IPT (Insulin Potentiation Therapy)

[Guest guest]

Most physicians who use IPT are not oncologists and typically are

quite unskilled at working with cancer. They are told that IPT can

be a wonderful profit center for their practice and so they take a

one-day or one weekend course or practicum.

It all seems so simple. Just use a little insulin to bring down the

blood insulin level, inject (usually with I.V. push) a number of

available chemotherapeutic agents at perhaps 1/7 of the normal dose,

inject a bolus of glucose, and repeat weekly.

The treatment may or may not be beneficial for the patient, but if

done correctly there is little chance that the patient will have side

effects, but so often this is not the case.

The problems:

-- Physicians want to please the patient and they don't quite trust

that the low doses are enough to effect rapid results, so they

rationalize increasing the doses up to a third or a half of the normal dose.

-- A solid IPT regimen might take 40-60 weekly treatments. Many

physicians sell the patient on the notion that they can do it in,

say, 8-20 treatments, and so they increase the doses or scheduling to

hurry things along.

-- Most patients are worried, impatient for results, and have only so

much money to allocate to treatment. The physician feels compelled

to take short cuts and increase doses.

-- Some patients are simply more sensitive to drugs. I have seen

this more often among Asians.

-- A patient may be consuming a large amount of grapefruit juice or

perhaps another med that relies on the same hepatic P-450 oxygenases

for detoxification. This can result in higher systemic levels of

some of the chemos for a longer duration.

-- The physician is afraid of using too much insulin and doesn't

bring the blood glucose level down to where you see the patient

become confused -- the " therapeutic moment. "

-- The clinician may wait too long to give the glucose or not use

enough glucose.

-- Non-oncologists often have problems obtaining the best chemos for

the patient, so they use whatever they can get their hands on, or

only those that are inexpensive.

-- No consideration is given to potentiation of effects and

potentiation of side effects among the meds used.

-- No consideration is given to multiple drug resistance (MDR) caused

by the treatment or of MDR from prior treatments.

-- No consideration is given to metabolic pathways of the chemos.

-- No consideration is given to mechanism(s) of action.

-- No consideration is given to the rest of the protocol that

patients may be doing on their own.

-- Many physicians present to the patient add-on concurrent therapies

(H2O2, ascorbate, DMSO, etc.) as if this is frosting on the cake and

worthy of extra expenditure, when in reality many of these treatments

can stop metabolism within the cancer cells and thus force the IPT

chemicals to go everywhere in the body EXCEPT to the tumor.

-- Because IPT is highly profitable, most IPT clinics accept patients

for IPT when this would not be an appropriate therapy.

-- Some meds (such as cisplatin) cannot be properly stored after

reconstituting for injection, so the physician will go ahead and use

a higher dose so they don't " waste " the remainder, or they go ahead

and save the decomposed med for a future patient.

-- The clinician is unfamiliar with the adjuvant use of specific

amino acids to protect the patient from any side effects.

Any whifflebrain with a license can lawfully administer IPT. Then,

when the patient gets side effects, how many physicians apologize to

the patient for their greed and stupidity. It is more convenient to

blame IPT. I think all of these problems would be self-correcting if

it became the custom to pay the physician only after the promised

benefit is achieved, and if there were more transparency in the

outcomes with past patients.

[Guest guest]

You seem to be grouping everyone who does IPT into one incompetent category.

This is very unfair as there are some extremely good practitioners doing IPT and

most everyone I know is a medical doctor with extensive training. IPT has its

place and can do marvelous healings no matter what you think.

From: VGammill

Most physicians who use IPT are not oncologists and typically are

quite unskilled at working with cancer. They are told that IPT can

be a wonderful profit center for their practice and so they take a

one-day or one weekend course or practicum.

It all seems so simple. Just use a little insulin to bring down the

blood insulin level, inject (usually with I.V. push) a number of

available chemotherapeutic agents at perhaps 1/7 of the normal dose,

inject a bolus of glucose, and repeat weekly.

The treatment may or may not be beneficial for the patient, but if

done correctly there is little chance that the patient will have side

effects, but so often this is not the case.

The problems:

-- Physicians want to please the patient and they don't quite trust

that the low doses are enough to effect rapid results, so they

rationalize increasing the doses up to a third or a half of the normal dose.

-- A solid IPT regimen might take 40-60 weekly treatments. Many

physicians sell the patient on the notion that they can do it in,

say, 8-20 treatments, and so they increase the doses or scheduling to

hurry things along.

