HEALTH Read this about cancer and you will see one way O-Care will save money.

[Troke]

http://bioblog.biotunes.org/bioblog/...ancer-culture/

Monday, November 2, 2009

We are hopefully witnessing an important turning point in the way people think about cancer.

Thirty or so years ago, the public was promised that a “cure for cancer” was imminent. That was before all the powerful biological techniques of today made it clear that “cancer” is not a simple, single disease, but instead a catch-all term for uncontrolled cell growth that has many different forms and occurs in many different contexts. Indeed, trying to find a genuine cure for cancer may be similar to trying to find one for the common cold, which exists in too many forms to make such a search practical.

Just as with colds, prevention is the best strategy, because effective treatment, though there have been a few resounding successes, remains so elusive. And yet the money in cancer research may always be more in the testing of new treatments, which is supported a lot by private industry, rather than in learning more basic biology about different types of cancer themselves, which will only be funded by the government. Not only do we need to learn more about what prevention strategies might be effective, but (perhaps in the shorter term) how to better target treatment, and especially whether to treat at all.

The fact that we don’t really know yet which early cancers detected by screening will develop into full-blown disease is the elephant in the room whenever screening is questioned as a cancer-treatment strategy. An individual facing a positive breast or prostate small cancer screen cannot yet be consoled with the absolute knowledge that the particular cancer they have is unlikely to progress, despite the fact that it is now clear that the majority of such cancers do not. But we do have information that should provide ample justification for any healthy person to make the informed decision that he or she does not wish to be screened.

First, current research (Esserman et al., 2009) finds that breast and prostate cancer rates are indeed rising, but that this rise is attributable to more small, asymptomatic cancers being found via mammography and the PSA test. The rate of metastatic cancers, i.e. those that cause death, has not declined. This suggests strongly that the only thing that screening of healthy people has accomplished is to reveal cancer rates that were already high, causing a lot of angst and unpleasant - and sometimes quite damaging - treatment.

Second, very few deadly cancers are found by screening, because the deadliest progress very quickly, and probability dictates that screening once a year is very unlikely to “catch” them. This means that unless you increase screening rates to something like once a month, screening will never be a useful tool for finding the cancers most likely to kill. And given that the probability for a specific individual getting one of those aggressive cancers is relatively low, the burden of screening would simply be prohibitive for both the individual and the system, in both time and money. Furthermore, finding an aggressive cancer early is no guarantee that it will be “cured,” because the most aggressive are also the most difficult to check through current treatments.

So, despite our inability to sort out the “benign” cancers from the aggressive ones, there are multiple reasons for us to try to alter the culture of breast and prostate cancer screening, because the prevailing belief that all cancer must be destroyed immediately is frankly costing us a lot in blood and treasure. The truth that the medical culture must be reformed to understand is that everybody has cancer cells in their body, but these only progress to be invasive in a small subset of the population.

The tendency is to think of screening as a “prevention” strategy in the first place, rather than as “treatment,” which it becomes for a lot of people, is a major reason we have the problem today in which lots and lots of small cancers are found through screening, most of which will never cause harm to the person. Dr. H.G. Welch brilliantly illuminated this problem (and those outlined above) in his 2004 book, “Should I Be Tested for Cancer?” in which he pointed out five years ago that a general fear of cancer and the promotion of screening as a “prevention” strategy create a vicious cycle of more and more screenings finding more and more cancers. More (asymptomatic) people are diagnosed through screening, increasing our awareness of an “epidemic” of cancer, which causes more promotion of screening for the general population, many of whom get screened, and thus diagnosed.

This is only one of the problems in the current cancer culture. Everybody who does not have cancer should read Dr. Welch’s book now, because cancer screening is a complex problem that does not lend itself to sound-byte reporting do’s and don’ts. (Just read the comments on this health blog entry on cancer screening from the New York Times, and it is clear that news outlets simply aren’t up to the task.) Thus, although it is a huge breakthrough that the American Cancer Society is finally admitting the problems associated with excessive screening, changing the cancer culture will be a long and difficult hill to climb - especially with other organizations still sending the conflicting message that everybody needs to get screened, now.

