Adjunctive Therapies For Cancer
There is a short list of treatments that are usually used in combination with other therapies, which have powerful healing
properties of their own. Each one is occasionally used exclusively in the treatment of cancer, however
I do not recommend them as stand-alone therapies. These
therapies are: intravenous vitamin C, chelation, ozone, hydrogen peroxide, hyperthermia, DMSO and live cell therapy.
Intravenous Vitamin C
High does vitamin C infusion has a negative effect on cancer cell growth.
There is no doubt of this fact. It also has an ameliorating effect on the side
effects of the highly oxidative chemotherapeutic agents and for this many patients
are grateful. Some of the side effects of chemotherapy are so severe that many
patients stop therapy as a result.
Chelation Therapy is covered in detail elsewhere. Its role as an adjunct to cancer treatment lies in the fact that it is a powerful
antioxidant and in its ability to clear toxic heavy metals from the body. No one proposes that EDTA cures cancer; however,
as an adjunctive treatment, it is believed to potentiate other approaches to cancer therapy. Informal studies indicate that very
few people who are fully chelated go on to develop cancer after chelation. Its power to prevent cancer is estimated to be
about ninety percent: a full course of chelation serves to prevent ninety percent of cancers which otherwise would happen.
Cancer is a complex disease, and its successful treatment is a complex process. When the final story is written, and all the
politics are finally processed out of the chelation debate, I predict that EDTA will assume its rightful position as a powerful
adjunct to the treatment of cancer. This process, however, may take a century.
As a treatment for cancer, raising the body’s temperature — called "hyperthermia" — is designed to make life hard on cancer
cells which cannot stand prolonged temperatures over 107o Fahrenheit. High temperatures collapse their vascular systems.
This procedure is carried out using ultrasound, microwaves and radio frequency waves for local treatment. For systemic
treatment, either heated blood is reinfused or whole body wraps in rubber blankets with circulating hot water are applied.
The objective is to raise body temperature to 108o and hold it there for two hours. General anaesthesia is used.
There are proponents for and against using hyperthermia alone. Those who are against this idea believe that it works best if
combined with radiation and/or chemotherapy. And guess what? The FDA approves, probably because it does not interfere
too much with the surgery/ radiation/chemotherapy industry.
Despite FDA approval, I still consider hyperthermia a progressive treatment for cancer because it had the honor of being
disapproved by the ACS and the FDA for so long (until 1977 and 1984 respectively) and because few people have heard
of it. University medical centers are about the only places where it is available at present.
The subject of DMSO therapy has its own web page
on this site. I want to focus here on its use in cancer therapy. DMSO has many
characteristics which make it a good adjunctive treatment for cancer. Recall from our previous discussion that DMSO is a
super-solvent. It binds to water (which makes up around 65% of the body) better than water does. This gives DMSO the
ability to penetrate every single cell of the body, so whatever its other effects may be, they will be spread systemically
through the entire body. Whatever is administered with DMSO tends to bind with the DMSO and is carried to the inside of
cells along with DMSO.
Animal studies show that DMSO, by itself, inhibits the growth of breast, colon and bladder cancer, as well as leukemia, in
animals. The fact that this list is not longer probably reflects the fact that DMSO has not been studied in other cancers.
If cytotoxic drugs are given to fight a cancer, they are more effective when given with DMSO to escort them to the inside of
cancer cells. DMSO also relieves the pain of cancer and, by being a free radical scavenger, reduces the side effects of
But, it’s the old story! As with most effective and affordable cancer therapies, it is not approved for that use by the FDA.
This, despite the presence of more than 6,000 articles attesting to its safety and effectiveness and despite the fact that almost
every civilized country approves of DMSO treatment for cancer except, you guessed it, the USA.
Nevertheless, some doctors do offer DMSO in the US. Because DMSO is approved for one rare bladder condition called
"interstitial cystitis," it is possible for doctors to use it for any other purpose. The FDA’s authority extends to the
determination of whether or not an item is safe, and it is up to the doctor to determine its correct use. While the FDA
specifies approval only for treatment of interstitial cystitis this specification has no teeth.
