Positive Health Online

Dr Nicholas Gonzalez On Cancer & Health

by Helke Ferrie
"...if you are an honest scientist, it doesn't matter if its moondust if its working, you have got to follow through I also believe that truth always comes to the top I have done what I have done because of the truth of it, and the truth has proven to be only truer as Ive gotten further into this quest, and the results have been my greatest joy. We have found the fundamental way in which nature works with cancer, and its extraordinary. It is the greatest reward I could ever ask for."


Dr Nicholas Gonzalez of New York is one of a small number of doctors who succeed with cancer beyond the wildest dreams of establishment oncology and thereby put the lie to the pharmaceutical hype that fuels a cancer industry ringing in at hundreds of billions of dollars, while fooling millions of desperate and bewildered patients. "I've been told drug companies know about my work but hope I get hit by a bus", he observes wryly.

Examining evidence in the light of one's own understanding, rather than accepting other people's interpretations, and then departing from established norms, somehow always winds up as an ordeal by fire at the stake in past centuries, or in trials by regulatory bodies who know how to torture and cripple in contemporary ways. Orthodoxy of any stripe never is what it pretends to be, but constitutes a rigorous system designed to protect revenues, power, and egos, and thus serves an elaborate structure which enjoys the comfort of opinion and defends in every way possible against the discomfort of thought, as John F Kennedy put it.
 
Yet, every orthodoxy is cracked by some heretic arising within that system, in this case decorated with academic honours galore, such as Dr Gonzalez, an immunologist and medical doctor, who received his degrees from Columbia and Cornell universities. His mentor was none other that Dr Robert Good, a world-famous oncologist and the then director of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Dr Good encouraged him to examine the cancer treatment developed by a maverick dentist, Donald Kelley. Having cured himself of pancreatic cancer, just about the deadliest one there is, Kelley developed a protocol based on the earlier work by Dr Max Gerson and the discovery made in the early 1900s by John Beard of Edinburgh University about the central importance of pancreatic enzymes for cancer prevention and treatment.
 
Starting in 1981, Dr Gonzalez systematically studied 10,000 cancer cases from Dr Kelley's files, but the book Gonzalez wrote on this project, One Man Alone, in 1987 was stonewalled by all publishers: it became available finally this year, available on www.amazon.com , www.amazon.uk  and www.newspringpress.com/oneman.html . Kelley was hounded throughout his life by the establishment, imprisoned, and bankrupted. Similarly, Dr Gonzalez was put through various disciplinary trials and punishments, also in an effort to stop the heresy of curing cancer with enzyme therapy, nutrition, and detoxification protocols. When the US National Institutes of Health and the American government and various cancer organizations found themselves unable to stop Dr Gonzalez success with cancer patients, they tried to mess with his clinical trials instead - a horrendous story, now in press, and reviewed in Vitality Magazine's October issue. Unlike the tragic Kelley, Dr Gonzalez is prevailing.

At the heart of the battle are two opposing views on cancer. Orthodoxy sees the cancer patient as a battlefield and embarks on what Dr Julian Whitaker describes, in Suzanne Somers absolutely superb book, Knockout, as a search-and destroy mission to purge the body of cancer cells, find a tumour, cut it out, poison it with chemotherapy, or obliterate it with radiation; the result of this approach has been that for the past half century the death rate for cancer has not budged. All wars are extremely lucrative for the weapons industry and very bad for the health of those on the receiving end of that industry's products.

The opposing view, Dr Gonzalez told Somers, is that tumours are not the illness, but rather the body's way to sequester waste material; the tumour has a purpose [it is] a sign that the body is too filled with toxins, and these can overwhelm the liver's ability to process them, [then] confronting the body with an enormous load of toxic waste that produces tumours which are like accessory livers , namely additional, desperately and hastily constructed toxic waste dumps.

For Drs Beard, Gerson, Kelley, Gonzalez and other past and contemporary heretical cancer doctors, the body is not a battlefield, but rather an exquisitely constructed living entity capable of perfect self-repair. It requires biologically appropriate and bio-friendly assistance in order to do its inherent repair process in all those ways it knows better than any doctor could ever hope to understand. This sort of therapeutic dialogue with the cancer, and a body known to be capable of self-repair, is fundamentally nurturing; it also does not generate obscene wealth for any body of professionals, nor for any kind of industry, arms or drugs.
 