-- Most patients are worried, impatient for results, and have only so

much money to allocate to treatment. The physician feels compelled

to take short cuts and increase doses.

-- Some patients are simply more sensitive to drugs. I have seen

this more often among Asians.

-- A patient may be consuming a large amount of grapefruit juice or

perhaps another med that relies on the same hepatic P-450 oxygenases

for detoxification. This can result in higher systemic levels of

some of the chemos for a longer duration.

-- The physician is afraid of using too much insulin and doesn't

bring the blood glucose level down to where you see the patient

become confused -- the " therapeutic moment. "

-- The clinician may wait too long to give the glucose or not use

enough glucose.

-- Non-oncologists often have problems obtaining the best chemos for

the patient, so they use whatever they can get their hands on, or

only those that are inexpensive.

-- No consideration is given to potentiation of effects and

potentiation of side effects among the meds used.

-- No consideration is given to multiple drug resistance (MDR) caused

by the treatment or of MDR from prior treatments.

-- No consideration is given to metabolic pathways of the chemos.

-- No consideration is given to mechanism(s) of action.

-- No consideration is given to the rest of the protocol that

patients may be doing on their own.

-- Many physicians present to the patient add-on concurrent therapies

(H2O2, ascorbate, DMSO, etc.) as if this is frosting on the cake and

worthy of extra expenditure, when in reality many of these treatments

can stop metabolism within the cancer cells and thus force the IPT

chemicals to go everywhere in the body EXCEPT to the tumor.

-- Because IPT is highly profitable, most IPT clinics accept patients

for IPT when this would not be an appropriate therapy.

-- Some meds (such as cisplatin) cannot be properly stored after

reconstituting for injection, so the physician will go ahead and use

a higher dose so they don't " waste " the remainder, or they go ahead

and save the decomposed med for a future patient.

-- The clinician is unfamiliar with the adjuvant use of specific

amino acids to protect the patient from any side effects.

Any whifflebrain with a license can lawfully administer IPT. Then,

when the patient gets side effects, how many physicians apologize to

the patient for their greed and stupidity. It is more convenient to

blame IPT. I think all of these problems would be self-correcting if

it became the custom to pay the physician only after the promised

benefit is achieved, and if there were more transparency in the

outcomes with past patients.

[Guest guest]

I think the 'operative' word here is 'Most' as in " most physicians " ..........

not " all physicians " . I did not get " every practitioner " out of 's

e-mail, just most. Then the words " most everyone I know is a medical doctor

with extensive training " are used indicating what sounds like many. Who knows

'many' practicing IPT?. I'm ancient and I don't know any physicians practicing

IPT. Exactly what is 'extensive training and how does the layman know how good

that training is?

Having been connected with this list for a while, I am comfortable saying,

'most physicians that practice IPT are not oncologists'. In fact I'd bet that

one would find it very difficult to find one.............not that I'm looking

for one. Then again that is only me and perhaps others know many practicing

IPT.

It seems to me that being forewarned about the potential for not getting the

proper IPT treatment is prudent and might make us 'ask' around to find out

success ratios rather than simply let anyone do the procedure. Somehow I

believe this approach applies to 'most' alternative treatments otherwise we

would be hearing about more success stories......and we are not. Again, " most "

is not 'all'. I'm sure can respond on his own and I just wanted others

to know what I got out of the original message. This is the problem with

writing. It is usually how one reads something not always what is written.

Joe C.

From: Fieber

Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 1:33 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] IPT (Insulin Potentiation Therapy)

You seem to be grouping everyone who does IPT into one incompetent category.

This is very unfair as there are some extremely good practitioners doing IPT and

most everyone I know is a medical doctor with extensive training. IPT has its

place and can do marvelous healings no matter what you think.

From: VGammill

Most physicians who use IPT are not oncologists and typically are

quite unskilled at working with cancer. They are told that IPT can

be a wonderful profit center for their practice and so they take a

one-day or one weekend course or practicum.

It all seems so simple. Just use a little insulin to bring down the

blood insulin level, inject (usually with I.V. push) a number of

available chemotherapeutic agents at perhaps 1/7 of the normal dose,

inject a bolus of glucose, and repeat weekly.

The treatment may or may not be beneficial for the patient, but if

done correctly there is little chance that the patient will have side

effects, but so often this is not the case.

The problems:

-- Physicians want to please the patient and they don't quite trust

that the low doses are enough to effect rapid results, so they

rationalize increasing the doses up to a third or a half of the normal dose.