A somewhat discouraging take-home message from Welch’s book is that most doctors are not well informed about the downsides of cancer screening (although it is certainly true that muddying the waters further is overly defensive medicine through fear of lawsuits). This is because although you might assume that doctors are trained scientifically and understand numbers and statistics well, shockingly few of them do. Dr. Welch is one of them, thankfully, and through his expertly and clearly written book, you can be too.

Hopefully, we really are undergoing a sea change about how we think about cancer, and that this will lead us in more productive research directions, such as who should actually receive particular treatments, and who should not. But in the meantime, resisting the urge to package the benefits - but not risks - of cancer screening to a pink political campaign, and instead thinking logically about what the cancer screening numbers really mean, would result in a lot better health care.

"...breast and prostate cancer rates are indeed rising, but that this rise is attributable to more small, asymptomatic cancers being found via mammography and the PSA test. The rate of metastatic cancers, i.e. those that cause death, has not declined. .."

Under the current 'suggestions' for prostate cancer diagnosis, I would not be an automatic candidate for treatment. And knowing what I know now, I would not have requested treatment. But 12 yrs ago....

[zoose]

Can I tell you something?

I lost a good friend to cancer this year.

He worked with me every day and never called in sick.

Then he started complaining about pain in his shoulder.

It got worse.
Then he could not work.

Could not raise his arm.

Doctors said torn rotator cuff.

Doctors were wrong.

More MRI's and nothing was found.

Three months later he was diagnosed with lung cancer.

He died 2 months later.

Now I say 'First do no harm' but can these doctors do good?

[zoose]

I don't trust Doctors.

[ceeblue]

I'm very sorry about your friend, zoose.

[Wowser]

MANY cancers can be cured with nutrition, diet, IV B-17, DMSO, VIT-C et al. Dr. Gonzales has an approximate 60-70% cure rate of all types of cancer. He cured the Moneychanger ie Franklin Sander's sister in 1991ad of late stage breast cancer (read below). I would not take MSM-Main Stream Medical cancer cures ie Radiation/Chemo, for most cancers, if they were free.

http://72.29.92.145/articles_files/h...gonzalez.phtml

DR. NICHOLAS GONZALEZ ON NUTRITIONAL CANCER THERAPY

A Moneychanger interview:

DR. NICHOLAS GONZALEZ ON NUTRITIONAL CANCER THERAPY

PUBLISHER’S WARNING & DISCLAIMER: By publishing this
material, neither The Moneychanger nor Dr. Gonzalez
recommends nor endorses any specific treatment or therapy
for any physical condition or disease, including cancer.
This interview is offered for information & research
purposes only, & the reader should receive it as such.
Neither The Moneychanger nor Dr. Gonzalez guarantees or
warrants any results from any treatment discussed. Neither
The Moneychanger nor Dr. Gonzalez assumes any express or
implied liability for any use to which this information is
put. By this interview Dr. Gonzalez does not prescribe any
treatment whatsoever for anyone who is not his patient.


Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez practices medicine in New York City,
treating primarily cancer patients with a nutritional
approach known as the “Kelley Therapy.” In August, 1991
I interviewed Dr. Gonzalez for the first time. Shortly
after that I learned that my elder sister had breast cancer.
After she had surgery she became much sicker, & in October,
1991 she went to see Dr. Gonzalez. She tells me that she
began to feel better as soon as she began the treatment.
Today, her body is nearly free of cancer.
Dr. Gonzalez very kindly gave us this interview on June 16,
1995. His office is located at 36 East 36th Street, Suite
204, New York, New York 10016, & his telephone number is
(212) 213-3337. Moneychanger subscribers can send an SASE
with 55¢ to us for a complete copy of our August, 1991
interview with Dr. Gonzalez.

MONEYCHANGER Tell me about the Kelley Therapy for cancer &
other degenerative diseases.