Howard Straus, Dr Max Gerson's grandson working at the Gerson Institute, and Dr Gonzalez observed in a recent as yet unpublished paper: "The human body is made up of about 100 trillion cells All cells in the body are replaced at least once every year and a half. Many structures (such as the liver or the lining of the intestines) are replaced in days or weeks. When the organs are replaced, they are replaced with healthy, new cells. This replacement and repair process generates 180 billion cells per day and also, simultaneously removes exactly as many dead cells every day in a perfect 1:1 ratio, or [else] any one organ would decrease or increase in size and create unimaginable problems. Toxins interfere with this process, and without proper nutrients their work is stopped. Then the immune system cannot work properly either. There is no need to stimulate the immune system, as many [pharmaceutical] immune therapies today attempt to do; the immune system is designed and optimized to repair any dysfunction on its own Once the proper support is supplied to the immune system, it awakens and acts with a speed and power that can only be termed awesome to behold.

This perfectly balanced process of health maintenance can only function properly if our bodies receive healthy (bio-identical) fuel, otherwise cancer may begin. Everything in our bodies comes from one place: our diets, states Dr Gonzalez. Nutrition is key. It's the foundation. It's not the end, it's the beginning. It's the ultimate foundation for good health. If you don't have that, nothing else is going to work. But, he continues, the fact is that we treat our cars better than we treat our bodies. No one would think about putting the wrong fuel into their expensive car, but [people] go and put the biggest pile of junk into their mouths and are shocked to find that their cancer diagnosis stems from the garbage the food industry serves up. Indeed, so much of what we eat often unknowingly - is outright carcinogenic. Back in the late 19th century Sir William Osler already observed that we dig our graves with our knives and forks.

If indeed it is so simple to cure cancer and prevent it by removing the garbage and providing healing nutrients, instead of bombarding the body with even more toxic substances (imagined to be the appropriate weapons of cellular mass destruction), it would put an end to all the marches and research dollars, and most of all to a big huge chemotherapy business [of] $200 billion a year, observes Suzanne Somers. Well, the proof is in that it is that simple and that complex, and certainly possible.
 
The underlying complexity of nurturing protocols is startling in its effect. Any one biological substance affects multiple targets at once, and all of them interact with each other. The notion of sending one synthetic chemical name any cancer drug on the market into a system in which trillions of intelligent cells communicate simultaneously with each other, and expecting to hit a target imagined to be the enemy, like some sort of smart bomb, is so silly as to leave one speechless. In war, smart bombs always have collateral damage information usually suppressed to the preserve political spin of the day. In cancer therapy, devastating side effects to such smart drugs are equally downplayed to preserve profits. As a member of the cancer establishment, said to Suzanne Somers: The truth is, we don't want to find a cure for cancer. It's too big a business.
 
Once a lie begins to become apparent and doubt arises, more and more people begin to think in different and new ways, too. On a daily basis, the internet-based medical research websites report on how very wrong the cancer establishment in fact is on just about everything once considered unquestionable. A decade ago, the American Cancer Society absolutely denied that nutrition has anything at all to do with cancer prevention or could be useful in treatment. However, the President's Cancer Panel Report this year stated exactly the opposite. Indeed, now basic research scientists are even identifying the natural chemicals found in specific foods that help the body prevent cancer, such as are found in broccoli and similar plants. We learn now that exposure to toxic environmental chemicals, once denied as even existing, can program the body for cancer decades later; the timing process of these evolving time bombs is beginning to be understood also. The newly initiated Cancer Genome Project, designed to examine a great many different cancers, will undoubtedly provide information on why the work of Dr Gonzalez and his past and present colleagues are working - after all we knew that sunshine and cod liver oil prevented and cured rickets long before we knew why and how.

As for the battlefield approach to cancer patients bodies, it is gratifying to see how the establishment must time and again acknowledge that their weapons usually injure, and do not nurture or protect. The reports are in on how pharmaceutical drugs which are intended to treat symptoms of diabetes, high blood pressure, depression and more, go on to cause cancer. Only a couple of years ago anyone, like myself, asserting that mammograms and CAT scans are bad news and should be avoided because radiation causes cancer, was treated like an ignoramus of the most dangerous type. That, too, has changed, and the establishment even admits that it is now known exactly how these more often than not unnecessary diagnostic or preventive tests cause cancer. They even admit that cancer is dangerously over-investigated through the use of these and other routine tests on people already diagnosed with cancer, thereby further decreasing their life expectancy and quality of life.

