The Enzyme Treatment of Cancer and Its Scientific Basis


Book Description

In 1902, the scientist John Beard, at the time Professor at the University of Edinburgh, proposed that the pancreatic enzyme trypsin represents the body'¿¿s primary defense against cancer and would be useful as a cancer treatment. Despite his documentation and reputation '¿¿ he was nominated for the Nobel Prize in 1906 for his work in embryology '¿¿ most cancer experts rejected Beard'¿¿s thesis outright. However, not everyone dismissed Beard. A number of physicians employed pancreatic enzymes in the treatment of patients diagnosed with advanced cancer, often with remarkable results as reported in the scientific literature. These successes provoked a heated debate about the therapy in the first decade of the 20th century. In 1911 Beard published The Enzyme Treatment of Cancer and Its Scientific Basis, outlining his hypothesis, and the compelling results. Though published to some very positive reviews, the book was soon forgotten as the scientific community enthusiastically latched on to Madame Curie'¿¿s claim that radiation represented a simple non-toxic cure for cancer. It would be years before scientists realized radiation cured few cancers and was quite toxic '¿¿ Madame Curie herself died as a result of her exposure to uranium. Though Beard died in relative obscurity in 1924, contemporary evidence from molecular biology confirms many of his precepts.In 2010, nearly 100 years since publication of this book, it is time Beard'¿¿s work be reread. With billions of dollars spent in recent decades on cancer research with only slight success, Beard'¿¿s thesis warrants a thorough reconsideration.







What Went Wrong


Book Description

In 1998, Nicholas Gonzalez, M.D. received National Cancer Institute approval for a clinical trial to evaluate his nutritional-enzyme approach in the treatment of patients with pancreatic cancer. Though Dr. Gonzalez hoped the venture would initiate an era of cooperation between conventional scientists and serious alternative researchers, problems plagued the study from its beginning. The design discouraged patient participation; conventional oncologists discouraged patients from joining and at times pressured those already admitted for nutritional therapy to change to more conventional treatment. Then in 2000 the NCI insisted that all patient selection decisions be turned over to the Principal Investigator, who as it turned out helped develop the chemotherapy protocol used as the control treatment.Repeatedly, the Principal Investigator approved patients for the nutritional treatment who did not meet the entry requirements, or who were too ill or uncommitted to follow the self-administered regimen. An evaluation by government scientists in early 2005 confirmed that so many patients had failed to follow the prescribed nutritional therapy that the data had little meaning. Despite such problems, without Dr. Gonzalez¿ knowledge the Principal Investigator published an article implying the study was properly run, patients complied fully and that the nutritional therapy had no effect.In response, Dr. Gonzalez, a former journalist, has written What Went Wrong, to bring the truth of this project to light, and show how bias, indifference, and at times incompetence undermined a promising research effort that, if properly run, might have ushered in a new direction in cancer treatment.




The Cancer Problem


Book Description




Herbal Medicine


Book Description

The global popularity of herbal supplements and the promise they hold in treating various disease states has caused an unprecedented interest in understanding the molecular basis of the biological activity of traditional remedies. Herbal Medicine: Biomolecular and Clinical Aspects focuses on presenting current scientific evidence of biomolecular ef




The Lancet


Book Description




Scientific Report


Book Description







How Tobacco Smoke Causes Disease


Book Description

This report considers the biological and behavioral mechanisms that may underlie the pathogenicity of tobacco smoke. Many Surgeon General's reports have considered research findings on mechanisms in assessing the biological plausibility of associations observed in epidemiologic studies. Mechanisms of disease are important because they may provide plausibility, which is one of the guideline criteria for assessing evidence on causation. This report specifically reviews the evidence on the potential mechanisms by which smoking causes diseases and considers whether a mechanism is likely to be operative in the production of human disease by tobacco smoke. This evidence is relevant to understanding how smoking causes disease, to identifying those who may be particularly susceptible, and to assessing the potential risks of tobacco products.