DR. GONZALEZ You can break Kelley’s work into three
parts: diet, supplements, & detoxification.

That sounds simple enough, but Kelley was more
sophisticated. His genius lay in realizing that different
people need different diets, ranging from pure vegetarian to
pure meat with all gradations in-between. We use 10 basic
diets & 90 variations.

Traditional Eskimos in northern Alaska, for example, were
complete meat eaters because there are no fruits or
vegetables there. Their diet was 80% saturated fat, a
horror by the current orthodox standards, but traditional
Eskimos were among the healthiest people on earth. They had
no cancer, no heart disease, no arthritis, & normal
cholesterol levels. When they became westernized & began
living in town in the 1940s & ‘50s, all the diseases of
civilization became epidemic: obesity, diabetes, arthritis,
heart disease, & cancer. When they ate a high fat diet they
were perfectly well, because biochemically Eskimos can’t
use carbohydrates efficiently. They lack the enzymes. On
the other hand, some humans are pure vegetarians, & there
are all gradations in-between, particularly in America where
the melting pot contains all kinds of genetic backgrounds.

The individual’s need for vitamin & mineral supplements
varies as much as diet, so we use individualized supplement
programs for each patient. Even the forms of vitamin C we
use vary depending on the metabolism. We use six different
forms of calcium -- calcium phosphate, calcium lactate,
calcium carbonate, di-calcium phosphate, even calcium
chlorate at times -- depending on the metabolism.. Doses
also vary from patient to patient. Because every patient
has a unique biochemical makeup, he needs a unique diet &
unique combination of supplements.

For cancer in particular we use large doses of pancreatic
enzymes. That is the main anti-cancer element of the
therapy. The first study showing that pancreatic enzymes
have an anti-cancer effect goes back to 1904. Traditionally
orthodox medicine thinks these enzymes have only a digestive
function, but animal studies document their anti-cancer
effect. I firmly believe, as did Dr. Kelley, that
pancreatic enzymes & the pancreas, not the immune system,
are the main defense against cancer

MONEYCHANGER But doesn’t the pancreas normally secrete
enzymes into the digestive tract as opposed to the
bloodstream?

DR. GONZALEZ Yes, but then they are absorbed into the
bloodstream from the intestinal tract. This has actually
been documented. One of the controversies around this
theory is that the orthodox people claim that all the
ingested pancreatic enzymes are destroyed in the gut.
That’s been disproven, & studies as far back as the 1940s
clearly document that orally ingested pancreatic enzymes are
absorbed into the bloodstream, not destroyed in the gut. In
1976 an article in the eminent scientific biochemical
journal Science showed that pancreatic enzymes in animal
models are absorbed & not destroyed in the gut. When the
pancreas secretes them into the intestinal tract, they are
absorbed into the bloodstream & circulated around the body.
It’s been known for years that pancreatic enzymes like
trypsin & amylase circulate in the bloodstream, & these are
normally measured, but no one really knew what they were
doing there. We believe they help the body scavenge &
destroy cancer cells.

MONEYCHANGER Pancreatic enzymes, the third major part of
Kelley’s therapy, actually attack the cancer & break it
down?

DR. GONZALEZ That’s a simple way of looking at it, but
things get a little more complicated. Increasingly we
believe that tumors are not the illness, but rather the
body’s way to sequester waste material. Some patients who
have been with me now for five to seven years still have
tumors, but they are doing very well. These people have
really terrible types of cancer, like lung cancer,
pancreatic cancer, & colon cancer.

God designed the body to work well, & when the body produces
a tumor, it has a purpose. In the orthodox world & even in
the unorthodox world, people think of tumors as the enemy to
be destroyed. We believe that the tumors are a sign that
the body is too filled with toxins, either inefficiently
metabolized toxins from the from the body itself, or
environmental toxins like heavy metals or pesticides. These
toxins can overwhelm the liver’s ability to process them,
backing up & confronting the body with an enormous load of
toxic waste that (we believe) produces tumors which are like
accessory livers, the body’s main detoxification organ.
Tumors are actually the body’s intelligent defense to
sequester, store, & neutralize severe metabolic wastes.