Yet, the statistical musical chairs claiming that cancer is decreasing still goes on. Recently, the statistical decrease in certain cancers was hailed as just ever so wonderful, turning out to be an insignificant 1.3%. There are, however, some trends showing a decrease of certain cancers which nicely dovetail with the decline in the use of the birth control pill and the increasing refusal to undergo cancer-promoting mammography; women are turning more and more to non-invasive thermography.

Best of all, the truth about the underlying fraud and sleaze is emerging at a rate that I find difficult to keep up with, even though I study this nauseating stuff on a daily basis: for example, the fraud in breast cancer research, most of which is based on the use of the wrong cell lines; or the all-pervading conflicts of interest in cancer research resulting in lucrative fantasies rather than science, are just two instances. The literature on the uselessness and deadly nature of chemotherapy is now mainstream and found in the leading journals with recommendations to drastically decrease its use.

Truly astounding, and in a weird kind of way encouraging, is the disillusionment oncologists are voicing. Suzanne Somers tells us of an oncologist who lamented: "I dream of the day when I no longer have to poison people". Indeed, so do we all. Maybe, in the not too distant future cancer patients and their doctors will stop the war on cancer and join forces and work together with the magic and mystery of biological healing.

Resources

Somers, S. Knockout Interviews With Doctors Who Cure Cancer, Crown, 2009.
Beard, J. The Enzyme Treatment of Cancer And Its Scientific Basis, New Spring Press. (the reprint of the 1911 book introduced by Dr Nicholas Gonzalez). 2010.
Gonzalez, N. & Isaacs, L. both MDs, A Clinical Trial, New Spring Press. In press, 2010.
Gonzalez, N. & Isaacs, L. both MDs, The Trophoblast and the Origins of Cancer, New Springs Press, 2009.
Gonzalez, N. MD, One Man Alone An Investigation of Nutrition, Cancer and William Donald Kelley, New Spring Press, (1987) 2010.
Moss, R. W. Questioning Chemotherapy, Equinox 2000.
Faguet, G. B. The War on Cancer An Anatomy of Failure, Springer, 2005.
Davis, D. L. MD, The Secret History of the War on Cancer, Basic Books, 2007.
For the complete list of sources, go to Vitality's website version of this article: www.vitalitymagazine.com  .
The statements by Dr Gonzalez are taken from Suzanne Somers interview published in Knockout in 2009 and from a 1995 interview by Moneychanger, available at www.dr-gonzalez.com .

Sources and Further Information

- www.vitalitymagazine.com  
EM Ward et al. Research Recommendations for Selected IARC-Classified Agents, Environmental Health Perspectives, July 2010; published simultaneously in the Journal of the American Cancer Society, July 15, 2010 under the title: Knowledge gaps for 20 carcinogens outlined. The project, on which these articles are based, was begun by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
 
The 20 high-priority items that the American Cancer Society calls for to be thoroughly investigated for their ability to cause cancer are: all lead compounds, indium phosphide, cobalt with tungsten carbide, titanium dioxide, welding fumes, refractory ceramic fibres, diesel exhaust, carbon black, styrene-7,8-oxide and styrene, propylene oxide, acetaldehyde, dichloromethane and methylene chloride (DCM), trichloroethylene (TCE), tetrachlorethylene (perc, tetra, PCE), chloroform, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). This is significant because all of these are already known to medicine to be toxic to the nervous system, but their ability to cause cancer has not been as fully studied as it should.
 
Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk What We Can Do Now. The Annual Report of the US President Cancer Panel 2009.
 
This report advocates organic food, warns against the cancer-causing properties of pharmaceutical drugs especially when found in the water supply, and re-defines cancer as an environmentally triggered disease.
 
On May 29, 2010, California announced, that in the light of the overwhelming evidence that fluoride is a cancer-causing agent, it would study the carcinogenic properties of fluoride as a top priority with a view to reduce its use.
 
Environmental Health published in July 2010 the evidence supporting the cancer-causing properties of cleaning products used widely in North America. This will make it difficult for the manufacturers to hide behind the association myth.
 
New York Times, October 21, 2009 ran an article by the chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society. He stated that mammograms are not as useful as thought to be. The advantages of screening have been exaggerated. The PSA test for prostate cancer was discussed in the same way as unreliable and inappropriately overused.
 