-- A solid IPT regimen might take 40-60 weekly treatments. Many

physicians sell the patient on the notion that they can do it in,

say, 8-20 treatments, and so they increase the doses or scheduling to

hurry things along.

-- Most patients are worried, impatient for results, and have only so

much money to allocate to treatment. The physician feels compelled

to take short cuts and increase doses.

-- Some patients are simply more sensitive to drugs. I have seen

this more often among Asians.

-- A patient may be consuming a large amount of grapefruit juice or

perhaps another med that relies on the same hepatic P-450 oxygenases

for detoxification. This can result in higher systemic levels of

some of the chemos for a longer duration.

-- The physician is afraid of using too much insulin and doesn't

bring the blood glucose level down to where you see the patient

become confused -- the " therapeutic moment. "

-- The clinician may wait too long to give the glucose or not use

enough glucose.

-- Non-oncologists often have problems obtaining the best chemos for

the patient, so they use whatever they can get their hands on, or

only those that are inexpensive.

-- No consideration is given to potentiation of effects and

potentiation of side effects among the meds used.

-- No consideration is given to multiple drug resistance (MDR) caused

by the treatment or of MDR from prior treatments.

-- No consideration is given to metabolic pathways of the chemos.

-- No consideration is given to mechanism(s) of action.

-- No consideration is given to the rest of the protocol that

patients may be doing on their own.

-- Many physicians present to the patient add-on concurrent therapies

(H2O2, ascorbate, DMSO, etc.) as if this is frosting on the cake and

worthy of extra expenditure, when in reality many of these treatments

can stop metabolism within the cancer cells and thus force the IPT

chemicals to go everywhere in the body EXCEPT to the tumor.

-- Because IPT is highly profitable, most IPT clinics accept patients

for IPT when this would not be an appropriate therapy.

-- Some meds (such as cisplatin) cannot be properly stored after

reconstituting for injection, so the physician will go ahead and use

a higher dose so they don't " waste " the remainder, or they go ahead

and save the decomposed med for a future patient.

-- The clinician is unfamiliar with the adjuvant use of specific

amino acids to protect the patient from any side effects.

Any whifflebrain with a license can lawfully administer IPT. Then,

when the patient gets side effects, how many physicians apologize to

the patient for their greed and stupidity. It is more convenient to

blame IPT. I think all of these problems would be self-correcting if

it became the custom to pay the physician only after the promised

benefit is achieved, and if there were more transparency in the

outcomes with past patients.

[Guest guest]

,

I did not see this post that is referring to, but I am surprised that you

have made such generalizations and grouped all practitioners of IPT into one

pot. It seems to me that people who criticize all alternative therapies and

group all practitioners or proponents of alternative therapies into one pot

would do the same to you. Of course, we all know, or should know, that one has

to be careful with which alternative program we choose to go with. We all know,

or should know that we have to be wary of people who take advantage of the

system and of people's vulnerabilities. But with that said there are good and

bad apples in every barrel. Some of the generalizations that you made are just

so out of line that I am really surprised to hear them coming from you.

I can only relay our own experience vis a vis what you have described. Saying

that most physicians who use IPT are not Oncologists is correct but that would

be the same as saying that you are not an Oncologist so why would anyone listen

to your advice on Cancer care. We all know of your vast knowledge about cancer

and it's treatments and that just proves that one does not have to be an

Oncologist to know about Cancer.

Saying that Physicians who practice IPT to treat cancer patients use whatever

chemo meds they happen to have around or are able to obtain is also a gross

misrepresentation. Dr. Linchitz who practices IPT on Long Island in NY

specifically recommends that all patients undergo a chemo sensitivity test and

then the drugs that are recommended for their specific genetic makeup are

ordered. Furthermore, he has no problem with the patient providing the chemo

drugs and his nurses just administering them correctly. He is not looking to

get rich on the markup of the chemo drugs themselves as you alluded to.

Another false misrepresentation is that the physicians who practice IPT will

take anyone on. In our particular experience Dr. Linchitz speaks to each

patient on the phone to get as much information as possible before he will even

have you make an appointment at his office. He will tell you on the phone

whether he feels he can help or if he feels that you are too far advanced for

his treatments. He explains very carefully that IPT is not for everyone and

that it is a long process. He explains very carefully that it can take more

than a year before achieving the desired results. Prior to even discussing IPT,

this doctor goes over your entire diet with you and tells you what to eliminate,

what to add, and what to consider adding more of. He goes over every single

supplement that you are already taking and makes suggestions about what you

should add for your particular situation and what you should do away with. I do

not want to go on and on regarding every one of your assertions but the bottom

line is that just because someone is not an Oncologist does not mean that they

cannot treat and help cancer patients and you yourself are the perfect example

of that. I think everyone needs to be very careful about making generalized

statements and bundling all doctors, or all Oncologists, or all Nutritionists,

all of any type of practitioners into the same bundle. It goes without saying

that we all need to be careful about choosing the right path that we feel will

be to our best benefit. I would love to hear your honest analysis of IPT as a

treatment option, assuming that it is done by a properly trained, honest, caring

practitioner without all the derogatory remarks about how it can be misused by

get rich quick doctors.