Yes, pancreatic enzymes attack these tumor areas, but they
also seem to help destroy toxic wastes throughout the body.
They digest, neutralize, & wash them out, & they seem to
help liver function. The pancreas itself has a
detoxification function & the enzymes help the body mobilize
& get rid of this junk. In addition, pancreatic enzymes
help normal cells repair, rebuild, & then eliminate all
kinds of waste products.

We say simplistically that pancreatic enzymes destroy tumors
directly, but actually they just help the body destroy
abnormal cells, waste material, & abnormal proteins that can
be very poisonous to the body, & eliminate all this toxic
junk. Then as the body detoxifies the tumors tend to shrink

MONEYCHANGER Is that the same as saying that cancer is
caused by some sort of toxemia, i.e., poisoning?

DR. GONZALEZ Unquestionably, & this is not an original idea
for either Kelley or me. In 1960 Casper Blond, an eminent
English surgeon, wrote one of the classics of biomedical
science, The Liver & Cancer. He was a very orthodox
scientist who came to the same conclusion. He began to
believe that the tumors were not the illness, but the
body’s intelligent response to toxemia when the liver
fails to eliminate wastes efficiently. As that waste backs
up, in self-defense the body produces tumors, like accessory
livers. Although only about 30 people these days are aware
of his brilliant book, it is one of medical history’s
classic genius monographs, but it just never took hold & no
one understood it. It fits in perfectly with what we do.

MONEYCHANGER The first two parts of the Kelley therapy are
diet & supplements.

DR. GONZALEZ The third part is detoxification, which
includes the enzymes. As the body repairs & rebuilds, it
releases an enormous amount of metabolic waste. On top of
that, we live in a very polluted world that exposes the body
to enormous amounts of toxic chemicals. These are stored in
the body like toxic time bombs. With the Kelley Therapy the
body tries to eliminate these wastes, so we have a series of
procedures that help the body mobilize this toxic garbage
efficiently. These include pancreatic enzymes, coffee
enemas, liver flushes, & intestinal cleaning processes that
are very, very powerful. Coffee enemas are one of our
detoxifying tools. They help the liver & the colon work
better. We also have specific detoxification procedures for
the colon. Since most Americans have enormous amounts of
junk stored in their toxic colons, that’s critical.

MONEYCHANGER Now wait -- coffee enemas. The mere mention
of those provokes a string of bad jokes & hysterical
laughter, but I remember from our previous interview that
you use those yourself.

DR. GONZALEZ I’ve been using them for 14 years with only
one effect: I felt better from the first one I did. I’ve
never looked back & I feel great when I do them. All the
terrible things that are supposed to happen don’t happen.
Coffee enemas don’t destroy bowel function or wipe out
your intestinal flora, but what they do is help the liver
work better. They are extremely powerful, one of the most
powerful detox procedures that we use. My whole staff does
them. They just feel better when they do.

MONEYCHANGER Did Kelley originate the coffee enema?

DR. GONZALEZ No, actually Max Gerson used them for decades
& really promoted them. He was a nutrition-oriented
physician who moved to the US from Germany during the ‘30s
& practiced here in New York. Gerson found, as did Kelley,
that coffee enemas helped the liver work better. In Europe
they were used routinely in the ‘20s & ‘30s to treat
toxic shock & all kinds of very serious illnesses. By the
‘40s & ‘50s, as medicine became more “technologically
sophisticated,” interest in coffee enemas waned, but they
appeared in all the major nursing textbooks right through
the 1950s as standard nursing procedures. They were listed
in the Merck Manual, the Bible of orthodox therapy, until
1977. What nurses & other physicians noticed was that the
enemas made patients feel better, but they didn’t know
why. It was supposed to be a caffeine high, but that’s
not it. Through a neurological reflex the coffee enemas
help the liver work more efficiently.

