Dr Gonzalez – Alt Cancer Therapy

(One hears about Dr Gonzalez from a remarkable assortment of sources.  When David Amrien, a department head of the Dr Clark foundation cited a link to the Mercola interview with Dr Gonzalez as worth listening to, interest finally, must be satisfied.  I listened to Dr Merola’s interview – just short of two hours, phew! As an admitted info-junkie, got turned on and must admit, here is a new hero for me.  And he is alive and functioning.    Too much to explain – google him, please.  Jan)

Alternative Medicine for Total Health

Robert Crayhon, M.S.

Interview with Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez

This article originally appeared in the February/March 1996 issue of the Townsend Letter for Doctors & Patients and is reprinted with permission of Robert Crayhon, M.S., and of the Townsend Letter for Doctors & Patients, 911 Tyler Street, Port Townsend, WA 98368-6541; (360) 385-6021: Fax (360) 385-0699; Email: tldp@olympus.net http://www.dr-gonzalez.com/crayhon_txt.htm

Nicholas Gonzalez, M.D., is a practicing physician in New York City who specializes in treating cancer with a treatment originated by Dr. Kelley, D.D.S. He has a unique perspective on nutrition, autonomic nervous system balance and biochemical individuality. He joined Robert Crayhon for the June 16, 1995 taping of the national TV show, “Alternative Medicine.” His address: 36 East 36th Street, Suite 204, New York, N.Y. 10016. His office phone number is 212-213-3337.

RC: Dr. Gonzalez, how did you start approaching cancer from your unique comprehensive metabolic and nutritional approach?

NG: I was a second year medical student intending to become chief of medicine at Sloan Kettering, and a friend of mine introduced me to Dr. Kelley, the infamous dentist who developed this elaborate nutritional approach to cancer. Skeptically, I approached him, and he said, “All I ever wanted was someone from the orthodoxy to look through my records.” At the time, my research advisor at Cornell, where I was a medical student suggested I do it as a summer project. It evolved into a five year research study. We went through ten thousand of Kelley’s records, and found that this man had indeed reversed advanced metastatic cancer. We went through the cases of thousands of patients.

RC: The way Dr. Kelley started– correct me if I’m wrong– was when he found out he had pancreatic cancer he walked into a health food store and bought pancreatic enzymes. The whole thing began by chance.

NG: That’s right. It was purely by chance. He had a lot of digestive problems, as patients with pancreatic cancer will. In an attempt to help his digestive problems, he started taking huge doses of pancreatic enzymes and immediately felt a change in his tumor. That’s how it started.

RC: There are many facets to the therapy that you do, but pancreatic enzymes are– you believe– the most powerful anticancer substances available. Why are they so anti-cancer?

NG: It’s the way the body is designed. In orthodox and even unorthodox physiology, we tend to think that the enzymes serve one function: to help to digest food. Indeed they do that. But Kelley– as did many researchers before him and since– believed that the enzymes are a primary defense against cancer, and are far more important than the immune system in terms of controlling the development and growth of cancer. So we believe that is one of their designated functions in the human body.

RC: Critics of this will say, “Pancreatic enzymes released into the digestive tract are molecules way too big to get into the bloodstream.”

NG: In the 1940s, scientists documented that they do in fact get absorbed. There is a wonderful study from 1976 in Science magazine, one of the ultimate scientific journals, where a professor at Cornell did a study with rabbits and mice and found that the pancreatic enzymes are absorbed through the intestinal tract, complete and active, and are not destroyed in the gut.

RC: Are there any studies on pancreatic enzymes’ anti-cancer activity?

NG: Yes. There is a wonderful study from 1965 where a doctor used them in animal models and a doctor found they had an extraordinary, powerful anti-cancer effect.

RC: Now these are inexpensive substances, aren’t they, compared to pharmaceuticals?

NG: Yes.

RC: Why hasn’t there been a greater interest in pancreatic enzymes? I know they were studied for nearly a hundred years. Is it because they were overshadowed by the work of Madam Curie, and the belief her work generated that radiation would cure all cancer? Or is it because pancreatic enzymes are unpatentable?