Thanks

Nili

Re: [ ] IPT (Insulin Potentiation Therapy)

You seem to be grouping everyone who does IPT into one incompetent category.

This is very unfair as there are some extremely good practitioners doing IPT and

most everyone I know is a medical doctor with extensive training. IPT has its

place and can do marvelous healings no matter what you think.

From: VGammill

Most physicians who use IPT are not oncologists and typically are

quite unskilled at working with cancer. They are told that IPT can

be a wonderful profit center for their practice and so they take a

one-day or one weekend course or practicum.

It all seems so simple. Just use a little insulin to bring down the

blood insulin level, inject (usually with I.V. push) a number of

available chemotherapeutic agents at perhaps 1/7 of the normal dose,

inject a bolus of glucose, and repeat weekly.

The treatment may or may not be beneficial for the patient, but if

done correctly there is little chance that the patient will have side

effects, but so often this is not the case.

The problems:

-- Physicians want to please the patient and they don't quite trust

that the low doses are enough to effect rapid results, so they

rationalize increasing the doses up to a third or a half of the normal dose.

-- A solid IPT regimen might take 40-60 weekly treatments. Many

physicians sell the patient on the notion that they can do it in,

say, 8-20 treatments, and so they increase the doses or scheduling to

hurry things along.

-- Most patients are worried, impatient for results, and have only so

much money to allocate to treatment. The physician feels compelled

to take short cuts and increase doses.

-- Some patients are simply more sensitive to drugs. I have seen

this more often among Asians.

-- A patient may be consuming a large amount of grapefruit juice or

perhaps another med that relies on the same hepatic P-450 oxygenases

for detoxification. This can result in higher systemic levels of

some of the chemos for a longer duration.

-- The physician is afraid of using too much insulin and doesn't

bring the blood glucose level down to where you see the patient

become confused -- the " therapeutic moment. "

-- The clinician may wait too long to give the glucose or not use

enough glucose.

-- Non-oncologists often have problems obtaining the best chemos for

the patient, so they use whatever they can get their hands on, or

only those that are inexpensive.

-- No consideration is given to potentiation of effects and

potentiation of side effects among the meds used.

-- No consideration is given to multiple drug resistance (MDR) caused

by the treatment or of MDR from prior treatments.

-- No consideration is given to metabolic pathways of the chemos.

-- No consideration is given to mechanism(s) of action.

-- No consideration is given to the rest of the protocol that

patients may be doing on their own.

-- Many physicians present to the patient add-on concurrent therapies

(H2O2, ascorbate, DMSO, etc.) as if this is frosting on the cake and

worthy of extra expenditure, when in reality many of these treatments

can stop metabolism within the cancer cells and thus force the IPT

chemicals to go everywhere in the body EXCEPT to the tumor.

-- Because IPT is highly profitable, most IPT clinics accept patients

for IPT when this would not be an appropriate therapy.

-- Some meds (such as cisplatin) cannot be properly stored after

reconstituting for injection, so the physician will go ahead and use

a higher dose so they don't " waste " the remainder, or they go ahead

and save the decomposed med for a future patient.

-- The clinician is unfamiliar with the adjuvant use of specific

amino acids to protect the patient from any side effects.

Any whifflebrain with a license can lawfully administer IPT. Then,

when the patient gets side effects, how many physicians apologize to

the patient for their greed and stupidity. It is more convenient to

blame IPT. I think all of these problems would be self-correcting if

it became the custom to pay the physician only after the promised

benefit is achieved, and if there were more transparency in the

outcomes with past patients.

[Guest guest]

Joe

I do agree with what you are saying and most all that I know who do IPT are

medical dotors. You can go to the IPT webpage and they have a list of all

practicing this procedure. Most are naturopathic or medical doctors who have

extensive backgrounds and many work in cancer clinics across the country. A

lay person would really not know the difference about how good the training is.

