Report #21

The information posted on this page is not to be regarded as medical advice, but as an educational presentation. In it, we examine the possibility of the treatments, presented in the reports, re-inforcing each other. As you know, many of these treatments are new or little known, and there is no clinical data concerning their efficacy when combined with each other. While the reasoning, concerning their combinations, is logical and straightforward, and the suggested protocols are completely safe when properly applied, there is no scientific proof that one combination will be more effective than another.

The subject has been discussed with holistic and naturopathic doctors. They all agree on the basic principles, with some variations in the details. The cancer patient, having read this report, should consult a holistic or naturopathic physician before carrying out any treatment or treatment combination.

Generally speaking, holistic and naturopathic doctors are open for new information and treatment suggestions. Most medical doctors are not. They usually find any idea offensive that is about another therapeutic approach than the one sanctioned by the AMA and the FDA. The fact that their cancer patients are undergoing extremely harmful and ineffective treatments doesn't seem to change their thinking. Whether for financial reasons, or out of ignorance, the members of the allopathic establishment are carrying out a policy that sentences most cancer patients to needless, painful death, causing untold suffering and grief. If some medical doctors are unwilling and innocent participants in this horror, they must forgive me for being more concerned about the fate of the patients than about their, the doctors', unease and discomfort.

The recurring theme in the objections of detractors of integrative medicine is the argument that anything that has not been approved by the FDA and sanctioned by the AMA is quackery, ineffective as therapy, and possibly dangerous. This objection is used as a dogma, without ever analyzing it in detail. Consider, for example, Insulin Potentiation. It uses insulin, a completely safe and proven substance, in order to potentiate chemotherapeutic drugs, also approved and widely used. The practitioners who are offering IPT are medical doctors, many of them veteran oncologists, with decades of medical practice behind them. Yet, not long ago, the Mayo Clinic issued a statement in which they declare IPT to be both ineffective and potentially dangerous. The reason? It is unapproved as a procedure. No other proof is offered. Based on that single fact, we should believe that all doctors who are using - perfectly legally(!) - IPT at their clinics or in their practice are quacks, applying an ineffective and dangerous procedure. At the same time, no clinical data exists that proves that chemotherapy is safe and effective. Quite the opposite. There is overwhelming evidence that it is a scientifically unsound and extremely dangerous, obsolete protocol. The whole international community of research scientists in medicine and biology agrees on that. Hundreds of books and thousands of articles have been published on the subject, completely ignored both by the allopathic establishment and the mass media.

With an astonishingly cynical disregard for scientific truth and for the well-being of patients, the Mayo Clinic declares dangerous and ineffective a procedure that lowers the toxicity of the treatment by 90-95%, while increasing its efficacy manyfold.

The guiding principle for cancer patients should be never to submit to a chemotherapy where the cytotoxic drugs are not potentiated to become selective to cancer cells, even if this eliminates 75% of the oncologist's revenue.

The bottom line, the vitally important conclusion is this: The suffering and death, the long term mortality rate among cancer patients are not the result of an incurable and uncontrollable disease, they are not the inevitable consequences of our scientific limitations. They are the result of the iron grip of a special interest group on allopathic medicine, its insatiable greed and cynical manipulations. Perhaps nowhere else is this corruption better demonstrated than in cases where parents are legally forced to submit their children to the full course of allopathic cancer treatments ( No Rights for a Child Diagnosed with Cancer------Raphaele & Michael Horwin ). Also: - Read it and cry. More on this subject: Teen battles state over cancer treatment , also, Parents Charged for Keeping Child from Cancer Treatment . Please note: What the courts were enforcing in these cases was not the concept of a cancer treatment by a licensed health care practitioner, like a holistic medical doctor, or a naturopathic or homeopathic physician; they were enforcing specifically cancer treatments that are approved by the FDA and the AMA, treatments that are not only extremely toxic, but - quite coincidently - bring the largest commission to the oncologist and the most revenue to the hospital.

The child protection agencies were protecting the children against any non-toxic treatment, whether it came from holistic medical doctors, naturopaths or any other branches of medicine. They enforced the use of a treatment protocol that no oncologist in sane mind would accept for himself or his family, a protocol that causes irreversible damage to the human body, and has a global statistical cure rate of 3%. Were they protecting the children, or were they protecting - unwittingly - somebody's turf?