NG: Because of FDA regulations, pancreatic enzymes fall in the category of a natural substance. Therefore, there is no impetus for a drug company to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in researching pancreatic enzymes. They cannot patent what they might find. There is also the psychological resistance to look at natural substances in the orthodox research community, although that is starting to change.

RC: I know that your practice is based on biochemical individuality, the belief that everyone has unique needs. Some of your cancer patients are not given that much pancreatic enzymes because their pancreas is strong and they do not need support in that area. You really examine each person to find out what their unique needs are.

NG: Correct. The doses vary quite widely, depending on the patient.

RC: Roger Williams and other researchers firmly established that we are all biochemically unique. Yet medicine fails to recognize this. Why do you think that is, and why do you think medicine is looking for the one therapy that will suit everyone?

NG: It is the limitations of human thinking. People want to reduce things to simple answers. Nutrition is not a simple answer. There is no simple way to approach even a single individual patient. Everybody is different. Everybody needs a different diet, different doses of supplements, different supplements. The same dose of one supplement will make one patient feel wonderful and make another patient feel very sick.

RC: Let’s look at calcium. So many women are taking calcium because they are told that it is going to strengthen their bones. Yet you have said that the misuse of vitamin and mineral supplements are a real problem, and that people don’t realize that the wrong nutrient for the wrong person can have profoundly adverse health effects. Why is that? Because of the individual responses to these nutrients?

NG: Yes. In certain patients, calcium can stimulate certain kinds of cancer, like breast cancer. If you look at the statistics epidemiologically, the increase in breast cancer parallels the increase in use of calcium.

RC: As well as the increase in toxins in our environment and the use of synthetic hormones. You also say that for some people, vitamin E is the wrong nutrient and should not be taken.

NG: We have been saying that for years. Everyone laughed at us. I have a lot of respect for the Shute brothers and other people who have researched vitamin E. Yet some free radicals serve a useful function. Too many antioxidants may knock out the beneficial role of free radicals in your body. Free radicals are how our body defends itself against infection. I have seen people on high doses of C and E who develop more infections, not less.

RC: The other point to underscore here is that you believe the reason that studies of nutrients come up with mixed results is not just because, say, vitamin E or C is good for some and fails to help others– it is because it is good for some and bad for others, and that researchers are not looking for the bad effect, because they are not looking for the effect of nutrients on the autonomic nervous system. A large part of your understanding of the patient comes from looking at which particular portion of the nervous system is dominant, correct?

NG: That’s right. The unconscious nervous system does many things in your body: it digests food, controls glandular function, and controls heart rate and body temperature, to name just a few of its actions. This unconscious system is divided into two halves that work in opposition, but together, in helping the body achieve homeostasis. The sympathetic nervous system stimulates the adrenals and thyroid, and inhibits others. The parasympathetic stimulates the liver, the pancreas, and digestive tract, and inhibits others. They work together, although they are in opposition. These are the two nervous systems that together control your day-to-day physiological functioning.

RC: How do you determine which part of the nervous system is dominant, and why is that important to your therapy?

NG: Because out of that we are able to determine which diet and supplements will suit the patient best. Their sympathetic or parasympathetic dominance tells me what kind of program they need.

RC: Let’s say a person comes to you who is parasympathetic dominant, and you put them on the wrong diet, will you make things worse?

NG: You can kill them.

RC: Even if it is a vegetarian diet that is low in fat?

NG: Parasympathetic dominant people need red meat three times per day. Putting them on a vegetarian diet is like raising a lion on hay.

RC: Are there personality types associated with these different types of autonomic dominance?

NG: Sympathetic dominants are aggressive, type A businessmen that get up at six and get more done by noon than the rest of us do in the whole day. They are very ambitious, smart, and energetic in the morning. Parasympathetics would like to sleep until noon, and are very creative. Artistic ability tends to be in the parasympathetic side of the nervous system.

RC: Can people change from one side to another?

