By Nicholas Gonzalez, M.D.
As a medical student at Cornell in 1981 I first began investigating
the work of the late and very eccentric Dr. William Kelley, the
dentist who developed a nutritional enzyme approach to cancer during
the 1960’s. My research mentor at the time, Dr. Robert Good – then
President of Sloan-Kettering and recently described in his obituary
as the “Father of Modern Immunology”– suggested as part of my project
I evaluate all patients with appropriately diagnosed inoperable
pancreatic cancer treated by Dr. Kelley within a specific time frame
(we ultimately chose the years 1974-1982). Dr. Good, wise teacher
that he could be, encouraged me to focus my efforts on this particular
malignancy, since pancreatic cancer was at the time, as it is today,
an invidiously aggressive illness that kills most of its victims
within 3-6 months. Dr. Good realized Kelley treated other types
of cancers as well as non-cancer illnesses. But he felt that if
I could show Kelley had even a few significant victories against
this disease, his work would deserve to be taken more seriously
– after all, no one in orthodox oncology anywhere could claim any
success with inoperable pancreatic cancer.
In my searchings through Kelley’s files I did indeed discover a
series of remarkable patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer who
had done extraordinarily well for years under Kelley’s care. I documented
these unusual cases as a part of my lengthy report on Kelley’s methods,
completed as fulfillment for my immunology research training under
Dr. Good – who by that time had moved to All Children’s Hospital
in Florida. Though the manuscript remains unpublished to this day
– due to the usual biases in the medical and publishing world -
by the late 1980s, long after Kelley had closed down his office
and disappeared from view, word of my study and my unusual findings
with pancreatic cancer spread quickly in the alternative world.
In 1993, Dr. Michael Friedman, then Associate Director of the National
Cancer Institute, suggested I pursue a small pilot study, evaluating
my nutritional approach in patients diagnosed with inoperable pancreatic
cancer, for reasons similar to those of Dr. Good 12 years earlier.
He felt that if I had the guts to put my therapy to the test against
pancreatic cancer in a formal clinical trial and the treatment showed
some benefit even in a few patients, the NCI would have to move
to the next level with my work and support large controlled clinical
studies. By “benefit” Dr. Friedman meant three out of 10 patients
living one year.
My colleague Dr. Linda Isaacs and I far exceeded Dr. Friedman’s
definition of success; of the eleven patients in the study, eight
with very advanced stage IV disease, nine lived at least a year,
five lived two years or more, and two lived beyond four years. Based
on these well-documented results, published
in a peer-reviewed journal in 1999, the NCI agreed to fund a comprehensive
controlled study, originally designed to pit our therapy against
the best available chemotherapy in patients diagnosed with inoperable
pancreatic cancer. This closely followed study seems well-known
within both the alternative and the orthodox medical world as one
of the NCI’s first attempts to study, seriously, an alternative
approach to cancer. Unfortunately, despite the earlier optimism
that surrounded the project, it remains seven years later uncompleted,
for many reasons that for now must be kept confidential.
So though the long story of our clinical trial must be told at
some other time, while that project struggled along its peculiar
pathway, we did pursue laboratory studies in a mouse pancreatic
tumor model developed by the renowned molecular biologist Dr. Parviz
Pour at the University of Nebraska. Again, as with the pilot study,
the results were positive, impressive, published
in the peer-reviewed literature, and presented at an NCI invitation-only
conference.
Since so much of our research, both clinical and laboratory, has
involved pancreatic cancer in one way or another, it’s understandable
that many familiar with our regimen associate it primarily or even
exclusively with the disease, even though Dr. Isaacs and I do treat
all forms of cancer as well as non-malignant illness. Nonetheless,
after several conversations with my friend Lyle Hurd, the publisher
of totalhealth, I decided to write about this particular
disease once again, concentrating not on the clinical studies, but
our success with patients treated in our private practice. In doing
so I hope to demonstrate that with our nutritional therapy, a number
of our patients have beaten soundly this normally rapidly terminal
condition in a way unmatched anywhere in the orthodox oncology literature.
I hope also to make the same point Dr. Good made with me in our
first conversations about Kelley 25 years ago, and the point Dr.
Friedman repeated years later. If we can document even an occasional
success with inoperable pancreatic cancer, our therapy deserves
to be taken more seriously.
At this point, I thought it might be useful to discuss briefly
the pancreas, its anatomy and physiology, and our general treatment
approach before presenting a series of case reports of patients
diagnosed with the disease who have done well while under our care.
