Report #1

Insulin Potentiation Therapy (IPT)

"I believe that we will look back at today's medicine, especially today's oncology, as part of an ignorant and barbaric time, when patients were administered highly toxic doses of expensive drugs, while a gentle technique using insulin potentiation was being widely ignored."

IPT means chemotherapy without side effects.

The same standard, toxic chemotherapeutic substances are used in IPT as in the conventional protocol, but in IPT, these agents are selectively targeting cancer cells, without harming healthy cells. 5 to 15% of the "normal" dose is used, yet a much higher quantity of cytotoxic chemicals reach the cancer cells than in the non-potentiated, full-dose protocol. The result is high-level efficacy with virtually no danger to healthy cells.

What does the procedure consist of?

In IPT, the patient is injected intravenously with a small dose of insulin. In approx. 30 minutes, the patient begins to feel a little tired and sleepy, as a mild hypoglycemia (low glucose level in the blood) develops. Shortly after, chemotherapeutic medication is injected intravenously, combined with, or followed by glucose and other adjunctive medications, further potentiating the cytotoxic agents, and ending the hypoglycemia

Under normal circumstances, IPT can be administered in the physician's private office; no hospitalization is required, unless the patient's general condition makes it necessary. Any medical doctor can undergo the training, which takes only a few days, and practice IPT in his/her office or clinic. The doctor doesn't have to be an oncologist.

This, of course, is one reason why the concept of IPT is not very popular among oncologists. It lifts treating cancer out of the jurisdiction of the oncologist. It takes chemotherapy out from the hospital environment, and turns a very intensive - and expensive - treatment protocol into a brief outpatient event. It also reduces the quantity of very expensive chemotherapeutic substances generally used in the protocol to a fraction of their standard dosage. The yearly revenue of the pharmaceutical industry from chemotherapeutic drugs tops $15 billion (not million, billion!) per year. IPT, if used everywhere, would eliminate 90-95% of this revenue. Add to this the loss of revenue by hospitals, oncologists, radiologists, etc., and it becomes clear why IPT represents an economic danger to the medical establishment.

However, the pharmaceutical profits don't seem to be in any danger. At the present, there are 800 thousand medical doctors, including oncologists, in the United States. About forty of them offer IPT in their practice, although the number is slowly growing. (Please note: the number is not 40 thousand, but 40).

How does IPT work? What makes it so much safer and so much more effective than conventional chemotherapy?

This is how Dr. Thomas Lodi, MD explains it on his website at

Cancer cells, unlike other cells in human beings are anaerobic. That means they can not use oxygen when they metabolize glucose (burn sugar) for energy. A healthy, oxygen burning cell can produce 38 ATPs (energy packets) from one molecule of glucose and one molecule of oxygen. A cancer cell can only produce 2 ATPs from one molecule of glucose in the absence of oxygen. Obviously then, cancer cells are very inefficient at producing energy. As a consequence, they need 19 times more sugar (glucose) than non-cancerous cells.
In order for any cell to absorb sugar, insulin is required. Insulin is the “key” that opens the “lock” on the cell to allow sugar to pass through. The “locks” on the cell surface are called insulin receptors. Cancer cells have developed a very simple but effective strategy which allows them to get more of the available sugar than their neighbors, the non-cancerous cells. They simply have many more insulin receptors than non-cancerous cells! Having many more receptors, cancer cells are able to bind and use more of the available insulin than all the other cells. So whether one eats a banana or a candy bar, the cancer is fed first and the rest of the cells get the “leftovers”.
This knowledge can be used to target the cancer cell with cytotoxic agents (chemotherapy). Kind of like, a “smart bomb”. By administering small amounts of insulin, it is possible to “select” the cancer cells from amongst all the other cells in the body because they bind the insulin much more quickly. There are a multitude of effects upon cells when insulin binds to them and one of these effects is that the cells become more permeable (creating openings). Once the cancer cells have been targeted by the insulin to “open their doors”, small amounts of the appropriate chemotherapeutic drugs can be administered. This is usually from 5% to 10% of the standard dose. Much of what is administered becomes absorbed into the cancer cells (permeable) and not the normal cells (relatively “hard”). IPT is able, therefore, to take advantage of the powerful cytotoxic (cell-killing) effects of standard chemotherapy without having to use high doses.
Because the dosing is low, side effects are minimized and the treatments can be given more frequently giving cancer cells less time to become resistant to the drugs.
A useful metaphor:
A conventional oncologist finds out that there is a burglar in the kitchen, so he throws a hand grenade into the kitchen.
IPT trained physicians find out that there is a burglar in the kitchen, inject some poison into a hungry mosquito and then send it into the kitchen. They feel very strongly that it is important to keep the kitchen intact. They also want to know that even if the burglar escaped through an open window, having been bitten by the mosquito, he will not survive very long.
What Drugs or Protocols are used with IPT?
IPT physicians maintain membership in professional societies, attend conferences, read journals and communicate with colleagues in order to maintain a current knowledge base regarding all new drugs and protocols being used in the conventional treatment of cancer. This is done so that IPT can continue to be as effective as possible by using the best of standard therapies in a rational manner.
In this regard, the Hippocratic Oath is taken very seriously.
“Primum non nocere” or “First, do no harm”.
If the immune system is significantly harmed while attempting to destroy the cancer, it would be a great and perhaps fatal, disservice to the patient. For it is the immune system which keeps us clean, renewed and protected from infections, toxins and cancer.
And there is a cure for cancer; it is called a healthy immune system!
Cancer cells have also developed another strategy to survive that IPT uses to its’ advantage. Not only are there many more insulin receptors on cancer cells but there are also many more ‘growth hormone’ receptors, called IGF-1 and IGF-2. The acronym IGF stands for Insulin-like Growth Factor and therefore insulin can also bind to the IGF receptors. When these receptors are stimulated, cells are triggered to begin the process of dividing. Since many chemotherapeutic drugs are designed to kill cells which are actively dividing, stimulating the cancer cells to divide just before giving the chemotherapy actually increases the number of cancer cells that will be killed during the IPT treatment.
So, it becomes clear that [by catering to its glucose hunger, and stimulating cancer cell division] IPT kills cancer by using the same strategies that cancer uses to kill people.