NG: We are seeing people who are the opposite of their genetic inheritance. Chemicals in the environment have knocked out their strong nervous system. Wrong diets have gummed up their works.

RC: We are told that everyone should go on a diet high in complex carbohydrates. T. Colin Campbell and others suggest this protects against various degenerative diseases. Is this some form of insanity, in light of the ample evidence that we are all biochemically unique?

NG: It is absolute insanity to suggest that the whole human species as different as it is could be put on one diet. The human species occupies every ecological niche from the arctic circle to equatorial rain forests and there are different foods available in these regions, and people have had to adjust. There is no way one diet is suitable for everybody. The Eskimos are one of the most famous meat eating peoples. They live in the Arctic circle. They have no growing season. They have no fruits. They have no vegetables. The only Eskimos that could survive are those that eat a high fat, high protein diet.

RC: The Eskimos are dying off. Don’t they thrive on a diet of 80% saturated fat? Is an increase in carbohydrates in their diet killing them?

NG: Yes. And they were among the healthiest people in the world until they switched their diet to a Western one. When they cut their saturated fat consumption from 80% to 40%, they began to develop our pattern of degenerative diseases. For them, fat was the perfect fuel. There was a study that showed that Eskimos lacked the enzymes to digest complex carbohydrates. Zookeepers know that if you raise a lion or tiger on grains and beans it is going to die. Eskimos need red meat as well, to function effectively.

RC: And right now you are doing some controlled trials.

NG: That’s right. We are doing controlled clinical trials with pancreatic cancer. Our hope is that once these studies are published and we document that this program can indeed work, the academic medical world will start putting money behind it. Then we can train other doctors to do it.

RC: You don’t accept every patient that comes to your door. And it not simply a space or time limitation. Do you reject a patient if their immune system has been destroyed by conventional therapies?

NG: Most of the patients I see have had chemo or radiation. It is a question of amount and the type of cancer where it is being used.

RC: There are many books in health food stores which say that the underlying cause of disease is that we are all too acid, in large part because of a meat-based diet, and need to push our body towards a more alkaline state by eating more fruits, vegetables, almonds, millet, etc.

NG: That is absolutely incorrect. Sympathetic dominants tend to be more acid, parasympathetic dominants tend to be too alkaline, and balanced people tend to be somewhere in between. Sympathetic dominants do well on alkalinizing foods like fruits and vegetables. Parasympathetic dominants need acid forming foods, of which red meat is the most powerful.

RC: Dr. Kelley’s wife got into trouble with a vegetarian diet, didn’t she?

NG: After Kelley cured himself of cancer on a vegetarian diet, he assumed that it was the perfect diet and that the whole world should be on it. He put his wife on this diet to help with her allergies. Initially she did well. Then she began to do worse and worse; He began to make the diet more strictly vegetarian, eventually putting her on all raw fruits and vegetables with no protein at all. She ended up in a near coma. He was confronted with the fact that here he was the great nutrition doctor, and he almost killed his wife with the wrong diet. He was going to have to call an ambulance and put her in the hospital. He figured the only thing he hadn’t done was put her on red meat. Initially she refused, but he convinced her. He put some meat in the blender, and fed it to her, and within an hour she was feeling better. She has been eating red meat two to three times per day since. That’s almost twenty-five years ago. She has been in excellent health since.

RC: Very few people are looking into the effect of macro- and micronutrients on the autonomic nervous system function. This may turn out to be, as you believe, one of the most important ways our diet and nutrient intake affects health. Dr. Gonzalez, thanks for being with us.

NG: My pleasure, Robert.

---

Nicholas J. Gonzalez, M.D., P.C.
Linda L. Isaacs, M.D.
36A East 36th Street
Suite 204
New York, N.Y. 10016
Phone: 212-213-3337
Fax: 212-213-3414

Cut M/C w/best-4-less plan

FORUM,The COLUMBUS DISPATCH

  Best-for-less plan would cut medical bills

FROMA HARROP

About 10 years ago, a radiation treatment for prostate cancer came on line.   A course of “intensity-modulated radiation therapy” cost Medicare about $42,000. The older radiation therapy cost $10,000. Hospitals   bought the new machines and stopped using the traditional method.   This tacked another $1.5 billion per year to Medicare spending on prostate cancer alone.