One of the many sad facts of standardized American medicine is the great difficulty encountered by doctors who use ozone
to treat anything. Despite the fact that ozone is an accepted, safe and effective treatment for a variety of conditions in almost
all other countries, the FDA clings to the position that it is potentially dangerous to human health! They have that wrong.
Ozone is safe. The FDA, on the other hand, is dangerous to human health — at least in the USA.
Other than safety, the other feature about ozone is that it is relatively inexpensive and cannot be patented because it is
abundant in nature. This is the real problem for the medical cancer establishment. Some doctors offer ozone in the US
despite the restrictions. Some states do not choose to harass doctors who offer ozone therapy. Others choose to take their
There is a lot of confusion about ozone. We hear about it in two places: the ozone layer in the atmosphere and as part of
industrial pollution. The ozone layer in the upper reaches of the atmosphere absorbs UV light and protects us from skin
cancers and cataracts. Thus, it prevents death and blindness. Not bad. Even the FDA does not object to the presence of
ozone in the ozone layer.
Ozone also is part of the mix of industrial pollution. It is created when petroleum ignites inside an internal combustion engine,
like the one which turns the wheels on your car to take you to work. Because it comes in this form and is easy to measure, it
is used to gauge the degree of pollution — so people in Los Angeles will know what they are dying from just before the
moment of asphyxiation.
However, while petrochemical pollutants are dangerous to human health, ozone is not a petrochemical. It is merely oxygen in
a menage á trois. Oxygen, like human beings, usually prefers to come in pairs, or dyads: O2. However, also like human
beings and in about the same proportion, oxygen occasionally gets kinky and comes as a triad: O3.
Ozone, or O3, is much less stable than O2. Probably, three-way love affairs are as explosive at a molecular level as they are
at human level. O3 is looking for an opportunity to become O2 plus singlet oxygen (O–). When this happens, singlet oxygen,
O–, combines with another singlet oxygen and forms O2 again. If no singlet oxygen is available, O– combines with other
surrounding molecules. This is called "oxidation," and it is particularly hard on cancer cells, killing some outright and stunting
the growth of others.
The route of administration of ozone is rectal, intravenous and aural (infusion into the ear canal allowing the ozone to absorb
through the ear drum).
If you want ozone therapy you must find one of those courageous doctors living in one of those states which do not harass
these sorts of docs, or you must travel abroad: Mexico, Europe, the Bahamas, notably.
The subject of intravenous hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) is covered in its own web site called bio-oxidative medicine. It is
more acceptable to, although not exactly smiled on by, medical orthodoxy. In most states, you can find doctors who offer
this therapy. The mechanism of action is the same as ozone, and the route of administration is intravenous.
The question comes up as to which is more efficacious: ozone or hydrogen peroxide. Theoretically, they should be the same,
because the mechanism of action — boosting oxidative metabolism and damaging and killing cancer cells, bacteria and
viruses, as well as boosting the immune system — is the same. I know of no studies which compare the two, so this question
will have to remain unanswered for the moment.
Live Cell Therapy
The injection of fetal or embryonic cells, usually of calf origin, was developed by Paul Niehans in Switzerland in the early
1930s. Unapproved by the FDA, it is offered by a number of clinics in Tijuana, Mexico as part of a nutritional/metabolic
approach to cancer therapy. It also is used to treat a wide variety of other diseases.
In cancer treatment with live cell therapy, the thymus gland is targeted, because it plays an important role in immune function.
Shark fetal cells are favored, because it is believed they contain a substance which accounts for the fact that sharks almost
never get cancer.
Even live cell therapists admit that by itself live cell therapy is not a cure for terminal cancer. They also believe it is very useful
as part of an overall nutritional/metabolic approach. The earlier the cancer is diagnosed and the earlier treatment is instituted,
the more effective it is.
For more information, follow these hyperlinks:
Ayurvedic Medicine Approach to Cancer
Biologic Therapies for Cancer
Energy Medicine in the Treatment of Cancer
Herbal Treatment of Cancer
Homeopathy in the Treatment of Cancer
Immune Therapies for Cancer
Metabolic Therapies for Cancer
Nutritional Therapies for Cancer
Natural Cancer Therapies