Enzymes and cancer

[Guest guest]

There are too many on the list who want to take an adversarial or

gnostic approach to enzyme discussions. A more rational approach

would be a reflective approach. I think some list members became

livid when I made a simple observation of an apparent association of

unexplained metastasis and high doses of enzymes among patients who

have come my way. This is consistent with much of the research on

MMPs in both alternative and conventional research. Examples of

alternative approaches would be the entire focus of Mathias

Rath. That is, the primary danger of cancer is metastasis. The

fibronectins and other stromal tissues prevent metastasis. So it

would make sense to use almost any means possible to protect and

build on these tissues.

An example of conventional research is a patent by a neighbor of mine:

United States Patent 6,475,488

Pasqualini , et al. November 5, 2002

----------

Methods of inhibiting angiogenesis and ameliorating cancer by using

superfibronectin

Abstract

The invention provides a method of inhibiting angiogenesis and

treating pathologies with angioproliferative components. The

invention provides a method of ameliorating tumor growth and

metastasis in a subject comprising administering a superfibronectin

or a superfibronectin-generating compound to the subject. The

invention also provides a method of inhibiting the migration and

attachment of tumor cells.

----------

Inventors: Pasqualini; Renata (Solana Beach, CA), Ruoslahti; Erkki

(Rancho Santa Fe, CA)

Assignee: The Burnham Institute (La Jolla, CA)

Those who are choosing an adversarial or gnostic approach set up a

straw argument that science shows that oral enzymes are taken up and

used by the body, especially the pancreas. This is true. The body

is clever this way. Many or most of the healthiest foods we eat are

prepared in ways to preserve their enzymes.

Are enzymes beneficial to cancer patients undergoing

chemotherapy? List members can easily find evidence of this. They

don't have the slightest argument from me. They can equally find

benefit from glutamine, quercetin, ornithine, etc., etc.

For those who chose chemotherapy I wish them the very best. For

those advanced cancer patients who have not previously done

chemotherapy they will usually see tumor shrinkage and sometimes see

disappearance for a while. If there is distant metastasis though I

never see a favorable outcome and this is true even if they take

buckets of enzymes. Perhaps others have had different observations.

Now my reasoning -- and other intelligent people on the list might

reason differently. I would have everyone do a little thought

experiment and divide the world into two cohorts.

The first cohort would be the patients of the modern world with phony

foods, ubiquitous pollution, a medicine-ridden lifestyle, and the

concomitant medical-industry driven treatments of the ensuing chronic

diseases such as cancer.

The second cohort would be sub-Saharan Africans during the first half

of the 20th century. I choose them because cancer and heart disease

were virtually non-existent in spite of the fact that many people did

live to old age. These poor people lived under high stress, and had

incredibly poor nutrition. They had pellagra, hypothyrodism,

kwashiorkor, and marasmus . They had malaria and tuberculosis,

schistosomiasis, filariasis, cholera and dysentery.

Western style medicine set up clinics and did quite a nice job of

dispatching the infections, parasites, and much of the

malnutrition. But with western civilization came more than just

Albert Schweitzer. Along came looting colonial industries,

pollution, western vaccines and antibiotics, and a change in diet

from the simple bitter cassava, beans, and catch-as-catch-can foods

to the greasy, sugary, chemically enhanced diet of the

colonizers. African cancer rates now rival our own.

Did Western medical analysts say, " Look at this! What is it about

these Africans that we don't see any heart disease? Other than

occasional esophageal cancer from Bantu beer, there seems to be no

cancer! " No, our medical advisors say, " Well, at least we don't have

to allocate resources on cancer and heart disease. " Of course our

western industrialists are none too pleased by the thought of healthy

Africans. Monsanto engineered cassava that has no nitrilosides, that

is, none of the natural laetrile that was a part of the African

diet. We introduced more than that. Litton Bionetics reintroduced

2,200 virus-ridden monkeys into the African wilds in the late

seventies. This is documented in the Special Virus Cancer Program

progress reports.

And now back to Western style medicine with its crowning achievement

-- evidence based medicine. What a joke that is. Simply control

what gets evidenced and who interprets it. Evidence-based medicine

has become a four trillion dollar per year industry. It is far

greater than energy, transportation, defense, and everything

else. Obviously there is no intent to cure anything. If there was

intent we would seriously study populations who had virtually no

cancer. We would follow around the many practitioners and scientists

who have been getting very remarkable results. No, we villainize the

" quacks " and we deny funding and mainstream media exposure to our

most clever and honest scientists.

The type of science that is chosen to study cancer treatments is

heavily reliant on two misleading strategies both of which assure the

death of the cancer patient. The first is the " percent inhibition of

cancer growth " of various antineoplastics. The other is " the added

months of survival " using an experimental protocol. These mean only

one thing: you will die more slowly. This can be just the ticket

for you if you savor the dying process.

One way of looking at it this is that you have been issued a

chemotherapy death warrant and you are approached by the agents of

the pharmaceutical barons. They have an offer: " You are the

condemned. The firing squad has their rifles aimed at you

heart. You will die. But, if you will give us all your money we

will issue special slow-moving bullets. Evidence-based science has

shown you will live longer. "

Now cancer research is not just based on these cheap tricks. The

industry has to hedge its bets. This is the reason you read about

the use of nude and SCID mice. It is virtually impossible to give

wild type cancer to an animal or to humans living in a primitive

natural environment. It takes a multiple prong attack to cause

enough cellular damage such that the body will allow the growth of

cancer. Lab mice without natural tumor defenses have been bred since

1962. The disingenuous use of these mice has allowed industry to

spend billions of dollars on candidate medicines that seem useful in

mice but fall on their face in human trials. The same holds true for

the cell lines used in in vitro testing. Patients go broke and die,

unsophisticated investors lose their funds, and company directors

always make out like bandits.

So, the choice is simple. Do I chose to participate in the first

cohort. It is covered by insurance and my doctor will get mad if I

don't do it. If I opt out my insurance carrier makes me sign a paper

saying I refused treatment. If I don't do it my family thinks I will

die. Quackwatch says that anything and everything not mandated by

the pharmaceutical industry and the FDA is a fraud. But, ten minutes

of my own research clearly shows that this course is a death sentence.

Or, do I find a program that pays obsessive attention to the near

invincibility of the human body when it comes to preventing and

curing cancer. It means that I must reject the accoutrements of

sophisticated living. It means that I must position my whole

lifestyle such that it mimics the essential aspects of cancer-free

cultures. It does not mean I have to run around with a pointy stick,

wear a loin cloth, and eat bugs.

I might be the only person on this list who is up to his eyeballs in

both worlds. There are a number of people on this list who are very

conventionally educated and acculturated. I know all your arguments

and I can even help you find better ones. For example, the world's

economy is already in shambles. What if there were easy cures for

cancer and other chronic diseases that were so cheap and so easily

accessible that they could not be controlled by government? The

whole economy would collapse just a surely as if free energy were

discovered. One MUST consider public policy and economic

consequences when approving research and medicines. Who wants to

live in a world full of old " useless eaters " as Henry Kissinger

stated in his declassified quote.

One last comment. There are areas in which conventional medicine can

be life saving and life enhancing. We can take pride in this. But

would anyone want to go to a conventional physician to learn anything

about health? I am willing to bet that 90% of the people on this

list know more about health than 90% of the physicians they've met.