Did the fancy   new machines do a better job than the old ones? Medicare did not inquire. It just paid. Amazing.    A new McClatchy/Marist poll has 80 percent of Americans opposing cuts in Medicare and Medicaid spending to reduce deficits.   Well, that 80 percent doesn’t quite understand Medicare’s reimbursement system and how crazy it is.

Forget the GOP plan to squeeze Medicare spending by moving to a voucher system. First, look at the existing setup. For most any treatment deemed “reasonable and necessary,” Medicare pays the cost plus some profit. This has turned the program into a brainless check-writing machine for the medical-industrial complex.

Not long ago, an article in Health Affairs used the above prostate cancer example to show the ludicrous way Medicare pays for things.    “Coverage is determined without   any requirement for evidence demonstrating that the service in question is equally or more effective than other available options,” writes Steven Pearson, president of the Institute for Technology Assessment in Boston, and Peter Bach, a critical-care physician at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Enter “comparative effectiveness research” — perhaps the most boring term in public policy today, but essential to containing the explosively rising costs of Medicare, Medicaid and private health coverage. (I suggest “best for less” as a catchier name.)    Comparative-effectiveness research studies different treatments for the same condition and identifies those that do the job with the fewest side effects. Medical economists generally agree that our system groans with pricey treatments that provide outcomes no better — and sometimes worse — than cheaper alternatives.  

The 2009 stimulus bill and the health-reform legislation contained spending for this research, which Republicans and some Democrats fought tooth and nail. They expressed concern that it would discourage medical innovation. Their unstated worry was that taxpayers would become resistant to sending big checks to equipment makers and other medical providers for bells, whistles and exotic names that add nothing to the quality of care.   

Much of political Washington has a vested interest in the vested interests. Pearson and Bach have come up with an intriguing way to use comparative-effectiveness research without stifling the development of improved technology. They would use this research to have Medicare pay the same thing for services that provide equivalent results. But it would reimburse new technologies at the higher rates for, say, three years. If they prove to be superior, then Medicare continues to pay more for them.

What the 80 percent of Americans who oppose spending cuts on the government health plans really want is the assurance that they can get state-of-the-art medical care when they need it. Responsible leaders must impress upon them that enormous savings can be found in Medicare without reducing quality one iota.

Furthermore, the perverse incentives in our reimbursement system encourage too much care, which itself can hurt patients. There’s no need for a radical voucher plan that saves money by sending the elderly to private insurers, then curbing payments to the insurers.

The government can continue picking up the bills if Medicare starts considering value received for the checks it writes. Patients would be happy. Taxpayers would be happy.   Some vested interests would not be happy, and they have lots to spend on scaring the public. The question at the end of the day is:   Who matters more to our politicians?

Froma Harrop writes for Creators Syndicate.  fharrop@projo.com

There is a lot of flexibility in the brilliant foundations of government our founding fathers put in place.  Over a couple of hundred years, a forward thinking president here and there established additional functions for the betterment of the people – always  with “for the greatest good of all the people” in mind.  And it has worked beautifully.  Social Security was such an achievement and eventually Medicare.  Both have been hugely successful and totally loved by our people.

.

That is not to say it is universally admired.  By now, we all know about or have heard of the disturbing rumbling of the few who would destroy our way of life, our form of governing – - whose desire it is to shrink government to “kill the beast” so to speak.   Since November’s election, it has become evident how well planned it all has been.  Many with open eyes saw it coming and witnessed the “new wave” of dictatorial leadership, the stripping down of individual rights.  It feels like all hell has broken loose.  Many are loosing faith that any in Washington or in state capitols know what they are doing or can do anything to set us right again.  Unrest and broken lives are everywhere.  People by the millions feel they have been lied to. It even seems that mother nature is very unhappy about stuff and has had enough!  Earth may be trying to slough off the pesky annoyances who have invaded her like fleas on a dog.  Can’t claim we didn’t know what we were doing.  Science has been telling us right along.    Greed is one hell-of-a-thing.