How effective is IPT?
Dr. Ross Hauser, MD writes in his book, Treating Cancer With Insulin Potentiation Therapy:

To test the hypothesis that insulin can potentiate the effects of chemotherapy, researchers at George Washington University in Washington D.C. and the laboratory of Pathophysiology at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda MD studied the killing effects of methotrexate on breast cancer cells with and without insulin. Methotrexate was chosen because it is more effective against fast cycling phase cells than against resting phase cells. The authors found that insulin could increase the cytotoxic effect of methotrexate up to 10,000-fold. At every concentration of methotrexate used, insulin potentiated its killing effect. They concluded the research paper saying: ‘The 10,000-fold increase in methotrexate cytotoxity produced by insulin may establish not only a new way to increase the therapeutic effect of methotrexate but also the principle that metabolic modifiers should be examined as a means to increase the tumoricidal effects of chemotherapeutic agents.'

Chemotherapeutic agents that work at a certain point in the cell cycle are called cell cycle-specific agents and need the cancer cells to be actively dividing to work at maximum effectiveness. Since insulin increases cancer cell division, it potentiates the effects of these agents.

During IPT, it is common for the person to receive three or four different agents during a treatment that each kill cancer cells by a different mechanism. This, at least theoretically, will decrease the likelihood of cancer cells becoming resistant to the drugs used and also increase the likelihood of cancer cell death.

With recent advances in our understanding of the inner workings of cancer cells, it is now possible to avoid the dose-related side effects of chemotherapy, while at the same time increasing the effectiveness and specificity of these agents in killing cancer cells. The key to this is an innovative strategy for drug delivery called Insulin Potentiation Therapy (IPT). Dr. Les Breitman MD

For more comments on IPT by medical doctors, please click here.

Writes Dr Bianca Tavares, MD in a November, 2006 article:

* IPT works vigorously against cancerous tumors whilst being gentle on the patient, who continues to live a normal lifestyle during treatment.

* Standard chemotherapy medications are considered to work better in combination with IPT. As a result of the low dosage requirement and much reduced toxicity, the treating physician has greater freedom and flexibility in selecting and combining the various chemotherapeutic agents, resulting in a more highly optimized treatment.

* Due to the lower dosage requirements, treatments costs are significantly less than with standard chemotherapy.

* Side effects are relatively minor. There is no vomiting, no high fever, no vomiting and no hair loss. However, there can sometimes be a little initial nausea and occasional constipation.