Again research and speaking to many practitioners is prudent before you embark

on any treatment protocol for any disease.

Re: [ ] IPT (Insulin Potentiation Therapy)

You seem to be grouping everyone who does IPT into one incompetent category.

This is very unfair as there are some extremely good practitioners doing IPT and

most everyone I know is a medical doctor with extensive training. IPT has its

place and can do marvelous healings no matter what you think.

From: VGammill

Most physicians who use IPT are not oncologists and typically are

quite unskilled at working with cancer. They are told that IPT can

be a wonderful profit center for their practice and so they take a

one-day or one weekend course or practicum.

It all seems so simple. Just use a little insulin to bring down the

blood insulin level, inject (usually with I.V. push) a number of

available chemotherapeutic agents at perhaps 1/7 of the normal dose,

inject a bolus of glucose, and repeat weekly.

The treatment may or may not be beneficial for the patient, but if

done correctly there is little chance that the patient will have side

effects, but so often this is not the case.

The problems:

-- Physicians want to please the patient and they don't quite trust

that the low doses are enough to effect rapid results, so they

rationalize increasing the doses up to a third or a half of the normal dose.

-- A solid IPT regimen might take 40-60 weekly treatments. Many

physicians sell the patient on the notion that they can do it in,

say, 8-20 treatments, and so they increase the doses or scheduling to

hurry things along.

-- Most patients are worried, impatient for results, and have only so

much money to allocate to treatment. The physician feels compelled

to take short cuts and increase doses.

-- Some patients are simply more sensitive to drugs. I have seen

this more often among Asians.

-- A patient may be consuming a large amount of grapefruit juice or

perhaps another med that relies on the same hepatic P-450 oxygenases

for detoxification. This can result in higher systemic levels of

some of the chemos for a longer duration.

-- The physician is afraid of using too much insulin and doesn't

bring the blood glucose level down to where you see the patient

become confused -- the " therapeutic moment. "

-- The clinician may wait too long to give the glucose or not use

enough glucose.

-- Non-oncologists often have problems obtaining the best chemos for

the patient, so they use whatever they can get their hands on, or

only those that are inexpensive.

-- No consideration is given to potentiation of effects and

potentiation of side effects among the meds used.

-- No consideration is given to multiple drug resistance (MDR) caused

by the treatment or of MDR from prior treatments.

-- No consideration is given to metabolic pathways of the chemos.

-- No consideration is given to mechanism(s) of action.

-- No consideration is given to the rest of the protocol that

patients may be doing on their own.

-- Many physicians present to the patient add-on concurrent therapies

(H2O2, ascorbate, DMSO, etc.) as if this is frosting on the cake and

worthy of extra expenditure, when in reality many of these treatments

can stop metabolism within the cancer cells and thus force the IPT

chemicals to go everywhere in the body EXCEPT to the tumor.

-- Because IPT is highly profitable, most IPT clinics accept patients

for IPT when this would not be an appropriate therapy.

-- Some meds (such as cisplatin) cannot be properly stored after

reconstituting for injection, so the physician will go ahead and use

a higher dose so they don't " waste " the remainder, or they go ahead

and save the decomposed med for a future patient.

-- The clinician is unfamiliar with the adjuvant use of specific

amino acids to protect the patient from any side effects.

Any whifflebrain with a license can lawfully administer IPT. Then,

when the patient gets side effects, how many physicians apologize to

the patient for their greed and stupidity. It is more convenient to

blame IPT. I think all of these problems would be self-correcting if

it became the custom to pay the physician only after the promised

benefit is achieved, and if there were more transparency in the

outcomes with past patients.

[Guest guest]

At least you 'qualified' your statement saying " I did not see this post " .

That's the problem, nowhere in the post did group " all practitioners

into " one pot " . I am responding because I know doesn't always get to

respond immediately and rather than let misconceptions abound, I simply wanted

others to know what was said and what was not.

You for example mention 'one' physician that apparently does things the way they

should be done. That fits in with 's post completely. You may not have

seen my response before you had a chance to write and perhaps others have a

mis-conception as to what was said. This is too important. we need to find

out what we are responding to and when 'concerned' with what we 'think' we read,

ask what was meant. Nobody before the response to used " all "

practitioners. Go back and read 's post and you will find nothing that

detracts from the doctor you favor as a good IPT practitioner. That's one

physician, one that could easily fit into the 'other' group that does know what

to do. As for not having the negativity? Would it be better if everyone on

the list thought that anyone doing IPT is doing it correctly? This is what

this list is about. Information. Because I know that some IPT practitioners,

maybe most, do not do it correctly, just as most, not all, but most Oncologists

probably do not concern themselves with Multiple Drug Resistance (MDR).