Published in December of 2009, the US Preventive Services Task Force announced that mammography can cause cancer and should be used very sparingly if at all, because repeated screening increases the chances of breast cancer significantly. These findings were also published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute which warned especially women carrying the Breast Cancer Gene 1 and 2 because they are thought to be most vulnerable to the cancer-causing activity of mammography radiation. For these and related publications go to www.naturalnews.com for the year 2009, especially entries for June 9. See also Dr Mercola's website http://emf.mercola.com/sites/emf/archive/2010/09/25/high-ct-scan-radiation-is-deadly.aspx  for a summary of the published evidence on the dangers of CAT scans and their power to increase cancer, September 25, 2010. His citations include the observation from the New England Journal of Medicine that annually in the US at least 30,000 unnecessary CAT scans are done leading to about 14,500 additional and preventable cancer cases.
 
The Journal of the American Medical Association also published on October 13, 2010, that a far too large number of already diagnosed cancer patients are continuing to be screened for additional cancers which does not serve any purpose at all other than routine and profits.
 
The Radiology Society of America published findings that screening for breast cancer increases the risk of breast cancer incidence and called for a drastic reduction in this sort of screening in their journal Radiology, August 24, 2010. Given it is their own business these radiologists are hurting by such findings, the information appears top be more reliable than from any other source.
 
The follow-up research on the largest ever study on cancer in women, the Women's Health Initiative once again confirmed that synthetic hormone replacement therapy (HRT) increases the risk of cancer significantly in postmenopausal women. The source for this research is the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), 304 (15): 1719 ff and pp. 1684 ff., both October 2010. (Bio-identical hormones do not carry this risk.)
 
First opposed by Big Pharma to the best of their ability, it is now so well understood exactly how synthetic hormones (i.e. hormone replacement therapy) cause breast cancer, that attempts are under way to prevent this in any future drug design. See Nature, September 29, 2010, on the RANKL study which established this.
 
Published on April 1, 2010, in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and on April 2, 2010, in the journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine it was reported that proof is in that exposure to toxic chemicals before the age of 30 increases the risk of especially breast cancer significantly. The chemicals concerned were listed and explained in detail.
 
On the much hyped cancer drug Tamoxifen which supposedly reduces the recurrence of breast cancer and has been prescribed to tens of thousands of women after a first time event of breast cancer, is now clearly established as causing cancer itself: Cancer Research, July 1, volume 69, 2009 issue, which is the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research. It discusses how this drug stimulates cellular changes in the uterus and ovaries leading eventually to cancer.
 
Research from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center presented at the American Association for Cancer Research 101st Annual Meeting showed that meat especially if well done, significantly increases the risk of especially bladder cancer.
 
Fortune Magazine published an article on how the war on cancer was lost by Clifton Leaf and Doris Burke on March 22, 2004. It discusses also the most important drugs used in mainstream cancer therapy and their failure to be useful. Can be accessed through the archives of the magazine.
 
The assertion that nutritional supplements can be used therapeutically has received important mainstream support:
 
1.  The role of the mineral Selenium in decreasing bladder cancer risk was published in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention on September 13, 2010.
2.   The importance of Vitamin E in preventing and treating prostate cancer was elucidated at a conference at Queensland University of Technology on October 24, 2010.
3.   The link between increased vegetable intake and cancer prevention was reported from Boston University Medical Centre on October 13, 2010, and published in the American Journal of Epidemiology that month.
4.   Archives of Dermatology (one of the JAMA journals) published on October 20, 2010, vol. 146, issue 10, the finding that basal cell carcinoma is essentially a vitamin D3 deficiency responsible for more than one million cases diagnosed annually. They conclude that this is preventable and screening for D3 status should be obligatory.
 
The assumption underlying the pharmaceutical industry's approach to cancer (shared by the Cancer Establishment) that one can target cancer cells and then knock out the development of cancer for good, has been challenged in favour of cancer as a systemic disease (as viewed by Gerson, Gonzalez and others interviewed in Suzanne Somers book Knockout) by sophisticated basic research published in the journal Chaos; the authors are from Harvard Medical School and the American Institute of Physics: M. Imielinski & C. Belta. Deep Epistasis in human metabolism, Chaos An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, vol. 20 (2), 2010.
 
The American Journal of Pathology, October 14, 2010 published a very important article by Z Xu, A. Vonlaufen et al, Role of Pancreatic Stellate Cells in Pancreatic Cancer. It overturns the current ideas of how cancer spreads through the body. It has long been known that this happens through biopsies also (read why to avoid them in the interview with Dr Nicholas Gonzalez by Suzanne Somers in her 2009 book Knockout).
 