What can you, the cancer patient, do about your own treatment choices? Read and evaluate the reports, discuss them with your holistic or naturopathic doctor, then deal with your cancer in a safe, non-toxic manner.

The objective of this paper is to examine how various treatments, described in the reports, can synergistically interact with each other in order to augment their therapeutic efficacy.

The most obvious agent to consider as an addition to certain other protocols is, of course, DMSO. This substance is an anti-cancer drug all by itself; it is also a superb carrier of other drugs and remedies, transporting them selectively into cancer cells.

DMSO can be combined with IPT, greatly enhancing the efficacy of the treatment. It doesn't interfere with chemotherapeutic agents used in IPT, but rather increases their anti-cancer effects. Whether the doctor who performs the treatment is open to the suggestion of using DMSO with IPT is another question. The subject must be discussed with him or her.

In the DMSO report eight combinations are listed with DMSO. Although DMSO plays the role of a carrier (Trojan Horse) in these protocols, they are real therapeutic combinations, because DMSO, at the same time, also functions as a powerful anti-cancer drug in its own right. In other words, when DMSO transports an anti-cancer substance selectively into cancer cells, it adds its own anti-cancer qualities to the mixture.

Eight DMSO combinations are described in the DMSO report.

Avemar is another candidate to be combined with other agents. It will be taken orally in capsule form. Never open the capsule and mix the substance with another powder or liquid.

It is questionable whether Avemar should be combined with IPT; both insulin and Avemar interfere with glucose production; they may counteract with each other. There is no data yet available on this.

When DMSO is used intravenously as the primary agent, Avemar - taken orally - should be a very valuable adjunct. It has a multipronged anti-cancer capability, well proven in clinical trials. There is no obvious contra-indication between Avemar and DMSO. Nevertheless, discuss it with your doctor before using them together. Do not be surprised if your holistic or naturopathic doctor is not familiar with Avemar; it is very new on the market. However, there are ample references available in the report to provide sufficient information.

In the DMSO/nanosilver combination, judging from the literature, Avemar would substantially increase the efficacy of the treatment. Both DMSO and Avemar are powerful anti-cancer agents, while nano-silver will kill the microbial presence in cancer cells. This mixture should yield quick therapeutic results without any side effect or damage to healthy cells.

The DMSO/Cesium protocol should not be mixed with anything that is not included in the original instructions. Any deviation from the protocol must be discussed with the expert who will guide you in your treatment. Avemar may assist the cesium, but it may also interfere with the procedure.

DMSO -- zeolite (topical/oral), DMSO -- ellagic acid (topical/oral), DMSO -- artemisinin (oral), and DMSO -- squalene/squalamine (oral) are all treatments that could be strengthened by having Avemar added to the protocol. There is no contraindication between Avemar and these substances. Of course, Avemar will always be taken orally.

Ruta6 is a homeopathic remedy. No food and no other substance, except water, should be taken 20 minutes before and after swallowing the remedy. Having said that, there is no contraindication against most other natural, non-toxic agents. DMSO/nano-silver is an obvious choice, accompanied by other preferred substances, like zeolite, ellagic acid and artemisinin. Avemar is also fine. Cesium and Cantron/Protocel should not be mixed with Ruta6 without careful consultation with your doctor or guiding expert.

Discuss the choices with your health care provider, and choose the ones that best address your needs.

Squalamine is important when tumor growth has to be prevented. Although there are no contraindications against other substances, mixing Squalamine should not be done without consulting your doctor. For general cancer killing purposes, Squalamine is not the right choice, because it is not cytotoxic; it is an angiogenesis inhibitor (stops new blood vessels from forming). This can be a life saver, but it won't kill cancer cells.

Sonodynamic therapy, for all practical purposes, is only available at the Donsbach clinic in Mexico. It will be the doctors at the clinic who will decide which other treatments or medications are compatible with it. Their protocols are extremely focused, because they must achieve their therapeutic goals within 12 days; that is the standard time frame they offer to their patients.