However note I use 'most' and 'probably' because I cannot prove those

statements. In 's post, which should have been read first, he uses

" most " , not all and that leaves room for your doctor whom you feel comfortable

with. Please, anyone, if you have what you believe to be a legitimate

'negative' assessment of anything, post it for us to explore. If it is valid,

it will stand. If invalid, it will fall but at least we may learn something.

As stated before, it is all in reading comprehension and if misread, can be

dangerous and that is why we have discussion. For example, your Dr. Linchitz

sounds like he might be the ideal guy to see and nowhere was 's post

referring to those that do the right thing.

I don't know about you, but I think I would lump 'most' physicians, period, as

thinking of the profit margin more than the altruistic 'First Do No Harm' that

they should be thinking. That's my opinion and even that is " most " , not

" all " . If it isn't the 'profit margin' then it is the CYA approach because they

fear their own profession if they go astray and practice Alternative.

What a proper reading of 's post revealed to me was a warning to be

careful, not an order to avoid 'all' IPT practitioners. makes sense to me.

Why the defense of 's post? Because both posts responding to his did not

accurately describe it. At least you admitted you had not read it before

responding to it.. Additionally, I give most of the credit for my 'success' to

's help and just want to set the obvious straight. Hopefully

will give you more information on this, ignoring the admonition to be 'honest',

and with whatever negative information he believes we need to know. His often

used phrase: " Information is your best friend " always fits.

Joe C.

Joe C.

From: Nili Gitig

Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 10:00 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] IPT (Insulin Potentiation Therapy)

,

I did not see this post that is referring to, but I am surprised that you

have made such generalizations and grouped all practitioners of IPT into one

pot. It seems to me that people who criticize all alternative therapies and

group all practitioners or proponents of alternative therapies into one pot

would do the same to you. Of course, we all know, or should know, that one has

to be careful with which alternative program we choose to go with. We all know,

or should know that we have to be wary of people who take advantage of the

system and of people's vulnerabilities. But with that said there are good and

bad apples in every barrel. Some of the generalizations that you made are just

so out of line that I am really surprised to hear them coming from you.

I can only relay our own experience vis a vis what you have described. Saying

that most physicians who use IPT are not Oncologists is correct but that would

be the same as saying that you are not an Oncologist so why would anyone listen

to your advice on Cancer care. We all know of your vast knowledge about cancer

and it's treatments and that just proves that one does not have to be an

Oncologist to know about Cancer.

Saying that Physicians who practice IPT to treat cancer patients use whatever

chemo meds they happen to have around or are able to obtain is also a gross

misrepresentation. Dr. Linchitz who practices IPT on Long Island in NY

specifically recommends that all patients undergo a chemo sensitivity test and

then the drugs that are recommended for their specific genetic makeup are

ordered. Furthermore, he has no problem with the patient providing the chemo

drugs and his nurses just administering them correctly. He is not looking to get

rich on the markup of the chemo drugs themselves as you alluded to.

Another false misrepresentation is that the physicians who practice IPT will

take anyone on. In our particular experience Dr. Linchitz speaks to each patient

on the phone to get as much information as possible before he will even have you

make an appointment at his office. He will tell you on the phone whether he

feels he can help or if he feels that you are too far advanced for his

treatments. He explains very carefully that IPT is not for everyone and that it

is a long process. He explains very carefully that it can take more than a year

before achieving the desired results. Prior to even discussing IPT, this doctor

goes over your entire diet with you and tells you what to eliminate, what to

add, and what to consider adding more of. He goes over every single supplement

that you are already taking and makes suggestions about what you should add for

your particular situation and what you should do away with. I do not want to go

on and on regarding every one of your assertions but the bottom line is that

just because someone is not an Oncologist does not mean that they cannot treat

and help cancer patients and you yourself are the perfect example of that. I

think everyone needs to be very careful about making generalized statements and

bundling all doctors, or all Oncologists, or all Nutritionists, all of any type

of practitioners into the same bundle. It goes without saying that we all need

to be careful about choosing the right path that we feel will be to our best

benefit. I would love to hear your honest analysis of IPT as a treatment option,

assuming that it is done by a properly trained, honest, caring practitioner

without all the derogatory remarks about how it can be misused by get rich quick

doctors.

Thanks

Nili

Re: [ ] IPT (Insulin Potentiation Therapy)

You seem to be grouping everyone who does IPT into one incompetent category.