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism published in their October 10, 2010 issue an article showing how common treatments for prostate cancer cause bone decay in men (and don't work very well for the cancer either).
 
The journal Lancet Oncology published in June 2010 findings by I. Sipahi et al findings indicating that common blood pressure medications are cancer promoting.
 
The cause of mesothelioma, the cancer caused exclusively by asbestos (see Helke Ferrie's article of March 2009), is finally understood, and the asbestos industry can no longer claim merely association and get away with mining this stuff. The report on this established causality was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in June 2010: Haining Yang et al. Programmed necrosis induced by asbestos in human mesothelial cells.
 
The critical analysis of the Cancer Establishment undertaken for decades now by Ralph Moss on cancer is known the world over. On the internet an article of his from 1990 is especially helpful (as is his book Questioning Chemotherapy) especially because now it is even more relevant than it was 20 years ago: Chemos Berlin Wall Crumbles. Google it.
 
A very helpful and up-to-date resource for all you need to know about chemotherapy is the website of the Minnesota Wellness Publications: www.mnwelldir.org Go to Fraud: Chemotherapy.
 
Another excellent website is called NaturalNews by Mike Adams: www.naturalnews.com Use his search engine for chemo, radiation and surgery pertaining to cancer.
 
The Scientists (www.TheScientist.com) published on September 16, 2008, the full story on how the bulk of cancer research, specifically breast cancer, relies on incorrectly identified cell lines, thereby making the majority of the research based on unverifiable data. The problem was traced to a doctoral student James Rae at Georgtown University in Washington DC working then for pharmaceutical giant Astra Zeneca. Rae was not prosecuted and the mis-information, published in Nature Genetics in 2000 went viral throughout cancer research. Sorting out the resulting mess was the subject of a conference held in 2008 at the London Health Sciences Centre in Canada.

Archives

www.newmediaexplorer.org/chris/archives.htm  
Council Member: Friends of Freedom International & the Canadian Coalition for Health Freedom - www.friendsoffreedominternational.org  & www.canadiancoalitionforhealthfreedom.ca  

Reprinted from Vitality Magazine November 2010 - www.vitalitymagazine.com

Source

Chris Gupta chrisgupta@alumni.uwaterloo.ca

---

Vitamin C And The Law: A Personal Viewpoint

by Thomas E Levy MD JD

As a patient, you have the right to any therapy that is not prohibitively expensive, established to be effective, and not prohibitively toxic.

Any physician, or panel of hospital-based physicians, claiming that vitamin C is experimental, unapproved, and / or posing unwarranted risks to the health of the patient, is really only demonstrating a complete and total ignorance or denial of the scientific literature. A serious question as to what the real motivations might be in the withholding of such a therapy then arises.

A doctor has the right to refuse to see you or treat you. A doctor does not have the right to deny you any therapy that is inexpensive and known to be effective and non-toxic; if there is toxicity involved, the patient can discharge his responsibility for such toxicity with proper informed consent. A doctor does not have the right to deny you consultation with another doctor that may have conflicting medical points of view.

Just as ignorance of the law is no sound defence to legal charges brought against you, ignorance of medical fact is ultimately no sound defence for a doctor withholding valid treatment, especially when that information can be easily accessed

While a hospital may or may not have a legal right to dictate to its physicians what they may or may not do; the patient and the family of the patient have the legal right to sue that hospital for any negative outcome that is perceived to directly result from such interference in patient care.

The patient and the family of the patient also have the right to sue any physician that refuses to administer an inexpensive, non-toxic therapy that is established to be of use in the medical literature, such as vitamin C, especially when no other options other than permitting the patient to die are offered. Doctors have a very strong herd mentality, and they do not thrive well when forced to deal with a lawsuit alone; possibly not even with the backup of their malpractice insurance company, which would seriously question why an approved medicine such as vitamin C was withheld from the patient. Remember that any insurance company always looks for a legal way not to pay expenses or settlements.

In a court of law, legal decisions regarding medical issues are usually decided by comparing a doctor's actions (or inactions) to the accepted standards of medical practice in the community in question. The legal sticking points relate to how different that community might be from others, and whether the accepted standard of practice is too far deviated from overall mainstream medicine norms.