The first clinical trial of IPT for treating breast cancer was done in Uruguay and published in 2003/2004. Insulin combined with low-dose methotrexate (a chemotherapy drug) resulted in greatly increased stable disease, and much reduced progressive disease, compared with insulin or low-dose methotrexate alone. Although the study was very small (30 women, 10 per group), the results appear to be very promising.

In his book, Treating Cancer with Insulin Potentiation Therapy, Dr. Hauser provides dozens of clinical cases where IPT has been successfully used with cancer patients. The book is available at (Click here)

Several thousand cancer patients have so far been treated in the USA with IPT in more than 40 clinics by medical doctors, with excellent results. The treatment is very new in North America, and little known by medical practitioners.

How safe is IPT?

" Lower amounts of anti-cancer agents are necessary to destroy abnormal cells. This improves the patient’s quality of life while providing the sufficient amount of therapy for reducing or ablating cancer. Side effects are significantly reduced and your immune system doesn’t take a beating. " Dr. Frank George, MD

Dr. Frank George was the first osteopathic physician in the United States to train with Dr. Donato in Mexico in this revolutionary treatment. Dr. Hayle Aldren MD and Dr. Sean Devlin DO, MD(H) are all IPT trained instructors in addition to their IPT certification and Dr. Robert Zieve MD is an  IPT trained and certified physician.

International Complementary Oncologist Group

For the fatigued, depressed and anorexic cancer patient, nothing more helpful than insulin therapy. Patients with malignant neoplasms characteristically show progress weight loss, yet the tumor issue continues to grow even as the rest of the body becomes depleted. If one thinks about it, the terminal cancer patient resembles, clinically, a chronically starved person. At best intravenous feeding helps prolong life in the terminally ill but by itself doesn’t turn a person around. It is a method to help give some time to allow other therapies to work. The terminal patient on this type of nutrition typically does not regain his or her strength or zest for life. In contrast, cancer patients, even advanced cases, when given insulin therapy, quickly desire to eat and generally gain weight rapidly if malnourished.

Food never tasted so good as it does after IPT. Immediately after IPT, a very small, easily digested meal can be eaten, such as soup, fruit, or a salad. For the evening meal, the same type of foods can be eaten. IPT is generally very well tolerated, but eating too much food after IPT can make a person feel nauseated.

Because IPT is so safe it gives the family physician a modality to aggressively treat cancer (in his/her office). This has many benefits. Perhaps the greatest of these is the cancer patient does not have to be shipped off to some impersonal cancer ward to be treated.

High-dose chemotherapy makes people feel terrible, whereas IPT generally makes people feel great.

Modern medicine uses extremely high doses of chemotherapy because this is what is needed to get enough of the medication to the tumor site to have a chance at killing it. This is in stark contrast to the dose needed when giving IPT.

Comparison of chemotherapy doses between traditional allopathic medicine and IPT:

Cisplatin typical dose ---150 mg. IPT dose 15 mg
Fluorouracil --------------1,500 mg --------200 mg
Cyclophosphamide ------1,500 mg --------200 mg
Methotrexate ----------------60 mg ----------10 mg
Doxorubicin --------------100 mg ------------10 mg

Dr. Ross Hauser, MD

The result (of IPT) is that lower amounts of anti-cancer agents are necessary to destroy abnormal cells. This improves the patient’s quality of life while providing the sufficient amount of therapy for reducing or ablating cancer. Side effects are significantly reduced and your immune system doesn’t take a beating.
Dr. Frank Gorge, DO, MD(H)

I made it my personal dedication in my practice of medicine to find ways to soften the impact of our cancer care on people with these diseases. That motive led me to discover a medical therapy called Insulin Potentiation Therapy (IPT).
Dr. Steven G. Ayre, M.D.

With recent advances in our understanding of the inner workings of cancer cells, it is now possible to avoid the dose-related side effects of chemotherapy, while at the same time increasing the effectiveness and specificity of these agents in killing cancer cells. The key to this is an innovative strategy for drug delivery called Insulin Potentiation Therapy (IPT).
Dr. Les Breitman MD

Insulin Potentiation Therapy has been used outside the United States over many decades with a 100% perfect safety record.

Insulin Potentiation Therapy (IPT) is a method of delivering low-dose chemotherapy drugs and other medications to help fight cancers. This method of therapy has been shown to be safe for patients over many decades of administration.
Charles D. Schwengel, DO, MD(H)

Insulin Potentiation Therapy (IPT) is a safe modality for the administration of low dose chemotherapy that has been in use since the mid 1930s.
Dr. Thomas Lodi, MD

What does Insulin Potentiation Therapy mean to the cancer patient?
The two major considerations are, Safety and Efficacy.

