|Contents Search Beat the Odds First steps In extremis Resources Drs & Organisations Therapies Biblio. Mail|
A Different Cancer Charity
Registered Charity No. 1078066
The Earl Baldwin of Bewdley
Dr Damien Downing, MBBS
Mr Peter J Gravett, MB, MRCS, FRCPath.
Dr P J Kingsley, MB, BS, MRCS,
LRCP, FAAEM, DA, D.Obst. RCOG.
What is Orthomolecular Oncology?
"Orthomolecular" medicine is a term coined by one of the greatest scientific minds of the 20th Century, twice Nobel Laureate, Linus Pauling.
Orthomolecular medicine involves the treatment
of disease with natural substances, endemic to the body,
vitamins, minerals, herbs and other biological response
modifiers. These are often used in enormous doses, to a drug-like
intensity. But as they are not drugs, toxicity is largely
avoided, and the body can respond in a more positive way. (A
classic example of orthomolecular medicine is the treatment of
diabetes with insulin). The practice of orthomolecular oncology
was started over 25 years ago by a Canadian psychiatrist, Dr
Abram Hoffer. Inspired by some encouraging results in his work
with nutrition in schizophrenia, and wanting to do more than just
give spiritual counsel to his terminal cancer patients, he began
to prescribe large doses of vitamins and minerals for them. To
his surprise, these terminal cancer patients lived four times as
long as expected, and a small percentage were cured.(1) In a Scottish study - the Vale of Leven Study, -
inspired by Dr Pauling, similar results were produced with just
10 grams of oral vitamin C daily, after all conventional
treatment had been abandoned. In this study 10% of terminal
patients were actually cured.(2)
Forty percent of cancer patients do not die of
cancer. They die of malnutrition. In addition, some 67% of cancer
patients die of opportunistic infections, due to a severely
depressed immune system: the end result of aggressive cytotoxic
treatments, and malnutrition. This is both preventable and highly
treatable. Many lives would be spared if early, appropriate
action were taken, in conjunction with traditional systemic
treatment of cancer, and/or the new, still experimental,
scientific approaches, such as immunotherapy, anti-angiogenic
therapy, etc. We need strong, well primed immune systems to fight
and overcome cancer. Most conventional therapies actually wipe
out the immune system, and do not address this paradox by taking
measures to redress this. Adjuvant nutritional therapy in cancer
can reduce the toxic side-effects of chemotherapy and radiation,
increase their selectivity and “kill” potential,
reduce and prevent secondary tumours, act as an immune stimulant,
improve patient appetite, and therefore guard against the
problems associated with poor appetite, treat and reverse
malnutrition, improve overall chances of remission and cure, and
not least, quality of life. The Bristol Cancer Centre, UK, has a
data-base listing over 3,000 academic papers attesting to all
this. The scientific evidence is burgeoning.
In North America, for over two decades now, these facts have been investigated, understood and increasingly implemented into clinical practice with growing success. Adjuvant nutritional cancer therapy is a mainstream medical movement in the U.S. and Canada, supported by many distinguished scientists and doctors, from the Harvard School of Medicine, to the National Cancer Institute and National Institutes of Health, to individuals such as Dr Charles Simone, oncologist to President Reagan, and Dr Abram Hoffer, a chief collaborator with Linus Pauling. Nutrition is a science and its increasing knowledge, at the molecular level, is converging in a complementary fashion with an increasing knowledge of the biology of cancer.
Yet, in the United Kingdom and Europe generally oncologists are largely ignorant and inactive in this field. Some of them compound their scientific ignorance by hostility. I have talked to a good number of consultants, both in the U.K. and Europe, and have found their ignorance of the subject astonishing, given the avant-garde knowledge and work across the Atlantic. Prevention of cancer through diet has become a fashionable subject. The World Cancer Research Fund is doing much admirable work to raise awareness on this front. However, the logical and increasingly well-documented conclusion, that cancer might also play an important part in treatment and cure, does not follow as a universal creed. This is an inexplicable medical blindspot. There is an important need for medical education in this expanding subject. It is Orthomolecular Oncology's aim to initiate and promote this. It is also our wish not to be provincial and restrict our mission to the U.K., rather to make it, at least initially, European based, but with eventually expanding world-wide interest.
There are two principal arguments for employing adjuvant nutritional therapy in cancer. One is ethical and pragmatic: in thirty years the 5 year survival and cure rate for cancer, with conventional therapies, has, with the exception of the childhood leukaemias and several rather rare cancers, such as testicular cancer, remained unchanged.(3) Indeed, there has been an overall increase in cancer of 18% and a 7% increase in mortality. Chemotherapy alone cures less than 3% of all advanced epithelial cancers.(4) "Insanity", said Rudyard Kipling, "is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results". There is a need to break through the current cure ceiling by trying fresh approaches. Biotechnology will undoubtedly offer many such approaches within the next 2 or 3 decades. People who are dying of cancer however want the future now and this is possible by pooling and acting on the knowledge orthomolecular oncology has to offer now. Epidemiologically, there is a strong link between diet and cancer. Increasingly, it is being found that cause and cure are linked.
The second argument for using adjuvant
nutritional therapy in cancer is economic, and therefore also,
highly pragmatic. The Americans have found that it significantly
reduces in-patient stay and complications of conventional
systemic treatment. The cost of treating cancer is phenomenal. In
the States alone it accounts for 10% of the national health
budget. Anything that reduces this, with good patient results,
must be welcomed.
1). Hoffer A. & Pauling L: Hardin Jones biostatistical analysis of mortality data for cohorts of cancer patients with a large fraction surviving at the termination of study. Orthomolecular Medicine; 1990, 5: 143 - 154.
4). Dr Ulrich Abel, (statistician at
Heidelberg, Germany); “Chemotherapy of advanced epithelial
cancer: a critical review”. Biomedicine and
Pharmacotherapy, 1992; 46: 439-452.
Copyright © Caliban Scripts Ltd, 1999. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form, or by any means, for profit-making purposes. However, cancer patients, interested persons, and the medical profession may make free use of all the material presented for charitable ends.
This web site is a Caliban Scripts Ltd production for Orthomolecular Oncology.
Please read our full legal statement before continuing.
If you have any technical problems with these pages,
or discover a broken link
please let us know quoting "Orthomolecular Oncology" in the SUBJECT, thank you.
Design by: Thoth Web Design Guernsey, CI