Anatomically speaking, the pancreas lies in the backmost region
of the upper abdomen, technically known as the retroperitoneum,
directly behind the stomach. Here it sits literally fused to the
posterior body wall, lying horizontally along it. In the adult,
the organ is about 10-15 cms (5-6 inches) in length with a tapering
shape consisting of a widened head, a narrowing body and still more
narrowed tail. In one of my lectures years ago, I suggest that the
pancreas looked somewhat like the head of a seagull or tern, with
its head and tapering beak. I think that analogy a good one, even
today.
The pancreatic head fits snugly in the duodenum, the first part
of the small intestine into which the partially digested food flows
from the stomach after each meal. The duodenum itself has a well-described
“C curve” shape, that wraps around the pancreatic head and receives
the bolus of pancreatic enzymes that continue the digestive process.
In its microscopic structure, the pancreas consists of two very
distinct cell types, those of the exocrine pancreas that synthesize
the digestive enzymes, and the endocrine cells that manufacture
various hormones. The exocrine cells far outnumber the endocrine,
making up about 90 percent of the organ’s total cell mass. These
enzyme producers array themselves in nests called acini, the production
centers for the main classes of pancreatic enzymes: the proteolytic
group including trypsin and chymotrypsin that break down large proteins
into their component amino acids; the lipases, that chop up long
chain fatty acids into smaller molecules; and the amylases, that
cleave complex carbohydrates into sugars such as glucose and fructose.
The pancreas actually secretes many enzymes in each class, and dozens
overall.
The acinar cells synthesize and secrete the powerful proteolytic
enzymes and the lipases as inactive precursor molecules lacking
any digestive capability. Consequently, these dormant molecules
pose no threat to the pancreas itself, which otherwise could be
digested away. But once released into the duodenum, the precursors
quickly transform into active enzymes, ready and willing to attack
any food that might be arriving from the stomach.
The scarcer endocrine cells also lie in nests, known as Isles of
Langerhans, that lie scattered throughout the pancreas, though they
tend to be concentrated in the tail region. Scientists recognize
three categories of islet cells, each of which synthesizes a particular
hormone. The alpha cells secrete glucagon, which stimulates the
liver and muscle to release stored carbohydrates as the need arises,
such as between meals or when food is scarce. Beta cells manufacture
insulin, that serves to drive excess blood glucose into cells for
use as energy or for storage during and after a meal. Delta cells
produce somatostatin, which regulates the synthesis and activity
of the other two islet hormones. All the endocrine cells release
their respective hormone molecules directly into the bloodstream,
for use at distant tissue sites such as the liver and the various
muscles of the body.
Pancreatic Cancer
According to Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine
(16th edition, page 537), in 2004, pancreatic cancer killed 31,270
Americans, making it the fourth major cancer killer. It is a particularly
virulent disease, with 98 percent of patients dead within a year
of diagnosis. The cause of this malignancy still eludes orthodox
thinkers, though over the years they have uncovered some clues.
Scientists report that cigarette smoking increases the risk three
times, with up to 30 percent of cases linked to the habit. Chronic
pancreatitis and obesity predispose to the illness, as does diabetes
mellitus. Experts argue for a genetic component in some families,
with approximately 3-9 percent of all cases thought due to such
an inherited predisposition (DeVita VT, Hellman S, Rosenberg SA,
Cancer: Principles and Practice of Oncology, 6th Edition.
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins 2001, page 1127). I remember one
patient in my practice who reported six first-degree family members
had died with pancreatic cancer. However, the relationship between
pancreatic cancer and coffee consumption proposed some years ago
and reported in the media has now been discounted.
Cancer can begin in either the enzyme or hormone secreting cells,
though exocrine malignancies make up at least 90 percent of all
pancreatic tumors, the much rarer endocrine tumors (also called
islet cell cancers) a mere 5-10 percent. The more common form, adenocarcinoma,
usually kills quickly; the conventional medical literature reports
that average survival for patients with widely metastatic pancreatic
adenocarcinoma at the time of diagnosis falls in the range of 3-6
months from diagnosis; earlier stage patients live on average some
10-14 months. The prospects for long term survival remain dismal
whatever the stage, even after many millions invested in research
over many years.