In the vast majority of cases, when a cancer patient is advised by his or her doctor about available treatments, standard chemotherapy is at the top of the list. In most cases the patient will be told that nothing else is available. It is, therefore, a vitally important thing for the patient to inform herself about the safety and afficacy of the treatment, and about the availability of any alternative solution.

We have seen that IPT is an entirely safe procedure in the hands of an experienced physician. Can the same be said about standard chemotherapy? Let's take a close look at it. Just how safe and effective is conventional chemotherapy? What does science, statistics, and medical experts tell us? What is the untarnished truth about this treatment that is offered to you by your doctor and your oncologist, that is being practiced everywhere in our hospitals, administered to hundreds of thousands of cancer patients?

Is it safe? Is it effective? Is it a good treatment?

In his book, which became the "bible" of low-dose chemotherapy in the United States (Treating Cancer with Insulin Potentiation Therapy by Ross A. Hauser and Marion A. ,, Dr. Ross Hauser, MD writes:
When confronted with the diagnosis of cancer, probably the best question to ask a doctor is, ‘if you were me what would you do?’ This one is easy for me to answer because I (Dr. Ross Hauser) believe oncologists are good but I would most likely not let one treat me. They are good at giving chemotherapy. Oncologists in actuality are high-dose chemotherapy experts. They should be called chemotherapists, not oncologists. ‘Oncologist’ comes form the Greek word oncos, which means mass or tumor. By definition, an oncologist is supposed to be an expert in cancer, and by inference, cancer physiology. It is my contention that because oncologists do not try to reverse cancer physiology while treating someone they are not experts in cancer physiology and should not be called oncologists.

The problem with chemotherapy is not that it does not work. It does work. Chemotherapy kills cancer cells. The problem is that it kills the patient’s immune system and eventually the patient. Since oncologists do not have a way to target the chemotherapy more toward the cancer cells and do not try to reverse cancer physiology, I would not let them treat me. So what would I do if I had cancer? I would definitely go to a physician who utilizes IPT with a comprehensive natural approach to reversing cancer physiology.

In one of the biggest reviews on the survival of chemotherapy-treated cancer patients, Ulrich Abel, PhD, of the Heidelberg Tumor Center in Germany found that chemotherapy alone can help only about 3% of the patients with epithelial cancer (such as breast, lung, colon, and prostate), which kills 80% of total cancer patients. That is why a traditional oncologist for the majority of cancers does not have in his or her armamentarium the tools to cure a cancer patient.

A prominent scientist from the University of Wisconsin, Johan Bjorksten PhD, has shown that high-dose chemotherapy alone destroys the immune system beyond the point of return, which increases the risk for early death from infections and other cancers in these immuno deficient patients. Almost everyone involved in cancer therapeutics would also agree that high-dose chemotherapy substantially reduces a person’s quality of life by the mouth sores, malaise, fatigue, hair loss, poor appetite, and numerous other side effects it causes. So if it does not increase survival, and decreases one’s ability to enjoy life, then I am indeed justified in saying that I believe oncologists are good (at high-dose chemotherapy), but I would get a second opinion before I let one treat me. This conclusion is surely logical.

People with cancer who fail the usual and customary chemotherapy cocktail need to realize that whatever treatment they then do should be considered experimental. Many times this fact wakes the patient out of his or her stupor that somehow modern allopathic medicine is scientific and natural medicine is quackery. Just because a treatment is given by people in white coats in a sterile white building does not mean it is effective or scientific. Most of what is done to cancer patients is essentially experimental. So even in the worse-case scenario, if someone wants to say that IPT has not yet reached the gold standard of what modern medicine would consider the penultimate…the randomized double blinded study, at least IPT is safe.

Many of the methods and madness used by traditional oncologists (and paid by people’s insurance companies) that are touted as scientific have not been shown to extend a person’s life, or enhance the quality of life.

We often get patients coming to the office who have been told by their oncologists that they have a 75% chance of success with high-dose chemotherapy, which the patient interprets as a 75% chance of being cured. What it really means is that the patient has a 75% chance of getting shrinkage and about a 5% chance of being cured. Most tumor can be shrank by high-dose chemotherapy, but few can be completely cleared. There is no arguing that traditional high-dose chemotherapy causes tumor shrinkage; it just destroys a lot of good stuff on the way, making cancer cure very difficult. This idea of response rates permeates oncology meeting and scientific studies. What a cancer patient is concerned with is survival and quality of life. Modern oncology seldom studies quality of life because there is no quality while
undergoing high-dose chemotherapy.

