Cancer Physician Speaks Out About Cancer Fraud_Featured_, chemotherapy, Healing Thursday, July 26th, 2012
In 1998, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) approved funding for a landmark cancer study comparing a nutritional enzyme approach to chemotherapy. Many supporters hoped that this clinical trial would bring together conventional scientists and alternative healthcare professionals. But, in reality, once promising research became one of the biggest cancer research scandals in United States history!Now, for the first time ever, Nicholas Gonzalez, M.D. reveals how his enzyme-based approach was deliberately designed to fail compared to conventional (chemotherapy) treatment protocols for cancer.
Can enzyme-based therapy help cancer patients?
In 1906, embryologist Dr. John Beard proposed that pancreatic proteolytic digestive enzymes represent the body’s main defense against cancer, and that enzyme therapy would be useful as a treatment for all types of cancer. Particularly during the first two decades of the twentieth century, Dr. Beard’s thesis attracted some attention in academic circles, and several case reports in the medical literature documented tumor regression and even remission in terminal cancer patients treated with proteolytic enzymes.
In 1911, Dr. Beard published a monograph entitled “The Enzyme Therapy of Cancer and Its Scientific Basis”, which summarized his therapy and the supporting evidence. More recently, Nicholas Gonzalez, M.D. authored “The Trophoblast and the Origins of Cancer” – which reviews Dr. Beard’s work from the perspective of contemporary molecular biology. Don’t miss this rare opportunity to learn more about an amazingly successful (natural) way of treating cancer.
The Truth about the NCI-NCCAM Clinical Study
In 1998, the NCI approved funding for a large scale clinical study, in which Dr. Gonzalez’s nutritional-enzyme therapy would be compared to the best available chemotherapy in the treatment of patients diagnosed with inoperable pancreatic cancer. Along with his colleague Dr. Linda Isaacs, they initially approached this project with enthusiasm, believing it to be a wonderful opportunity to bring the conventional academic world and “alternative” researchers, so often at odds, together for the benefit of science and for patients suffering terrible illness. But as the years passed, they realized (with disappointment) that the same biases against treatment methods developed outside of the mainstream still reigned supreme.