In the conventional medical world, surgical resection of localized
disease provides the only prospect for long-term survival, but at
the time of diagnosis most patients already have widespread cancer
and for them, surgery offers no benefit. Chemotherapy does little;
the FDA approved gemcitabine, known as Gemzar, specifically for
the treatment of pancreatic adenocarcinoma after data from clinical
trials showed that patients treated with the drug lived on average
5.6 months, four weeks longer than those receiving other forms of
chemotherapy. Researchers did claim that in addition to this slight
survival advantage, 29 percent of Gemzar-treated patients enjoyed
an improved “quality of life,” defined as less pain, increased appetite
and an overall slight enhancement of their general “well being.”
Though short lived, such benefits still represented an advance over
previous options for the disease. Recently, investigators at a number
of academic centers have reported little additional improvement
when they added other powerful chemotherapy agents into the Gemzar
mix.
Scientists divide the rarer islet cell tumors into many subtypes,
depending on the specific hormone released; for example, insulinomas
secrete insulin, glucagonomas, glucagon, and gastrinomas, gastrin.
These cancers may secrete these hormone products in excessive, even
dangerous amounts – for example, frequently patients with insulinomas
come to the doctor complaining of fainting between meals, when the
extra insulin drives so much glucose out of the bloodstream that
blood sugar drops precipitously. Whatever the particular type, islet
cell carcinomas tend to be less aggressive than adenocarcinomas:
even patients with metastatic disease at the time of diagnosis can
live five years due to its inherently slow progression, but progress
it usually does, eventually with fatal results.
Our Approach to Cancer in General
In my experience, most alternative practitioners who think about
cancer recommend one diet for everyone, regardless of the tumor
type, in a kind of “one size fits all” approach. Usually this proposed
ideal turns out to be just another variation on the same vegetarian
theme, with animal protein and animal fat demonized as the true
enemy of all cancer patients and of life in general. However, as
those familiar with our work know, Dr. Isaacs and I think quite
differently, believing that each of us is unique not only in height,
weight and shoe size, but also in terms of dietary and nutritional
needs. We rely on not one but ten basic diets, ranging from the
nearly purely vegetarian to mostly red meat, with the fat, throughout
the day. My predecessor Dr. Kelley spent years of his professional
life insisting that one size doesn’t fit all, that each of us is
biochemically and nutritionally unique and each of us requires a
diet designed for our specific metabolic needs.
Ironically, when dentist Dr. Kelley first began treating patients
with other than dental disease in the late 1950s and early 1960s,
he believed that for optimal health humans should eat vegetarian,
period. However nice the theory might have sounded, in practice
he discovered that vegetarianism worked only for occasional patients,
and that many actually worsened eating this way. Through a process
of trial and error, he learned that though some of his patients
did well with a plant based diet, to his astonishment many did best
when they ate red meat and only minimal vegetables and fruits, and
some thrived when he prescribed a diet allowing a variety of both
plant and animal based foods.
I recently said, when asked to say a few words in his memory after
his death, that just about everything that could be said about anybody,
good, bad and indifferent had been said about Dr. Kelley – with
some justification. But if we put aside his controversial nature
for a moment, if Kelley was nothing else, he was a man possessed
of great curiosity. As he refined his therapy over the years, he
began to think about the reasons why this should be – why some of
his patients thrived eating plants while others blossomed eating
meat, and still others did best when consuming all types of food.
His intellectual journey led him on a long and winding path that
eventually ended at the autonomic nervous system (ANS), the collection
of nerves which regulates all aspects of our metabolism, such as
digestion and blood flow, that do not require any conscious input.
In a sense, autonomic means it works on its own, automatically,
without any need for us to think much about what it might be doing
at any given time.
Though the details of autonomic physiology and Kelley’s elaborate
model are certainly beyond the score of this brief article, some
general points deserve mentioning. The individual nerves of the
ANS begin in the hypothalamus and brainstem, in an area neuroscientists
call the “lower brain,” to contrast it to the “higher” brain centers
of the cerebral cortex that help us think both grand and trivial
thoughts, that allow us to ponder, do math, write music and fill
out our income tax forms.
Signals from the autonomic centers travel out of the brain to reach
every tissue and organ in the body, from tiny muscles of the hair
follicles of our scalp, to the sweat glands of the feet, and just
about everywhere else in between. Scientists divide the ANS into
two distinct branches, the sympathetic nervous system (SNS) and
the parasympathetic nervous system (PNS), each consisting of its
own very unique set of nerves designed to carry out a particular
set of instructions. The SNS and PNS tend to work in contrary ways,
in opposition to each other, not to struggle and fight, but instead
to allow very precise management of our every metabolic activity
from second to second. When the SNS fires, for example, heart rate
increases, as does the strength of each cardiac contraction: the
small arterioles of the skin and those along the entire digestive
tract constrict, while the vessels that feed into the muscles and
into the brain dilate, to allow easier and stronger blood flow.