The liver is the body’s main detoxification organ. It
processes & neutralizes all toxic chemicals, whether they
come from our own body or the environment. In this toxic
universe of 1995 the liver is always overloaded,
particularly when you have an illness. The backed up toxic
waste makes you feel sick, & we believe it can also lead to
tumor formation. Coffee enemas help the liver clean out,
help eliminate toxic chemicals more efficiently, & make you
feel better.

MONEYCHANGER So anybody could do coffee enemas?

DR. GONZALEZ Anyone should do them. Well, anyone who wants
to feel good. If you don’t want to feel good, absolutely
don’t do them.

MONEYCHANGER Why not just drink the coffee instead of
taking it rectally?

DR. GONZALEZ The different ends of the body are about a
thousand miles apart physiologically. When you drink
coffee, it stimulates certain nerves that shut down liver
function. When you take it rectally the caffeine stimulates
certain nerves that immediately cause the liver to release
its junk.

MONEYCHANGER The proverb says, “The dose makes the
poison.” You even recommend organically grown coffee for
your patients. Do you really think that the very tiny doses
of chemicals in our environment, vanishingly small in some
cases, can cause cancer?

DR. GONZALEZ First of all, the doses on a lot of crops,
including coffee, are not insignificant. Coffee originate
outside the US where they use pesticides that are outlawed
here, & in very high doses. A particular coffee bean may
not contain much, but when you’re doing coffee enemas day
after day, it starts adding up & can stress the liver.
Cancer & degenerative diseases are becoming increasingly
epidemic (& the rates are increasing substantially) because
we are increasingly exposed to many, many different toxins.

MONEYCHANGER You imply that the body does not normally
excrete these toxins.

DR. GONZALEZ It does, but poor nutritional practices
(common in the US) & exposure to toxins in the water & the
air & the environment overload our liver. It faces a load
far greater than it normally can handle, so the stuff starts
backing up & that leads to degenerative disease.

MONEYCHANGER Over what time period are cancer rates
increasing?

DR. GONZALEZ In the last five years many types have
increased -- pancreatic cancer, brain cancer, & breast
cancer particularly. It’s been gradual, i.e., not an
epidemic increase in two years, but rates have increased
substantially, particularly in the last few decades.

MONEYCHANGER Mammograms have been used more & more in the
last 10 years. Is there any connection?

DR. GONZALEZ There are doctors who believe that rising
rates of breast cancer correlate completely with the rising
use of mammography, & that we may be like a dog chasing its
tail. Frequent mammography exposing that delicate breast
tissue to X-ray may actually be precipitating an increase in
cancer rate. The very tool they’re using to diagnose
cancer may be causing it.

MONEYCHANGER What about birth control pills?

DR. GONZALEZ They’re a total, unmitigated disaster.
First, the hormones are synthetic,. so they stress the
liver. They don’t work physiologically, but they do cause
a toxic hormonal situation in the body.

MONEYCHANGER Let’s say that a patient comes to you with
cancer & decides he does want to follow the Kelley Therapy.
It’s not easy, is it?

DR. GONZALEZ No, as you know from your sister’s
experience, it requires real dedication. Attitude is the
single most important determinant in a patient’s recovery.
This is a hard program, & you have to accept that getting
well is a full time job. My average patient is trying to
undo 30 - 50 years of damage, & it’s not easy.. It’s
virtually a full time job, but I do it myself. I’ve never
had cancer, so I don’t have to do everything my patients
do, but I eat organic food, I do carrot juice, & I take
supplements. I do it because it makes me feel so much
better, & I like to feel good. But it is an investment.
You have your good health, & there’s no price you can put
on that. Feeling good is the greatest gift I’ve ever had,
next to knowing the Lord.