.

Enuff!  This post is about trying to get a handle on Medicare.  We can do it.  What we will NOT DO is abolish programs which have been a blessing without which many would have needlessly  suffered and perished.  In this, we know that our president will not let us down.  Many of us are sensing that the time has come when push has finally led to shove.  No More!  Ain’t gonna happen.

.

From Washington we can expect and demand courageous action which is both equitable and fair.  Pharmaceutical medication MUST  be dealt with and RE-ESTABLISHED through negotiated pricing so that we pay no more for our meds than any other people on the planet. Just do it.  Break rules if you have to or break heads – get it done.

Stop treating BIG PhRMA like the Gods they think they are.  They do not belong on any political boards or governing office posts.  They do not belong in the FDA;  they should not dictate how medical schools are run  nor should they be allowed to OWN them.  If they wish to bless them with money (you know – endow them) great, but no strings of any sort.  It is way past time to treat them like any other company – - they are after all just a business out to make profit.  They need no breaks or special attention of any kind.  Most of all, NO SPECIAL TAX BREAKS .

.

As for the citizenry,  we can contribute much.  Government should  not dictate what people will eat or should eat or not eat.  It is expected that scientific guideline be offered and shared  but the so-called pyramid thing is such a joke that almost nobody pays it  any mind.  Government does not honor the sciences and the advancements in knowledge being made on an almost daily regularity.  Instead, are influenced by CORPORATE  interests. (all that $ flowing in)  Doctors who should be knowledgeable with regard to nutrition, are not.  There is so little mention of it in med school it amounts to hours or days  (compare that to the study of drugs)  The public is on its own for more than 50 – 60 years.  Sad.

.

So what else can my fellow Americans and I do to help.  We all need to get real about expectations.  Getting medical care for sickness and accidents is a given and the humane thing to do and expect.  It is extravagant however to expect body part replacements.    It is extravagant to expect “heroic measures” be used on seriously ill and advanced age people  simply because families aren’t prepared to let them go.  We all hear of massive  cost factors in the last year or so of life and it is not good for anyone – the patient or the families or Medicare’s checkbook.  Hospice is so much kinder than hospital care.  America needs to deal with death and dying much, much better.  Attitudinal upgrades might be in order.  No question it is a time of loss for those left behind. . .this is simply something we all must deal with.  But it should not be the ‘horror’ so many seem to feel it is.  To many an oldster, the closer one gets to it, the more welcome it seems.   Kinda like being pregnant for some  (like me).  I was scared to death of the childbirth thing itself.  Maybe it was all the horror stories my mother recounted about us both almost dying at my birth.    Still, the day was coming, I could hardly get around anymore – so uncomfortable and then the last few weeks it was OMG lets just get this over with! So you lean into it gladly.

.

As in the article above,  I don’t think the population is expecting all the bells and whistles that medicine is capable of coming up with.  When we hurt, we need to be fixed.  It is not the patient demanding the latest whatever,  it is the medical establishment.    I did a post March 24 called 50 yr old drug/new Windfall.  It irritated me so,  as it was just this.  They had this concoction which had been in use for about 50 years.  Pharmacist would mix it up on demand.  About $10  This was  to help women keep from aborting or losing their baby.  Go read it if you like, can’t remember the details.  But FDA or someone gave this company the rights to produce the stuff so that it would be available when needed.  But they put a stop to pharmacist being able to make it any longer.  And the new price on the outright gift to the company was now about $1,500 for each weekly shot which came up around an additional $30,000 to have their baby.  I wish it was Love that makes the world go around, but it seems to me to be Greed

.

Golly, it’s going on 4 in the morning, again.  I get carried away at the computer, so nice and quiet, vibration is delicious. . not that I enjoy my blog or anything. . .but folks I gotta go to bed.   (And I was just getting started. . .)    nite         Jan