As a result, blood pressure rises and blood itself gets preferentially
shunted from the gut and skin to the muscles and brain. Furthermore,
the sympathetic nerves inhibit virtually all digestive processes
and processing, including the secretion of all the various digestive
juices as well as peristalsis, the series of muscular contractions
that propel food along the intestinal tract. At the same time, the
SNS signals most endocrine organs, including the thyroid, the adrenals,
and the gonads, to release their respective hormones.
The parasympathetic nerves, when firing, orchestrate the opposite
chain of events; heart rate slows and cardiac contraction weakens,
while the arterioles of the skin and digestive tract open wide.
Blood pressure drops, and blood flows more strongly into the skin
and into the various digestive organs. Meanwhile, digestive activity
along the entire gut picks up, including the secretion of acid,
enzymes and bile, as well as peristalsis. However, when the parasympathetic
nerves gear up, endocrine activity slows considerably.
Scientists traditionally teach that the sympathetic system serves
as our body’s first responder in times of stress, be it physical,
emotional or psychological in origin. Hopefully my cursory description
above gives clues why the SNS might help us survive through times
of great or even minor difficulty. When challenged, whether physically
or intellectually, it helps us if blood, with its oxygen and many
life-supporting nutrients, flows steadily and effortlessly to the
brain to allow for quick thinking. As blood moves more efficiently
into our many skeletal muscles, we can, if necessary move rapidly
and with great force – to our benefit should we need to run from
a fire or extricate ourselves from a crashed car. We have all heard
stories of heroic feats of human strength, such as a parent lifting
the end of a car to help a trapped child escape; such actions are
possible, when the sympathetic system is fully active.
The sudden burst of hormones from the thyroid and the adrenals
helps convert our reserves of stored energy, the sugar in the liver
and fatty acids sequestered in fat cells, into readily usable fuel.
This too makes perfect sense, for under duress, we want our brain’s
neurons and muscle cells supplied with as much energy as they might
need, for as long as they need it. And at times when we are fighting
for survival or struggling through a final exam, we don’t want our
energy wasted on more the more mundane processes of life such as
digestion. So it’s to our benefit that when the SNS fires during
periods of stress, digestion essentially shuts down.
Though the SNS does deftly help us battle through major obstacles
in life, such as a car accident, even more mundane events in a typical
mundane day – an unpleasant phone call, a problem with the kids
and their homework, a presentation at work – can send these nerves
into high gear. We rely on our sympathetic responders from moment
to moment, day in and day out, to deal with all our stresses and
stressors.
In contrast, the parasympathetic nervous system helps us repair
and rebuild from the wear and tear of life’s daily battles, whatever
they may be, both major and minor. The PNS becomes active during
and after a meal, to promote digestion, to expedite the absorption
of nutrients and their efficient use in all the cells throughout
our body. These nerves are also busy at night, while we sleep, directing
the restoration of our depleted energy reserves as well as the repair
of damage done to our cells and tissues each day as we move through
life in a polluted, challenging world.
After years of thinking about the ANS, Kelley came to believe,
as we do forty years later, that some are born with an overly developed
sympathetic, and a correspondingly weak parasympathetic nervous
system. In such folk, the organs normally stimulated by the sympathetic
nerves, such as the heart and the skeletal muscles, along with the
various endocrine glands, tend to be highly developed, even hyperactive,
while those tissues normally prodded into action by the PNS – such
as those of the digestive system – will be inherently weak, slow
to act, inefficient.
On the other hand, others of us seem to be innately possessed of
a hyperactive PNS, and a weak SNS. In these people, all the tissues
and glands normally activated by the PNS – such as the organs of
digestion – will be very efficient, while the heart, the skeletal
muscles, and the various endocrine glands will be slow to respond,
physiologically clumsy.
For those who fall in between with a balanced autonomic set of
nerves, both the SNS and PNS can fire as needed with equal efficiency,
and all the tissues, organs and glands each regulates will be equally
developed and equally responsive.
Kelley wasn’t the first to propose that we humans could be divided
into three autonomic groups, the sympathetic and parasympathetic
“dominants,” as he called them, and the balanced metabolizers. The
great research scientist Francis M. Pottenger, M.D., Sr. had suggested
in the various editions of his classic text, Symptoms of Visceral
Disease first published in 1919, that our species could be
categorized in this way. More recently, during the 1940’s and 1950’s,
the physiologist Dr. Ernst Gellhorn, a Professor at the University
of Minnesota Medical School, documented the same, that humans fall
into three general autonomic categories.