MONEYCHANGER How big a part does carrot juice play?. I
know my sister spends a lot of time washing carrots &
juicing them. One glass of carrot juice makes a full meal
for me

DR. GONZALEZ It’s really a nutritional powerhouse. In
addition to beta-carotene it’s got B vitamins, vitamin C,
carbohydrates, & a lot of calories, so for sick cancer
patients who’ve lost a lot of weight, it’s a godsend.
Juice offers high quality nutrition that’s very quickly &
easily absorbed without the input of a lot of energy:

MONEYCHANGER I know the Kelley Therapy takes a good bit of
time every day. How much does it cost?

DR. GONZALEZ The first year runs from F$5,500 to F$7,000, &
then it gets progressively cheaper.

MONEYCHANGER Is that just the cost of the supplements?

DR. GONZALEZ No, that includes everything: supplements, my
fee, & buying a juicer. The second year might be F$1,000 -
1,500 cheaper.

MONEYCHANGER What rate of cure have you seen with this
therapy?

DR. GONZALEZ Right now we are in the process of doing
clinical trials to document that. We estimate that of the
patients who stick with the program (which is most of them)
about 70% get well. We lose about 30%, but the majority do
very well.

MONEYCHANGER What about people who come to you after
radiation or chemo therapy?

DR. GONZALEZ Many patients we see have already undergone
chemo or radiation. They’re always tougher to treat. Not
only are you dealing with the toxins from the environment &
their own inefficient metabolism, but also with the
extraordinary toxic load from that previous treatment. Even
antibiotics are toxic, & certainly aggressive chemo or
radiation are very toxic & damaging to the body. That
leaves us facing two battles: repairing the normal toxicity
as well as the damage done by the previous therapy. Those
patients have more work to do, but they can get well.

Of course, there is a point of no return. I’ve had
patents who’ve had 10 different chemo drugs & radiation.
That’s above & beyond what the human body can tolerate, &
these people are going to die. The side effects from
therapy that extensive are not reversible. But generally
many patients who’ve had the standard chemo or radiation
doses can get better. It’s a little tougher, & they’ll
feel a little sicker, but they get better.

MONEYCHANGER What do you mean when you say, “Seventy
percent get well”? They don’t die of cancer?

DR. GONZALEZ Basically. They may get hit by a truck in 15
years, but they don’t die of cancer. I have patients who
came in with terminal cancer & have now been with me eight
years, & they’re doing fine.

MONEYCHANGER When you say you have a rate of cure where 70%
of them get well, i.e., don’t die of cancer, that embraces
all kinds of cancer?

DR. GONZALEZ Pretty much. We see a whole variety of
cancers. I hesitate because there are some types of cancer
like acute leukemia that I haven’t just seen many of. I
can’t speak to those because I just don’t have a lot of
experience with them.

MONEYCHANGER What about biopsies? Do they actually spread
cancer?

DR. GONZALEZ There are studies that show that biopsies of
liver tumors & prostate cancer can actually spread the
illness. This is out of the orthodox literature, I’m not
making this up myself. The body’s attempting to wall off
toxins & you just leave those tumors alone, because the body
knows what it’s doing. When you mess around with the
capsule of those tumors, you’re going to spread the toxic
wastes the body is trying to control, like bursting a
balloon.

MONEYCHANGER How do you decide what sort of diet &
supplements to prescribe?

DR. GONZALEZ Our biochemical workup includes blood work & a
special hair analysis (that’s experimental). We interpret
that biochemical information to determine the diet &
supplements.

MONEYCHANGER You are an M.D. with an orthodox medical
education from Cornell University. How did you become
involved with this very unorthodox therapy?

DR. GONZALEZ I started researching Kelley’s work as a
second-year medical student, under the direction of the
then-head of Sloan-Kettering. What started as a student
project developed into a five year research study examining
thousands of his records. As eccentric a man as Kelley may
have been, I had no choice but to accept that he had
hundreds & hundreds of patients with obviously terminal
disease who were still alive 5, 10, & 15 years later. We
documented all that in a monograph. It took 5 years to do
the study, & the data spoke for itself.

MONEYCHANGER How did Kelley figure this out? Wasn’t he
an orthodontist?