Intravenous ozone therapy is a very important part of cancer protocols at integrative cancer clinics all over the world. There is no contraindication against other natural substances, with some exceptions. Ozone should not be used the same day as intravenous vitamin C. The two will counteract with each other. Cesium and ozone may enhance each other, achieving a higher level of efficacy, but this must be discussed with your doctor. Cesium raises the pH level of the cell, ozone oxygenates it. Cantron/Protocel should not be mixed with anything, including ozone, without careful consultation with expert guidance. Avemar, Artemisinin, Zeolite, ellagic acid all should be fine with ozone. Ruta6, or any other pure homeopathic remedy should also be fine with ozone. Of course, we are not talking about the mixing any other substance with ozone as it is infused, but the oral, topical or intravenous use of other remedies before or after the ozone treatment.

Whether intravenous ozone can be used the same day as intravenous DMSO should be the decision of the doctor who carries out the treatment. It is quite possible that the two treatments can follow each other within the same session, but check it out with an expert.

Intravenous vitamin C is another powerful cancer treatment. Do not mix it with Cantron/Protocel. Using it simultaneously with Cesium may be beneficial, but don't do it without discussing it with your guiding expert. The Cesium protocol is a sensitive one, and must be followed precisely.

Ruta6, Avemar, Artemisinin, Zeolite, ellagic acid should be fine before or after a vitamin C infusion. DMSO/nano-silver should also be OK.

Theoretically, intravenous or oral Poly-MVA should have no contraindication against any other non-toxic, natural substance. However, to be sure, one should always discuss matters with an experienced holistic practitioner. Cantron/Protocel and Cesium shold not be mixed with Poly without the approval of an expert.

DMSO potentiated intravenous Poly-MVA may prove to be extremely effective. Ask your doctor who performs the DMSO infusion if he/she agrees.

The latest arrival to our anti-cancer armamentarium comes from Italy, from Dr. Tullio Simoncini, M.D. It is nothing else but the modest household item, baking soda (sodium bicarbonate).

Sodium bicarbonate can be mixed with DMSO, and used as a topical or intravenous solution. It can also mixed with nano-silver. It is effective against brain tumors and leukemias, too. It could also be potentiated by Insulin/glucose, in an IPT protocol, replacing the standard toxic chemo agents. The DMSO/sodiumbicarbonate intravenous protocol is being used by the Camelot Cancer Care institute in Tulsa, Oklahoma, with astonishing results. Such level of therapeutic success has never been reported by any allopathic institution. At Camelot, the treatment is given by board certified oncologists.

Please note: The DMSO/sodium intravenous protocol can be given by any medical doctor or naturopathic physician with a licence to do I.V. procedures. There are 10 states in the USA, and 5 provinces in Canada, where naturopaths have that licence.

The selection of treatment combinations must fill the specific needs of the patient. Different cancers and different conditions require different treatments. Take an active interest in your medical choices, and discuss them with as many experts as you feel necessary. It is your health and your life. Don't place them unconditionally into a stranger's hands.

"But I don't have a medical background. How can I judge which treatment is best for me?"

You don't have to judge. Consult with experts, compare their approaches, and select the one that inspires the most confidence in you. This confidence should be based on the data, experience, and logic found in the person's answers. Depending on your condition, budget, mobility, etc., you'll eventually find the solution that is best suited to your needs. Do not be intimidated by aggressive or hostile reception.

"I am the doctor, you are the patient. Are you questioning my competency and judgment?"

You bet I am! And if I don't like your answers, you are not going to touch me! It is my body and my health, and the final word is mine, not yours!

The average oncologist is a small enterpreneur who resells toxic drugs to his patients. He is not a scientist, although he would like you to think so, and his knowledge concerning cancer is both limited and obsolete. His should not be the final word in your treatment choices. Use his services to your advantage, but do realize that his motives are suspect, and his concern for your welfare is questionable. Most likely, he would not use his own treatment that he proposes for you on himself.

Chances are, he will also be remarkably ignorant of the role nutrition plays in cancer, will sneer at the concept of avoiding sugar, and will regard the idea of changing the metabolic terrain as quackery. He won't have the slightest interest in what causes cancer, how to prevent its recurrence, and what is cancer physiology.

In an ideal world, you could trust your doctor with your life. In the real world, cancer patients who do not inform themselves about their options have a very poor record of survival. The situation is not ideal, not even fair, but this is how it is.

Use your freedom of choice, and be the one who got away!