The cure rate of traditional chemotherapy for most cancers is almost zero.

The following revelation by Dr. Hauser is as shocking as it is appaling:

Oncologists are not known to be nutritional wizards. There is still a notion in oncology that food feeds cancer. We believe this stems from the fact that intravenous feedings given to cancer patients in the hospital have been shown to feed the cancer. Numerous human and animal studies have shown that intravenous feedings, formally known as parenteral nutrition, stimulate cancer growth. The nutritional support that is given in intravenous feedings is typically approximately 50% dextrose, sucrose, glucose, or some other simple sugar. Sometimes the blood sugars go so high in the patients given these feedings that they need insulin. Is it any wonder when cancer patients receive 50% dextrose straight into the blood with a little insulin added that their cancers grow? Thus the notion from oncologists that food feeds cancer. Food does not feed cancer; carbohydrates especially in form of sugars do.
Writes Kyle Jensen, PhD in a nutritional magazine (October 2006):
So, when you visit a cancer patient in the hospital, and the patient is hooked up to an intravenous infusion, you could ask the nurse what is in the bag. If she tells you that it is chemotherapy, you will know that the patient is receiving a treatment that is both toxic and ineffective. If the nurse tells you that it is intravenous feeding, you will know that the cancer is getting a boost.

Chemotherapy and radiation can increase the risk of developing a second cancer by up to 100 times, according to Dr. Samuel S. Epstein.
Congressional Record, Sept. 9, 1997

Samuel S. Epstein, M.D. is professor emeritus of Environmental and Occupational Medicine (University of Illinois School of Public Health) a chemist trained to interpret data, it is incomprehensible to me that physicians can ignore the clear evidence that chemotherapy does much, much more harm than good.
Alan C Nixon, PhD, former president of the American Chemical Society

Many medical oncologists recommend chemotherapy for virtually any tumor, with a hopefulness undiscouraged by almost invariable failure.
Albert Braverman MD 1991 Lancet 1991 337 p 901
"Medical Oncology in the 90s"

Most cancer patients in this country die of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy does not eliminate breast, colon, or lung cancers. This fact has been documented for over a decade, yet doctors still use chemotherapy for these tumors.
Allen Levin, MD UCSF

How can that be true of the main cancer treatment in the U.S.? Fact is, no solid scientific studies or clinical trials prove chemotherapy's effectiveness, except in a small percentage of very rare types of cancer. For solid tumors of adults, the vast majority of cancer, or anything that has metastasized, chemotherapy just doesn't work.

A German epidemiologist from the Heidelberg/Mannheim Tumor Clinic, Dr. Ulrich Abel has done a comprehensive review and analysis of every major study and clinical trial of chemotherapy ever done. His conclusions should be read by anyone who is about to embark on the Chemo Express. To make sure he had reviewed everything ever published on chemotherapy, Abel sent letters to over 350 medical centers around the world asking them to send him anything they had published on the subject. Abel researched thousands of articles: it is unlikely that anyone in the world knows more about chemotherapy than he.
The analysis took him several years, but the results are astounding: Abel found that the overall worldwide success rate of chemotherapy was "appalling" because there was simply no scientific evidence available anywhere that chemotherapy can "extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancers." Abel emphasizes that chemotherapy rarely can improve the quality of life. He describes chemotherapy as "a scientific wasteland" and states that at least 80 percent of chemotherapy administered throughout the world is worthless, and is akin to the "emperor's new clothes" - neither doctor nor patient is willing to give up on chemotherapy even though there is no scientific evidence that it works! - Lancet 10 Aug 91

If your friend touches chemotherapy, he's a goner.
Chemotherapy expert Ernst Wynder, former professor at Sloan-Kettering Hospital and recipient of a medal from the American Cancer Association, in a warning to a friend.

Why so much use of chemotherapy if it does so little good? Well for one thing, drug companies provide huge economic incentives. In 1990, $3.53 billion was spent on chemotherapy. By 1994 that figure had more than doubled to $7.51 billion (in 2006: $15 billion.) This relentless increase in chemotherapy use was accompanied by a relentless increase in cancer deaths.
”Chemotherapy Report”

To sum it up, the scientific community regards standard chemotherapy as being both extremely toxic, and mostly ineffective on the long run. At the same time, the medical establishment does its best to keep the knowledge of a better treatment option from you. The concept of IPT is carefully guarded from the public. How many cancer patients do you know who underwent IPT? It is rude and impolite to mention insulin potentiation to your oncologist; it may seriously upset him.

