has been studied proving the case for the use of infrared in the treatment of cancer. How we generate them can be either safe or dangerous depending on which types of treatments and doctors one follows.

Why did they not choose medicinals and the type of radiation that targets the enemy cancer cells while leaving our healthy cells alone? Why not since it is very possible to strengthen the immune system with the right natural chemo and radiation if one chooses the right medicinals and the right kind of radiation?

In my latest book Anti-Inflammatory Oxygen Therapy, oxygen itself is introduced as the ultimate chemotherapy. Pharmaceutical scientists would not ever have thought of this freebie, though it does cost money to concentrate it to the levels necessary to annihilate cancer cells. With oxygen, doctors can blast cancer cells to smithereens and patients can do it in the comfort of their own homes.

There are plenty of substances like cannabinoids and selenium that scientists have studied which shrink tumours, reducing a person’s chances of dying from cancer. These nutritional medicines are not toxic like the mustard gas derived chemotherapy, which still sets the standard for barbarism in the field of oncology.

The medicines in my Natural Allopathic Protocol present a more intelligent form of chemotherapy and radiation. The protocol surrounds and flanks oxygen delivered (made safe with CO2 medicine) at concentrations five times higher than a hyperbaric chamber. This oxygen will roll over the bodies cancer cells like an army of panzer divisions loaded with Tiger tanks. The throw weight of the Anti-Inflammatory Oxygen Therapy system is enormous. Oxygen supplied in large quantities for short durations is completely safe because more than enough carbon dioxide is created in the process when the patient exercises for the fifteen minutes a day, which is the time necessary to do Anti-Inflammatory Oxygen Therapy each day. Life is very sweet indeed, when we get enough oxygen. In the book I introduce a new way of injecting massive amounts of oxygen into the cells, which will profoundly affect them. In fifteen minutes, one can blow the cells doors down allowing them to detoxify as they gulp down high levels of oxygen.

I have discovered a technique that offers much higher therapeutic results than expensive, inconvenient hyperbaric chambers and can be done in your bedroom. A person needs an oxygen concentrator, exercise bicycle or rebounder and a new mask kit with a reservoir that stores up enough O2, before you even begin to use it, to supply the correct amount of oxygen needed for one fifteen minute session. It offers a trip to cellular heaven. This therapy is like putting out a candle flame with your fingers. In the first 15 minute session (or let’s say first four sessions) the inflammation in the capillaries will begin to be snubbed out and their toxins will be cleared. Oxygen will rush into the cells bringing the energy and the physiological processes necessary to heal.

Oxygen is all around us but hardly anyone gets enough. It is a paradox that few understand. But it is the reason that sodium bicarbonate is such a wonderful medicine. It gives one instant access to more oxygen because the bicarbonates/CO2 dilate the blood vessels ensuring more blood and oxygen get delivered.

Chemotherapy - High Rate of Failure

It is well known that chemotherapy drugs have a high rate of failure. This was brought out a long time ago in the January 10, 2002 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, where it was noted that 20 years of clinical trials using chemotherapy on advanced lung cancer have yielded survival improvement of only two months. This editorial pointed out that while new chemotherapy regimens appear to be improving survival, when these same regimens are tested on a wider range of cancer patients, the results have been disappointing. In other words, oncologists at a single institution may obtain a 40% to 50% response rate in a tightly controlled study, but when these same chemotherapy drugs are administered in the real world setting, response rates decline to only 17% to 27%.

Radiation therapy and chemotherapy as they are practised now are highly toxic treatments aimed at killing cancer cells. The problem is these therapies create cancer stem cells and that means instead of treating cancer they are causing cancer. Fox News and many others have published the news about the undesirable effect of helping to create cancer stem cells - cells that researchers say are particularly adept at generating new tumours and are especially resistant to treatment. The medical media is saying that this might help explain why late-stage cancers are often resistant to both radiation therapy and chemotherapy.

We know that cancer stem cells give rise to new tumours. These stem cells are ultimately responsible for the recurrence of cancer or the dangerous spreading of it throughout the body. Scientists also have found that cancer stem cells are more likely than other cancer cells to survive chemotherapies and radiation therapies, probably because their ‘stemness’ allows them to self-replenish by repairing their damaged DNA and removing toxins.