DR. GONZALEZ Yes, and a very smart man. He became
interested in nutrition as a result of his dentistry.
Around 1964 he was diagnosed with what was thought to be
pancreatic cancer, although it was never biopsied. He was
quite sick, & treated himself & got well. Gradually he
began to treat other cancer patients for whom there was no
other option.

MONEYCHANGER After you’d gotten out of Medical School &
done this study, you decided to go into this type of
therapy?

DR. GONZALEZ My goal was to get clinical trials to prove
its effectiveness. I was trained as an orthodox scientist,
& that’s what I felt was needed. But back in the
mid-’80s if you mentioned nutrition & cancer in the same
sentence they were ready to throw you in jail. That’s
changed a lot in 10 years. Back then I couldn’t get
anyone to support clinical trials. Now we have done that,
but my goal has always been to collect & present enough data
so that sooner or later the authorities in medicine would
have to take this therapy seriously.

MONEYCHANGER Kelley had pancreatic cancer. From the death
of a friend a few years ago I know that’s a very
fast-moving cancer.

DR. GONZALEZ It’s the worst there is.

MONEYCHANGER How long would a patient normally live with
pancreatic cancer?

DR. GONZALEZ With inoperable disease the survival is
anywhere from three to four months on average.

MONEYCHANGER Kelley survived. What about the people he
treated?

DR. GONZALEZ Some of them with diagnosed pancreatic cancer
we followed more than 10 & 15 years.

MONEYCHANGER These people had clinically diagnosed
pancreatic cancer?

DR. GONZALEZ Yes. We actually tracked down every
pancreatic cancer case he treated between 1974 & 1982, & the
average survival at that point was 8½ years for the people
who did his program. In the small series that we were able
to document, the ones who followed the program had done
extraordinarily well, & some are still alive.

MONEYCHANGER It’s been almost 4 years now since my sister
was diagnosed with breast cancer. She had a mastectomy, but
after that became much sicker & didn’t begin to improve
until she came under your treatment. What about radical
surgical treatment for breast cancer?

DR. GONZALEZ If it’s really localized, there’s no
question that surgery can cure, although the toxic situation
still exists. Again, we don’t think tumors are the enemy
but the body’s response to a toxic situation. When you
attack the tumor alone, you’re not really getting to the
root of the problem.

MONEYCHANGER You said your therapy would cost F$5,500-7,000
for the first year. In a hospital a cancer patient would
run up a F$7,000 bill in three days.

DR. GONZALEZ Oh, yes. The average cost for chemo runs
anywhere from F$50,000 to F$100,000 for a one year course of
treatment, so it’s roughly one-twentieth the cost of chemo
& radiation.

MONEYCHANGER What about the clinical trials you’re doing
now?

DR. GONZALEZ The National Cancer Institute suggested we do
a pancreatic study & it’s been funded by an outside
source. We’re doing a controlled clinical trial under NCI
oversight & direction.

MONEYCHANGER How long will that last?

DR. GONZALEZ Probably another year. We started toward the
end of January.

MONEYCHANGER Does anybody else in the country do this
therapy besides you?

DR. GONZALEZ There are people who say they do the Kelley
Therapy or the Gonzalez Therapy, & I’ve never even met
them. Would I send someone I love to someone like that? I
don’t think so.

MONEYCHANGER Do healthy people use this therapy on a
prophylactic basis?

DR. GONZALEZ My whole staff is on it. You don’t have to
be dying of cancer to warrant this program. I think the
whole world should be on it. If you want good health,
it’s a great program.

MONEYCHANGER The individual patient comes to you, diagnosed
already with cancer. You do your biochemical workup, & you
prescribe a diet & supplements. What will this person’s
life be like after that?

DR. GONZALEZ A cancer patient has to take pills ten times a
day, they have to do enemas maybe 6 -8 times a day
initially, & then other purges & liver flushes, eat organic
food, drink carrot juice 3-4 times a day. It’s a lot of
work, but it’s not impossible, just petty stuff. I do it
myself, & I don’t mind it. To me it’s an investment in
efficiency, because I work better when I do it.