All this neurophysiology is more than of just theoretical interest:
both Dr. Pottenger Senior and Dr. Gellhorn believed that much if
not most disease occurs when the autonomic branches are not in balance,
and health requires the equilibrium be restored. Though neither
of these two researchers developed these thoughts to any great practical
degree, Kelley took these pioneering ideas and outlined an entire
system of disease and its treatment based on autonomic imbalance.
Though again, the details are beyond the scope of this article,
Kelley specifically associated certain illness with sympathetic
dominance, particularly digestive diseases such as ulcer disease,
colitis, or irritable bowel. Such people can be predisposed to anxiety,
but rarely suffer from depression, and rarely report allergies.
Parasympathetics, with their very efficient gut, escape most digestive
problems, but are subject to allergies, asthma, chronic bronchitis,
hypothyroidism, and chronic fatigue. They can, if the parasympathetic
system becomes too overly domineering, end up in serious, life altering
melancholic depressions.
And it was Kelley who first proposed that cancer occurs only in
a state of autonomic imbalance, and that each of the two extreme
groups, the sympathetic and parasympathetic dominants, fall victim
to certain malignancies. The common solid tumors – the cancers of
the breast, lung, colon, pancreas, liver, uterus, ovaries, prostate
– Kelley believed forty years ago strike only sympathetic dominants,
never parasympathetics. In contrast, the immunological malignancies
– leukemia, lymphoma, myeloma – seem to inflict only those with
a strong PNS, never sympathetic dominants.
Balanced folk, Kelley claimed and as we see in our experience today,
tend to be the healthiest among us, generally immune to the diseases
of the autonomic extremes including cancer. In my 19 years of practice,
I have never seen a cancer patient whose autonomic branches, when
first seen in my office, proved in be in balance.
Though Pottenger and Gellhorn broke important scientific ground,
each in his own way, it was Kelley who first associated states of
autonomic dominance with very specific dietary and nutritional needs.
Kelley proposed that those with a strong SNS do best eating more
vegetarian, dining primarily on plants. The parasympathetic dominants
are the meat eaters, the carnivores, who thrive on animal protein
and animal fat in all its forms - saturated, unsaturated and even
cholesterol - while doing poorly on excessive amounts of fruits,
vegetables, nuts, seeds and grains. These are the patients that
just can’t tolerate grains.
Balanced people, in between the two autonomic extremes, do well
at a buffet (preferably organic of course) choosing and eating a
variety of natural food types of both plant and animal origin, including
fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, whole grains, eggs, dairy, fish,
poultry, and red meat (though not nearly in the quantities needed
by a typical parasympathetic dominant).
So, Kelley had come to associate each of the three autonomic groups
with specific dietary needs and specific illnesses. But, inquisitive
scientist that he was, Kelley took his evolving model of human biology
to the next level, explaining why this should be the case, why each
autonomic type seemed to require, for optimal health, a unique diet,
so different from the optimal diets of the other two groups. Carefully,
with the help of the scientific literature, he began to put the
pieces of this complicated metabolic jigsaw puzzle together, a process
we have continued ourselves to this day.
If we look first at the details of a vegetarian type diet, plant
foods provide nutrients that neutralize metabolic acids, and ultimately
push the blood and body fluids in an alkaline direction. In an alkaline
environment, sympathetic activity slows dramatically, while parasympathetic
firing strongly perks up. In addition, plant foods of various sorts,
whether fruit or vegetable, provide certain minerals in large amounts
such as magnesium and potassium, which together serve to slow down
the sympathetics and rev up the parasympathetics. Such thoughts
aren’t just from Kelley: academic physiologists have known for years
that magnesium does block sympathetic activity, and potassium directly
stimulates the PNS into action.
Certain B vitamins richly supplied in plant foods, such as thiamin,
riboflavin and folic acid, stimulate the parasympathetics and block
sympathetic firing. And nuts, seeds, grains and even leafy greens
provide large amounts of linoleic acid, an essential omega 6, which
similarly inhibits the sympathetics and turns on the parasympathetics.
So, if we put all this information together, a vegetarian type diet,
because of its alkalinizing effect, because of its specific nutritional
profile, its collection of minerals, vitamins, and fatty acids,
will tend to slow down sympathetic activity, turn on the parasympathetics
and bring the out of balance autonomic system of a sympathetic dominant
into, or at least toward, balance. As the autonomic branches move
into equilibrium, the various tissues, organs and glands work more
efficiently and appropriately, none too strong nor too weak. Health
improves, and disease, whatever it may be, tends to regress.