“Radiotherapy has been a standard treatment for cancer for so long, so we were quite surprised that it could induce stemness,” said study researcher Dr. Chiang Li of Harvard Medical School in Boston. An amazing statement, considering these doctors have all along been playing around with super-toxic chemotherapy poisons and radioactive death-inducing rays - and now they are surprised that this is the mechanism of death?

The New York Times writes, “When it comes to taming tumours, the strategy has always been fairly straightforward. Remove the offending and abnormal growth by any means, in the most effective way possible. And the standard treatments used today reflect this single-minded approach - surgery physically cuts out malignant lesions, chemotherapy agents dissolve them from within, and radiation seeks and destroys abnormally dividing cells.”

You Don’t Want Brutal Treatments That Don’t Work

The New York Times believes that, “these interventions can be just as brutal on the patient as they are on a tumour.” The entire field of oncology is vulnerable to attack not only because of the brutality of its treatments, but also because new and better options are coming to the surface. The main point, besides the cruel wrongness of present approaches, is that mainstream approaches to cancer Do Not Work For Late Stage Cancer.

Dr Ulrich Abel, who poured over thousands of cancer studies, published a shocking report in 1990 stating that chemotherapy has done nothing for 80% of all cancers; that 80% of chemotherapy administered was worthless. Ulrich Abel was a German epidemiologist and biostatistician. In the eighties, he contacted over 350 medical centres around the world requesting them to furnish him with anything they had published on the subject of cancer.

Dr Abel’s report and subsequent book (Chemotherapy of Advanced Epithelial Cancer, Stuttgart: Hippokrates Verlag GmbH, 1990) described chemotherapy as a “scientific wasteland” and that neither physician nor patient were willing to give it up even though there was no scientific evidence that it worked. Everyone knows someone who has died of cancer, chemotherapy and radiation, but oncologists like to hide the fact that patients die from the chemo and radiation before they would die from the cancer.

Abel’s research led him to a sober and unprejudiced analysis of the literature where he concluded that treatments for advanced epithelial cancer rarely were successful. By ‘epithelial’ Dr Abel is talking about the most common forms of adenocarcinoma - lung, breast, prostate, colon, etc. These account for at least 80 percent of cancer deaths in advanced industrial countries.

“This is an astounding charge coming from a member of the cancer establishment. In Germany they earned Abel a big, largely favourable, article in Der Spiegel, the German equivalent of Time. Here, the powerful chemotherapy establishment has maintained discreet silence. More and more, toxic chemotherapy is being used against advanced cases of such diseases. More than a million people die worldwide of these forms of cancer every year and the majority of them now “receive some form of systemic cytotoxic therapy before death,” wrote Dr Ralph Moss who continued on to say, “The personal views of many oncologists seem to be in striking contrast to communications intended for the public. Indeed, studies cited by Abel have shown that many oncologists would not take chemotherapy themselves if they had cancer.”

Dr Abel stated, “there is no evidence for the vast majority of cancers that treatment with these drugs exerts any positive influence on survival or quality of life in patients with advanced disease. The almost dogmatic belief in the efficacy of chemotherapy is usually based on false conclusions from inappropriate data.” Small-cell lung cancer “is the only carcinoma for which good direct evidence of a survival improvement by chemotherapy exists,” wrote Dr Abel but this improvement amounted to a matter of only three months!

Dr Mark Sircus Ac OMD DM(P)

Director International Medical Veritas Association

Doctor of Oriental and Pastoral Medicine

http://drsircus.com/

Further Information

Andrew W Saul PhD - Editor and contact person. omns@orthomolecular.org

Nutritional Medicine is Orthomolecular Medicine

The peer-reviewed Orthomolecular Medicine News Service is a non-profit and non-commercial informational resource. Orthomolecular medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to fight illness. For more information: www.orthomolecular.org 

http://orthomolecular.org/subscribe.html

http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/index.shtml

Find a Doctor

To locate an orthomolecular physician near you: http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v06n09.shtml  

Editorial Review Board

Ian Brighthope MD (Australia)

Ralph K. Campbell MD (USA)

Carolyn Dean MD ND (USA)

Damien Downing MD (United Kingdom)