The legal system struggles with reconciling something well-established in the medical literature, but not reflected in the standard medical textbooks. A case involving withheld vitamin C would not currently have any direct legal precedent of which I am aware, but there are multiple reasons to believe that the time is ripe for the law to rule for the patient's right to receive vitamin C in the hospital over the doctor's 'right' to withhold it.

The time for changing the view of vitamin C by the law and mainstream medicine has arrived. Over the past 20 years, many more doctors have begun to routinely give 50 grams (50,000 mg) or more of vitamin C intravenously on a regular basis to patients with the entire gamut of medical conditions. These doctors have come from the same medical schools and postgraduate training programs as their unlike-minded mainstream counterparts, meaning they have the same traditional credentials and warrant equal consideration.

The law recognizes that there is no one perfect medical approach to a patient. Having an increasingly large body of doctors who recognize the importance of vitamin C will allow the courts to permit an additional "school of thought", as long as enough traditionally-trained doctors think that way. The question yet to be legally determined is, How many such doctors is "enough?"

Under United States law, the long-standing Frye standard (1923) held that expert opinion based on a scientific technique is admissible only where the technique is generally accepted as reliable in the relevant scientific community. This standard made it almost impossible for any technique embraced by a minority, however competent or appropriately trained, to ever coexist with, much less supersede, a technique embraced by the larger scientific community. Basically, majority always wins, and minority always loses.

The Daubert standard (1993) finally replaced the Frye standard. Daubert held that the court should:

1. Evaluate whether the science can be or has been tested;
2. Determine whether the science has been published or peer-reviewed;
3. Consider the likelihood of error (quality and quantity of the data);
4. Evaluate the general acceptance of the theory in the scientific community.

If the court is so inclined, the evaluation of general acceptance in the scientific (medical) community does not have to invoke the "majority rules" nature of the earlier Frye standard. Rather, it can allow the consideration that enough scientific studies embraced by enough qualified doctors could prevail legally. However, any final ruling would be heavily dependent on the particular facts of the case and the precise intervention requested of the court.

The principles of Daubert do not assure a victory for vitamin C proponents in a court of law, but they do allow an objective judge to see that the body of evidence supporting vitamin C usage is clearly established in the mainstream medical literature, warranting a thorough legal evaluation as to why it is not yet a permissible therapy. These principles allow for much more flexibility than the earlier Frye "majority rules" standard.

Also, with any individual case in which a doctor refuses to administer vitamin C and serious damage (including death) occurs, a strong legal case can be now be made that the burden of proof falls with the doctor to show:

1. That the therapy was exceptionally expensive, toxic, and/or unproven;
2. That the patient's best interests were somehow best served by withholding vitamin C.

Always try to make an alliance with your doctor and avoid an adversarial relationship if at all possible. Theoretically, if your doctor really wants to do what is best for the patient and is not more concerned with being told what to do, much stress and conflict can be avoided by all. However, do not hesitate to let your doctor know directly that you will avail yourself of all your rights or your family member's rights as a patient to optimal health care if so forced.

A very common 'out' in all of these scenarios is to suggest that 'further studies' should be done. More information is always useful, but vitamin C has already been researched more than any other supplement, or even most pharmaceutical drugs, in the history of the planet. Don't allow another 70 years of research to transpire before its proper use begins.

Stand up for your rights today. The way medicine is practised will never change until the public demands it and the law legitimizes it. Remember, it's your body and your health. Doctors are answerable to you, not you to them.

About the Author

Thomas Edward Levy MD JD is a graduate of the Tulane University School of Medicine and the University of Denver College of Law. He board certified in Internal Medicine and is also a Fellow of the American College of Cardiology. He was admitted to the Colorado Bar in 1998 and the District of Columbia Bar in 1999. Dr Levy is on the Editorial Board of the Orthomolecular Medicine News Service. Visit his website at www.tomlevymed.com  

References:

Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579. 1993.
An expanded version of Vitamin C and the Law by Dr Levy is available as a free pdf download at www.tomlevymd.com/downloads/VC.NZ.Sept.2010.pdf   or www.doctoryourself.com/VC.NZ.Sept.2010.pdf  

Source

Orthomolecular Medicine News Service
omns@cihfimediaservices.org  

Further Information

Nutritional Medicine is Orthomolecular Medicine. Orthomolecular medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to fight illness.
For more information: www.orthomolecular.or g 
Andrew W. Saul PhD (USA), Editor and contact person. omns@orthomolecular.org 
To Subscribe at no charge: www.orthomolecular.org/subscribe.html  
OMNS archive link http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/index.shtml