MONEYCHANGER A lot of the patients feel sicker at first,
don’t they?

DR. GONZALEZ They always feel sicker. When the body
repairs & rebuilds an enormous amount of toxic debris is
released, & that will make you feel ill. We try to control
the rate at which the body repairs. If you repair too
quickly, you’ll have tumor breakdown wastes & all sorts of
stored toxic wastes released in the body & it’ll make you
so sick you can’t get out of bed.

MONEYCHANGER That’s why you warn them before they start
that the program will require a lot of effort?

DR. GONZALEZ We don’t encourage them to do it. We try to
discourage them, because we want patients who are committed,
who realize this is an investment, & don’t want to be baby
fed. They must be willing to do the work to get well.

MONEYCHANGER What about other degenerative diseases?

DR. GONZALEZ We treat everything, from multiple sclerosis
to arthritis. Different diseases require different
protocols.

MONEYCHANGER Do you have the same startling results with
other diseases that you have with cancer?

DR. GONZALEZ I’ve seen about half a dozen multiple
sclerosis patients, maybe 10, & two of them were already in
wheelchairs & didn’t respond the way I wanted. The others
really did extremely well. I have a couple of patients with
ALS, & I’m not sure what we can do with that. The longest
has been with me two years & is still alive. We’re trying
our hardest to figure out how to reverse that, but I don’t
have a lot of patients with that. We have a lot of
arthritis, a lot of chronic fatigue, which has become
epidemic.

MONEYCHANGER You don’t think that’s viral?

DR. GONZALEZ I think the body’s too toxic so it doesn’t
work right & then viruses, bacteria, & candida, can start
taking over.

MONEYCHANGER Is the uproar about candida overblown?

DR. GONZALEZ They’re treating that as the problem, but
the real issue is that the body is way too toxic. I don’t
think it’s overblown. The overuse of antibiotics has
really caused an overgrowth of candida in many patients, &
has disrupted the normal bacterial flora.

MONEYCHANGER So you’re chary of using antibiotics?

DR. GONZALEZ You have to be very careful with them. First
of all, they don’t work that well anymore because lot of
the bugs are immune. In addition, there are herbal &
nutritional remedies that work better & are not as toxic,
such as echinacea. We also have a very powerful a thymus
preparation (the thymus controls the immune system) that we
use as a natural antibiotic.

MONEYCHANGER There’s a yeast-free diet popular right now
that’s supposed to boost the immune system. Does it
really work?

DR. GONZALEZ [laughing] You’ll have to ask whoever is
using it. We have patients with candida & we use things to
clear it out, but it’s usually not that difficult. If you
get the people detoxed, if you get their colon cleansed, you
restore natural bacteria, you should get them free of
candida. It’s not that big a deal.

MONEYCHANGER I’m amazed how many times you recur to this
toxic bowel idea.

DR. GONZALEZ It’s the issue in a lot of these problems.
Diseases result, we believe, because toxic waste is backing
up into the body. Basically it’s auto-intoxication. You
have to get rid of that some way.

MONEYCHANGER Thank you very much, Dr. Gonzalez.



Reprinted from the July, 1995 Moneychanger.
P.O. Box 341753
Memphis, Tennessee 38184-1753
(901) 854-5138

[Delta]

This suggests strongly that the only thing that screening of healthy people has accomplished is to reveal cancer rates that were already high, causing a lot of angst and unpleasant - and sometimes quite damaging - treatment.

Nutz! Using fear of cancer to get healthy people to go get screened has spawned a vibrant industry of "health care" practicioners who don't have to deal with sick people. It's a racket.

[Garryowen]

The last time I was at the VA clinic the NP told me that they only did the prostate exam if requested. When I asked why, she said it was because they found that many times the treatment was worse on the patient than just leaving it alone. That sounds like what this doctor is saying. This article makes a lot of sense to me.

regards,

Garryowen