Dean Elledge DDS MS (USA)

Michael Ellis MD (Australia)

Martin P. Gallagher MD DC (USA)

Michael Gonzalez DSc PhD (Puerto Rico)

William B. Grant PhD (USA)

Michael Janson MD (USA)

Robert E. Jenkins DC (USA)

Bo H. Jonsson MD PhD (Sweden)

Peter H Lauda MD (Austria)

Thomas Levy MD JD (USA)

Stuart Lindsey Pharm D (USA)

Jorge R. Miranda-Massari Pharm D (Puerto Rico)

Karin Munsterhjelm-Ahumada MD (Finland)

Erik Paterson MD (Canada)

W Todd Penberthy PhD (USA)

Gert E. Schuitemaker PhD (Netherlands)

Robert G. Smith PhD (USA)

Jagan Nathan Vamanan MD (India)

Ausuo Yanagisawa Md PhD (Japan)

Leading Independent Midwife Awarded ‘Midwife of the Year’ yet Forced to Give Up Practice

Jacqui Tomkins, Independent Midwives UK Chair, was this week (5^th March) awarded ‘Midwife of the Year’ by the prestigious British Journal of Midwifery.  The award recognizes and celebrates outstanding achievement and excellence in midwifery.  However this is a bitter-sweet moment for Jacqui because the Government has refused to support Independent Midwives after the EU Directive comes into force.  The new EU Directive requires that all healthcare professionals, including Independent Midwives (IMs) must be insured. However, currently IMs are the only healthcare professionals in the UK who are unable to purchase insurance which would meet the Directive.  Jacqui’s award acknowledged her work in setting up an insurance product which would meet the requirements of the Directive but needed government support.  As a result, once this legislation is in place, IMs will be unable to continue to work and will be deemed illegal.

This in turn, would result in the currently practising 180 IMs going out of business and joining more than 5,000 registered midwives who are currently unable to get a job in the NHS.  An additional 3,000 mothers who currently seek the support of IMs will be forced into the NHS, at an estimated cost to the NHS of £13 million.  Forcing independent midwives to cease practising will only further impact on the already over-stretched and under resourced NHS system.  Many women are also saying they would rather birth alone than enter into a system they do not feel safe in.  Women need a safe alternative to turn to.

The Independent Midwives UK (IMUK) is a bespoke insurance company which is a not-for-profit model to allow them to continue.  It is set up to meet the requirements of the EU Directive and would allow midwives to continue to provide care to women as they have done successfully for years.  Risk assessment has shown that insurance pay outs would equal £850,000, based on figures over the last 10 years, significantly less than the estimated £13 million cost to the NHS if all midwives were only able to practice within the NHS.

Despite the IMUK calling for Government backing to support the new insurance company, the Department of Health has written to the IMUK stating they will not provide backing, instead suggesting IMs either join the NHS or social enterprises - models which compromise patient care and dilute the care an independent midwife gives and a patient receives. 

Jacqui states; “At a time when approximately 5,000 midwives are unable to secure employment on the NHS IMs will struggle to find employment on the NHS. Women need to be provided with a safe alternative to the NHS. Social enterprises are not a suitable alternative as they have strict inclusion criteria which means many women will not be able to access them.  They rely on the commercial insurance market - which is profit driven - and means insurance may be withdrawn at any time.  Social enterprise models are in their infancy and have not yet proven financially stable. The Department of Health has made false assumptions about our proposed insurance package and huge inaccuracies were shown in their ‘cost-effectiveness analysis’ of our proposal.

“The IMUK is confident our bespoke insurance package for independent midwives delivers the EU Directive’s requirements.  It will allow self-employed midwives to continue to provide a full maternity care pathway which will provide the NHS and Department of Health with a viable, cost-saving alternative to social enterprises which are effectively gambling with patients’ wellbeing and IMs ability to practice. It is the first product to separate midwifery risk with obstetric risk resulting in a low claims risk element. The IMUK will not allow patients to face potential harm through lack of Gov’t backing to insure us.”