Red meat contains large amounts of sulfates and phosphates which
in the body quickly convert into sulfuric and phosphoric acid, both
of which, like any metabolic acid, strongly stimulate the SNS. In
addition, the four amino acids phenylalanine, tyrosine, aspartic
and glutamic acid, which red meat provides in abundant quantities,
one way or another do the same. Phenylalanine and tyrosine specifically
serve as precursors to the neurotransmitter norepinephrine, without
which the SNS can do nothing, and aspartic and glutamic acid each
turn on the sympathetic centers of the hypothalamus. Certain B vitamins,
like B12, found in red meat exert similar influences, activating
the sympathetics, and blocking the PNS. The saturated fatty acids
richly supplied in red meat, often seen as one of its detriments,
also powerfully stimulate the sympathetic nerves. So for all these
reasons – its acidifying effect, its amino acid, vitamin and fatty
acid profile, red meat perfectly suits the needs of a parasympathetic
dominant, acting to stimulate the weak SNS, toning down the overly
strong PNS, and bringing the two autonomic branches – and the various
tissues, organs, and glands - into more efficient equilibrium. With
such balance, once again, health improves, disease tends to regress.
A diet providing both plant and animal products in roughly equal
amounts yields nutrients that stimulate and suppress both autonomic
branches. For a balanced metabolizer, born into sympathetic-parasympathetic
equality, a variety of foods will help maintain their inherent physiologic
status quo.
We, like Kelley before us, use not only diet, but also supplements,
with the specific aim in each patient to move their SNS and PNS
into harmony. In the alternative medical world, practitioners prescribe
many supplements for many reasons, but in our office autonomic balance
remains always the primary goal. For our vegetarian, sympathetic
dominant patients, we generally recommend very large doses of magnesium,
some potassium, but very little calcium, which we find stimulates
the sympathetic nerves into action. For these people we also prescribe
chromium and manganese, which have a similar parasympathetisizing
effect. We also find useful the B vitamins, like thiamin, riboflavin
and folate, which specifically suppress the sympathetic nerves and
stimulate the PNS. We suggest these patients avoid certain Bs like
B12, inositol and choline, which to the contrary stimulate sympathetic
activity.
Our parasympathetics, in terms of supplements, usually do best
with large amounts of calcium, but must avoid all but the smallest
doses of magnesium and potassium, each of which would only serve
to stimulate their already hyperactive PNS, and suppress their already
weak SNS. We do include in their protocols extra zinc, which we
believe to be a sympathetic stimulant, but keep to a minimum chromium
and manganese. We also limit thiamin, riboflavin and folate, but
often prescribe fairly large amounts of B12, choline and inositol,
each of which serves to turn on their weak sympathetic nerves while
suppressing the overly active parasympathetic system. We frequently
suggest for them fairly large doses of the omega-3 fatty acids for
their sympathetisizing effect, often from fish oil as the most suitable
source, but restrict to a minimum the omega-6 class.
For our balanced patients, we prescribe a variety of supplemental
nutrients in moderate doses that stimulate and suppress both autonomic
branches, including magnesium, potassium, calcium, chromium, manganese
and zinc, all the Bs, and a mixture of fatty acids, both the omega-3
and omega-6 varieties. In this way, their inherent autonomic balance
stays steady, in place, moving neither into sympathetic nor parasympathetic
extreme. We try to keep them exactly where they should be, in balance.
For our cancer patients, as with all our patients, we use diet
and various nutrients, including the minerals, trace elements, vitamins
and fatty acids to push their ANS into equilibrium. Though autonomic
balancing remains a crucial goal for our cancer patients, as Kelley
believed decades ago, and as we believe today, it is not in and
of itself sufficient to beat the disease once it has become firmly
established. All our cancer patients, regardless of their autonomic
profile, must also take, in addition to their other supplements,
large quantities of orally ingested pancreatic enzymes derived from
the pig pancreas, for a direct anti-cancer effect. This enzyme product
remains the mainstay of our cancer protocols, as it was for Kelley,
based on the work of the brilliant Scottish scientist, Dr. John
Beard. It was Beard who first suggested to the consternation of
the medical world that pancreatic proteolytic enzymes represent
the body’s main defense against cancer and would be the ideal treatment
of the disease.
This article is continued in the January/February
2007 issue of totalhealth.
|