This is very unfair as there are some extremely good practitioners doing IPT and

most everyone I know is a medical doctor with extensive training. IPT has its

place and can do marvelous healings no matter what you think.

From: VGammill

Most physicians who use IPT are not oncologists and typically are

quite unskilled at working with cancer. They are told that IPT can

be a wonderful profit center for their practice and so they take a

one-day or one weekend course or practicum.

It all seems so simple. Just use a little insulin to bring down the

blood insulin level, inject (usually with I.V. push) a number of

available chemotherapeutic agents at perhaps 1/7 of the normal dose,

inject a bolus of glucose, and repeat weekly.

The treatment may or may not be beneficial for the patient, but if

done correctly there is little chance that the patient will have side

effects, but so often this is not the case.

The problems:

-- Physicians want to please the patient and they don't quite trust

that the low doses are enough to effect rapid results, so they

rationalize increasing the doses up to a third or a half of the normal dose.

-- A solid IPT regimen might take 40-60 weekly treatments. Many

physicians sell the patient on the notion that they can do it in,

say, 8-20 treatments, and so they increase the doses or scheduling to

hurry things along.

-- Most patients are worried, impatient for results, and have only so

much money to allocate to treatment. The physician feels compelled

to take short cuts and increase doses.

-- Some patients are simply more sensitive to drugs. I have seen

this more often among Asians.

-- A patient may be consuming a large amount of grapefruit juice or

perhaps another med that relies on the same hepatic P-450 oxygenases

for detoxification. This can result in higher systemic levels of

some of the chemos for a longer duration.

-- The physician is afraid of using too much insulin and doesn't

bring the blood glucose level down to where you see the patient

become confused -- the " therapeutic moment. "

-- The clinician may wait too long to give the glucose or not use

enough glucose.

-- Non-oncologists often have problems obtaining the best chemos for

the patient, so they use whatever they can get their hands on, or

only those that are inexpensive.

-- No consideration is given to potentiation of effects and

potentiation of side effects among the meds used.

-- No consideration is given to multiple drug resistance (MDR) caused

by the treatment or of MDR from prior treatments.

-- No consideration is given to metabolic pathways of the chemos.

-- No consideration is given to mechanism(s) of action.

-- No consideration is given to the rest of the protocol that

patients may be doing on their own.

-- Many physicians present to the patient add-on concurrent therapies

(H2O2, ascorbate, DMSO, etc.) as if this is frosting on the cake and

worthy of extra expenditure, when in reality many of these treatments

can stop metabolism within the cancer cells and thus force the IPT

chemicals to go everywhere in the body EXCEPT to the tumor.

-- Because IPT is highly profitable, most IPT clinics accept patients

for IPT when this would not be an appropriate therapy.

-- Some meds (such as cisplatin) cannot be properly stored after

reconstituting for injection, so the physician will go ahead and use

a higher dose so they don't " waste " the remainder, or they go ahead

and save the decomposed med for a future patient.

-- The clinician is unfamiliar with the adjuvant use of specific

amino acids to protect the patient from any side effects.

Any whifflebrain with a license can lawfully administer IPT. Then,

when the patient gets side effects, how many physicians apologize to

the patient for their greed and stupidity. It is more convenient to

blame IPT. I think all of these problems would be self-correcting if

it became the custom to pay the physician only after the promised

benefit is achieved, and if there were more transparency in the

outcomes with past patients.

[Guest guest]

:

The 'training', no matter how extensive, may only apply to the actual

administration of IPT, not the overall results or the problem with Multiple Drug

Resistance which apparently even 'experienced' Oncologists do not always

address. I don't know enough about the subject but once hearing about MDR, it

stuck in my aging brain. It seems an obvious subject but I'm still not too

sure what MDR might have to do with IPT except if one needed to go back for more

extensive chemotherapy. So, here a question for : Why should I be

concerned with MDR if I was using IPT, assuming the rest of the procedure was

done correctly and with the necessary precautions?

Joe C.

From: Fieber

Sent: Friday, April 09, 2010 11:29 AM

Subject: Re: [ ] IPT (Insulin Potentiation Therapy)

Joe

I do agree with what you are saying and most all that I know who do IPT are

medical dotors. You can go to the IPT webpage and they have a list of all

practicing this procedure. Most are naturopathic or medical doctors who have

extensive backgrounds and many work in cancer clinics across the country. A lay

person would really not know the difference about how good the training is.