Until the legislation has passed, IMs will continue to support mothers-to-be and will continue to book new clients in a bid to provide mothers with a safe alternative to the NHS.  Jacqui concludes: “I have been awarded the prestigious title of ‘Midwife of the Year’ yet I fear that I will not be able to continue to work as a midwife, supporting my clients, if the government does not re-review our proposed insurance package or find a viable alternative. I find the Government’s actions highly irresponsible and short-sighted to allow the loss of the only maternity model independent of the NHS which meets all of their own targets and which women say is exactly the care they need.  If they don’t accept our proposal they must take responsibility for finding a viable solution to this issue. The IMUK will not give up; we will continue to fight for the rights of practising IMs and our clients”.

Further Resources:

Finlay Scott policy review of indemnity and insurance
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/216297/dh_117457.pdf

Increase in Freebirthing predicted without independent midwives

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/sep/14/freebirthing-birth-without-medical-support-safe

Why Independent Midwives are the key to birth freedom

www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/9949281/Home-delivery-why-independent-midwives-are-key-to-the-fight-for-birth-freedom.html

Birthrights: Why independent midwifery matters

www.birthrights.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Why-Independent-Midwifery-Matters2.pdf

About Independent Midwives:
Independent midwives (IMs) are registered and regulated by the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) and practice outside the NHS .  They provide continuity of care during pregnancy, birth and post-natal, and attend births at home.  IMs often assist women who have had poor experiences of care in previous and are an incredibly valuable repository of skills that are fast disappearing in mainstream maternity care, such as vaginal delivery of breech babies and twins.  Thousands of women turn to them every year seeking to prioritise birth at home, avoid induction or caesarean sections and for the continuous care they can provide which is frequently unavailable within the NHS system.    

The government have put forward the solution of joining the NHS or Social Enterprises

1. NHS has no jobs to accommodate;
2. 20% of all students will not get work.  50% of those who do will be part time.  IMs cost more than newly qualified because of wealth of experience;
3. 5000 midwives on register now unable to work in the NHS (NMC);
4. Paramount –  SE rely on commercial insurance market, which is driven by profit.  Past experience shows the commercial market can withdraw at any time.  This has happened in the UK in 2002, leaving IMs uninsured.  It happened in 2013 when RCN withdrew ultra sound insurance overnight!  In Germany all midwives have commercial insurance which is now being withdrawn, making it illegal for midwives to practice;
5. If NM 121 UKBC rely on commercial market and cannot afford premiums or the product is removed, they will be unable to practice immediately despite having women in their care;
6. NB. IM UK insurance is not for profit – run by midwives for midwives and women;
7. Not independent care.  Some women will never birth in the NHS for a variety of reasons including past trauma…
8. Women need a safe alternative outside of the NHS. Many IM clients have PTSD form previous births and cannot enter into the NHS system;
9. Caseloads are not chosen by either Midwife or Client;
10. Employment model results in high caseloads which negatively impacts on care.
11. Not proven to be financially viable/sustainable;
12. Forming such a corporate entity requires a significant amount of financial backing, in terms of both insurance and a centralised IT system (legally required to comply with existing regulations);
13. Social Enterprise companies are committed to paying their midwives regardless of the allocation of the trust award. A client transferring in labour would represent a loss to the social enterprise;
14. There is fear that this could lead to a reluctance to transfer, impacting on client care;
15. Requires NHS Contract to operate;
16. Only one provider has secured an NHS contract - through personal connection with the commissioner;
17. Commissioners will not contract in social enterprise companies with no track record, or statistics to prove financial viability;
18. The NHS is reluctant to commission to social enterprises because outsourcing backlogs in other simpler areas of healthcare is more financially viable with no transfer back;
19. The NHS is reluctant to commission in the social enterprise because outsourcing backlogs in other, simpler areas of healthcare is more financially viable with no transfer back;
20. There is only one insurer backing this model and they have confirmed that they cannot or will not provide another policy to anyone else (not commercially appealing);
21. Fees have to be increased to cover business costs - excluding a vast number of women from accessing a service outside of the NHS.