The simple truth is that standard, full-dose chemotherapy should be declared illegal. Anyone using it should be prosecuted for criminal malpractice. It is an assault on the human body, and it is a dismal failure as a cancer treatment. This is not an opinion or assumption, it is an irrefutable scientific and statistical fact. 1.3 million Americans were diagnosed with cancer in 2006. The same year 650 thousand died of cancer. The vast majority, almost 100% went through standard chemotherapy. These numbers should tell us something.

IPT uses the same drugs and the same intravenous procedure, without harming healthy cells. At the same time, it also raises the treatment's efficacy to a much higher level. There is no reasonable and acceptable excuse to suppress IPT and force cancer patients to undergo a deadly, obsolate protocol.

Your oncologist may say that IPT is a dubious, unproven treatment, that it is not FDA approved. The ultimate meaning of that argument is that the approval of the FDA is more important then independent scientific evidence and the successful application of the treatment by over 40 highly respected MDs in the USA. It also means that a procedural decision is more important than your, the patient's, health and survival.

Your doctor may also argue that insuline is a powerful drug, potentially very dangerous. Used recklessly and incorrectly, it is indeed dangerous. However, if the good doctor is so concerned about your safety, perhaps he should rather worry about the safety of millions of diabetes in the USA who are giving themselves insuline injection on a daily basis. IPT is practiced only by trained, experienced medical doctors. It has a perfect safety record, which certainly cannot be said about chemotherapy.

Very few oncologists would be willing to undergo their own treatment protocol, in case of cancer. This fact has been established by a number of surveys, and by information from alternative clinics and practitioners around the world. Holistic clinics, particularly in Germany, are swamped with doctors who are escaping from their own therapies. If the treatment is not acceptable to them, why should it be fine for the patient?

At the bottom of this page you will find a link to IPT clinics in the USA and Canada. I contacted all of them. Most have websites, and all can be reached by phone or email. When I inquired about reimbursement by health insurance companies, I was told that it depends on the policy of the individual insurer. Many of them are willing to cover most of it, but some flatly refuse. Also, there are doctors who will not bill your insurance company for administrative or legal reasons. Every state has different regulations concerning "unapproved" therapies. IPT is legal everywhere in the USA, but it is not supported by the medical establishment. You will have to discuss these matters both with the clinic, and with your health insurance company.

Does IPT cure cancer?

Based on all the information obtained from medical experts, researchers, and published/unpublished literature, the answer is, no, it is not likely to cure cancer. It can save the life of a patient, it can put a person into remission, it can eliminate cancer to the extent that no clinical test will detect its presence, but most likely, it cannot cure. Why?

IPT is chemotherapy. It is benign, with virtually no side effects, but it is a treatment that kills cancer cells by using toxic chemicals. It works well, and it doesn't harm the patient, but the bottom line is, it functions as an infusion of cell-killing drugs. Cancer is a metabolic disease; only metabolic therapy can cure it.

Cancer may start out as a single malignant cell, or as a small group of cancer cells. It may take years, even a decade or more for the disease to reach a clinically observable status. There is no known anti-cancer protocol that can guarantee, or even promise the total, absolute elimination of all microscopic malignancies. Even if that has been achieved, the metabolic conditions that gave rise to cancer in the first place may do it again. After IPT, the cancer may reappear in months, in years, perhaps in a decade, but reappear it will, unless the IPT has been followed up by therapies that are based on different principles. These are approaches that empower the immune system to deal with any remaining malignancies. They work on the inner terrain through diet, supplements and life-style changes, in order to prevent cancer from occuring again.

Only the body can cure itself from cancer, drugs will not do it. This is not to say that they should not be used; they can save lives. However, they cannot prevent the cancer from growing again into a systemic disease. Only a healthy, powerful immune system is capable of keeping the organism cancer free.

Your best source of information about the follow-up strategy after IPT is an experienced naturopath, or a nutritionist who is specializing in cancer patients. For further information, go to Long Term Survival.

So, please remember: IPT is a wonderful alternative to standard chemotherapy, but it is not a cure, and it should not be the final word in your cancer protocol.

For a list of IPT clinics in the USA and Canada, please click here.