Again research and speaking to many practitioners is prudent before you embark

on any treatment protocol for any disease.

Re: [ ] IPT (Insulin Potentiation Therapy)

You seem to be grouping everyone who does IPT into one incompetent category.

This is very unfair as there are some extremely good practitioners doing IPT and

most everyone I know is a medical doctor with extensive training. IPT has its

place and can do marvelous healings no matter what you think.

From: VGammill

Most physicians who use IPT are not oncologists and typically are

quite unskilled at working with cancer. They are told that IPT can

be a wonderful profit center for their practice and so they take a

one-day or one weekend course or practicum.

It all seems so simple. Just use a little insulin to bring down the

blood insulin level, inject (usually with I.V. push) a number of

available chemotherapeutic agents at perhaps 1/7 of the normal dose,

inject a bolus of glucose, and repeat weekly.

The treatment may or may not be beneficial for the patient, but if

done correctly there is little chance that the patient will have side

effects, but so often this is not the case.

The problems:

-- Physicians want to please the patient and they don't quite trust

that the low doses are enough to effect rapid results, so they

rationalize increasing the doses up to a third or a half of the normal dose.

-- A solid IPT regimen might take 40-60 weekly treatments. Many

physicians sell the patient on the notion that they can do it in,

say, 8-20 treatments, and so they increase the doses or scheduling to

hurry things along.

-- Most patients are worried, impatient for results, and have only so

much money to allocate to treatment. The physician feels compelled

to take short cuts and increase doses.

-- Some patients are simply more sensitive to drugs. I have seen

this more often among Asians.

-- A patient may be consuming a large amount of grapefruit juice or

perhaps another med that relies on the same hepatic P-450 oxygenases

for detoxification. This can result in higher systemic levels of

some of the chemos for a longer duration.

-- The physician is afraid of using too much insulin and doesn't

bring the blood glucose level down to where you see the patient

become confused -- the " therapeutic moment. "

-- The clinician may wait too long to give the glucose or not use

enough glucose.

-- Non-oncologists often have problems obtaining the best chemos for

the patient, so they use whatever they can get their hands on, or

only those that are inexpensive.

-- No consideration is given to potentiation of effects and

potentiation of side effects among the meds used.

-- No consideration is given to multiple drug resistance (MDR) caused

by the treatment or of MDR from prior treatments.

-- No consideration is given to metabolic pathways of the chemos.

-- No consideration is given to mechanism(s) of action.

-- No consideration is given to the rest of the protocol that

patients may be doing on their own.

-- Many physicians present to the patient add-on concurrent therapies

(H2O2, ascorbate, DMSO, etc.) as if this is frosting on the cake and

worthy of extra expenditure, when in reality many of these treatments

can stop metabolism within the cancer cells and thus force the IPT

chemicals to go everywhere in the body EXCEPT to the tumor.

-- Because IPT is highly profitable, most IPT clinics accept patients

for IPT when this would not be an appropriate therapy.

-- Some meds (such as cisplatin) cannot be properly stored after

reconstituting for injection, so the physician will go ahead and use

a higher dose so they don't " waste " the remainder, or they go ahead

and save the decomposed med for a future patient.

-- The clinician is unfamiliar with the adjuvant use of specific

amino acids to protect the patient from any side effects.

Any whifflebrain with a license can lawfully administer IPT. Then,

when the patient gets side effects, how many physicians apologize to

the patient for their greed and stupidity. It is more convenient to

blame IPT. I think all of these problems would be self-correcting if

it became the custom to pay the physician only after the promised

benefit is achieved, and if there were more transparency in the

outcomes with past patients.

[Guest guest]

My question is why can't or don't docs use IPT with powerful natural substances

that would probably work as well but do not have side effects like chemo does?

Are there any docs that do this sort of thing?

GB

>

>

>

> You seem to be grouping everyone who does IPT into one incompetent category.

This is very unfair as there are some extremely good practitioners doing IPT and

most everyone I know is a medical doctor with extensive training. IPT has its

place and can do marvelous healings no matter what you think.

>

>

[Guest guest]

IPT doctors do all sorts of other things! High dose Vit. C, chelation, and on

and on. Again, it is always a choice one makes as to how aggressive one wants to

get and what the bloodwork says will be most effective for the individual at the

time, which may change from moment to moment. Just follow your own inner

guidance, is what I would always suggest. Those are also great things.

Carol

My question is why can't or don't docs use IPT with powerful natural

substances that would probably work as well but do not have side effects like

chemo does? Are there any docs that do this sort of thing? GB