Despite efforts by three companies, this model has not been shown to be financially viable:

one has been told that as they have no track record and no stats to show financial viability the NHS will not commission from them.  Indeed only one company has secured an NHS contract, and that is due to a personal connection with the commissioner. Their insurance and over heads are massive to cover, especially with no contracts;

one is experiencing financial difficulties.  They are the one company which has secured an NHS contract, and that is due to a personal connection with the commissioner;

one has already been in liquidation twice, this is a third attempt

New Biological Therapeutic in Mullerian Inhibiting Substance (MIS):  One Step Closer to Clinical Testing in Ovarian Cancer

Mullerian inhibiting substance, or MIS, is a reproductive hormone produced in foetal testes, which inhibits the development of female secondary sexual structures in males. Before sexual differentiation, the foetus is bipotential, and the developmental choice of male Wolffian ducts (i.e. prostate, vas deferens) over female Mullerian ducts (i.e. Fallopian tubes, uterus, vagina) in the male is controlled in part by MIS. Because MIS is such a potent inhibitor of the development of Mullerian-derived tissue, it has been proposed as a potential therapeutic of Mullerian-derived tumors such as uterine, Fallopian, cervical, and ovarian cancers.

MIS belongs to the transforming growth factor beta (TGF-β) superfamily, a class of proteins involved in cell growth and cellular differentiation. Recombinant TGF-β proteins have been very difficult to produce in the laboratory because they require complex post-translational processing for activity. Because of these peculiarities, MIS can only be feasibly produced in mammalian cells, and not E. coli or yeast, where production yields are much higher, and industrial scaling more straightforward. In mammalian cells, yield and homogeneity of the recombinant protein can be significant barriers for production of clinical grade material, which has in the past hampered the development of TGF-β therapeutic proteins. Recombinant bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP-2), in a paste form, remains the only TGF-β family member used in the clinic and is limited to the specific indication of autologous bone grafting. Progress in the technology of production and purification of TGF-β recombinant proteins could help many candidates, including MIS, to achieve their therapeutic potential in the clinic.

A team of researchers from the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) and the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary report that modifications to the protein sequence at the activating cleavage site of MIS to enhance maturation into the active form, and the addition of a leader sequence from albumin, the most highly secreted protein in the blood, results in higher production yield of cleaved active and more potent MIS which does not suffer from contaminating undesirable internal cleavage products..

"This technology is the culmination of our efforts to scale the production of MIS beyond the laboratory and into the clinic" says Dr Patricia Donahoe of MGH, the paper's senior author. "We show that not only can we produce high levels of this protein, but unexpectedly our modifications increase activating cleavage of MIS while improving the homogeneity of the product, all of which are necessary for translation to the clinic". The enhanced cleavage of MIS resulted in much greater activity when it was tested for its ability to induce Mullerian duct regression ex vivo.  These modifications can be incorporated in other technologies such as viral vectors for gene therapy.

"The newly engineered recombinant MIS shows great promise and is a necessary component before clinical application of a biological such as MIS”, said Dr. W. Gerald Austen, the Edward D. Churchill Distinguished Professor of Surgery at Harvard Medical School and Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) Surgeon-in-Chief Emeritus, and Chairman of the MGH Chief’s Council, giving encouragement for the project.

Jacques-Pierre Moreau PhD, CEO of Mulleris Therapeutics, Inc., who is dedicated to developing MIS as a therapeutic, states, “The therapeutic potential of MIS has, so far, been hindered by the scarcity of clinical grade product. The publication of this paper by Pepin et al. represents a major advance in providing a reliable source of this regulatory hormone, thus making clinical development in oncology, endocrinology, and neurology possible”.

Family advocates from the McBride Foundation and Commons Development have long provided support to the Pediatric Surgical Research Laboratories, Jack McBride, states, “We feel that our support of Dr. Donahoe’s research over the years is now reaching a state where patients may profit”.

The technology surrounding the modification of the MIS peptide is not only applicable to ovarian cancer, but has shown strong promise for other tumor types such as uterine, breast, and cervical cancers. “We choose to go after ovarian cancer, first, since it is the most lethal of these gynecological malignancies, with the fewest treatment options”, says Dr. Donahoe. There is also early promise of using MIS gene therapy to treat neurodegenerative diseases using these modified constructs.

Further Information

For more information on this research, refer to:

www.worldscientific.com/doi/pdf/10.1142/S2339547813500076

Contact: Chew Munkit, Deputy Marketing Manager; Tel: (65) 64665775, Ext 251;  mkchew@wspc.com.sg