Patients liken hot chemotherapy to “being filleted, disemboweled, and then bathed in hot poison.” Best patient care, or merely the biggest moneymaker? According to the New York Times, hot chemotherapy, which couples extensive abdominal surgery with blasts of heated chemotherapy to the abdominal cavity and its organs, was once a niche procedure used mainly against rare cancers of the appendix. Most academic medical centers shunned it. Now it’s being offered to patients to treat more common colorectal or ovarian cancers. Dr. David P. Ryan, clinical director of the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, says there is little evidence that it really works and “has almost no basis in science.” The treatment is extremely costly, and is something of a desperation move by leading medical centers because the competition for patients and treatments is so intense. So why is this dangerous, scientifically unsound, and outrageously expensive procedure considered a viable treatment option for cancer patients, when intravenous vitamin C—safe, effective, and far less expensive—is questioned as an adjunct therapy?
Why is this common vitamin, administered in high doses intravenously, labeled an unapproved drug by a hostile FDA? Why also is the nutritional advice for cancer patients from the American Dietetic Association so half-hearted? It seems more focused on stopping weight loss during chemotherapy or radiotherapy than it is about using nutritional and other natural factors to help rebuild immunity and get the body more into balance. Could it be because the organization gets about $1 million a year in payments from pharmaceutical companies? You know the old saying: just follow the money. As we reported previously, oncologists are the only doctors allowed to sell—and profit from—their own drugs. Oncologists can buy chemo drugs at a deep discount and then dispense them at the higher rate in their offices. It lets oncologists run a kind of pharmacy as a side business, and represents a considerable part of some oncologists’ income. Contrast that with intravenous C. Because it is a vitamin, IV-C is inexpensive, and it cannot be patented, so no one makes any serious money.
Oncologists lose the financial incentive to prescribe it. The overtreatment of minor cancers is a growing problem. This is especially the case for prostate and breast cancer. Not long ago, prostate cancer was commonly detected with a digital rectal examination, which revealed palpable neoplasms. PSA (prostate-specific antigen) testing detected many more cancers—which led to many more biopsies and treatments. However, the observation that the number of cancer deaths stayed the same suggests that a substantial percentage of cases are unlikely to progress. Still, about 90% of diagnosed men seek immediate “curative treatment,” which in theconventional medicine world means chemo and surgery. There is some good news—the tide may be turning, albeit very slowly. A recent statement from NIH stated that “active surveillance” is a viable option as treatment for low-risk cancers. This is a blow to the current standard of care touted by mainstream medicine. At the same time, the active surveillance approach also recommends multiple biopsies to monitor the progression of the tumor.
This is extremely problematic for several reasons. First, even the NIH admits that infection through biopsy is one of the side effects of active surveillance. As we reported last year, studies from three countries show that infectious complications from prostate biopsies have more than doubled in less than a decade. As much as five percent of prostate biopsies develop infections from the procedure—or about 50,000 Americans every year, and an equal number in Europe. Nine out of 10,000 men whose tests were negative for prostate cancer died within a month from sepsis and other complications, according to a recent study in the Journal of Urology. The greater risk, however, is that biopsies can cause cancers to spread, usually along the path of the biopsy needle, a phenomenon called “needle track seeding.” A 2004 study concluded that manipulation of an intact tumor, either by fine needle biopsy or by large-gauge needle core biopsy, is associated with an increase in metastases, perhaps due in part to the mechanical disruption of the tumor by the needle.
Another study suggests needle track seeding as a possible occurrence with breast biopsies, and concludes that the cancer may recur “if the tract is not excised or radiotherapy not given.” So the way to fix the spread of a cancer via biopsy is to do more surgery and/or radiation! This is exactly what happened to a 62-year-old woman whose needle biopsy caused the cancer in her breast to extend the full length of the needle tract. She ended up losing her entire breast because of the biopsy when only an excision was originally needed. The Nordic Cochrane Centre in Denmark has studied the effects of mammography on breast cancer risk. They found that for every 2,000 women screened, only one will have her life prolonged, while ten will be treated unnecessarily because of “overdiagnosis” and will in the process be more likely to suffer future cancer and other complications. This kind of early, over-detection causes oncologists to administer conventional treatments even though, if the cancer had been left alone, the cancers in most cases would likely have been managed and controlled naturally by the body.
Why does over-diagnosis and over-treatment like this continue? Like chemotherapy treatments, cancer screenings are big moneymakers. This is wrong on so many levels. Biopsies that spread malignancies? Taking away our right to opt for intravenous vitamin C, basically mandating a one-poison-fits-all, one-size-kills-all approach to cancer? It would seem that if you rely solely on conventional medicine to diagnose and treat cancer, you may go broke from the horrendous expense—but you may also get sicker and die sooner.Cancer is defined by cell cycle deregulation and uncontrolled growth. It is the second leading cause of death in the world. In the United States alone there were 1,658,370 new cancer cases diagnosed and 589,430 cancer deaths and an estimated 750,000 deaths in Europe. We are fighting a losing battle. But we now have a new hope the combination of intravenous Vitamin C and K3 in 100:1 ratio. This specific combination has been causing of form of cell necrosis called autoschizis…it is KILLING cancer.
Researchers started playing around with a combination of vitamin C and Vitamin K3 and watched what it did to cancer cells…it killed them. Before we can get into how the specific combination of Vitamin CK3 kills the cancer, we must first get a better understanding of cancer cells. From a biochemical point of view, cancer cells have some remarkable features: The inhibition of both alkaline DNase and acid DNase has been reported in non-necrotic cancer cells at early stages of experimental carcinogenesis. On the other hand, the reactivation of these enzymes has also been seenin the early stages of spontaneous and/or induced tumor cell death. Therefore, the use of compounds able to activate such endonucleases opens the possibility of a new therapeutic approach for cancer treatment…Vitamins C and K3 reactivate acid and alkaline DNases! The big question is can that combination work with cancer? It is well known that vitamin C is cytotoxic against malignant melanoma cells, human leukaemia cells, neuroblastoma cells, tumour ascites cells, acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, and epidermoid carcinoma.
It is also well know that vitamin K3 is cytotoxic against tumors of breast, stomach, lung, colon, nasopharyngeal, cervix, liver, leukaemia, and lymphoma cell lines. Researchers combined vitamins C and K3 at ratio of 100:1 after in vivo administration in tumor-bearing mice produced and found the following: Additionally examinations of CK3-treated mice did not indicate any sign of toxicity in normal organ and tissues. But How Does The CK3 Kill The Cancer Cells? Both morphological examination and flow cytometry analysis allow us to see whether cells are dying by necrosis (triggered cell death) or apoptosis (normal cell death). This is important because we need to know if the cancer cells are dying because they are being “triggered” to or if it’s just part of their normal cell cycle. On the basis of these parameters, cancer cells treated by CK3 die principally by cell necrosis, but interestingly enough share some characteristics of both necrosis and apoptosis
What appears to be happening is that the introduction of CK3 to cancer cells, forms cuts or schisms in the cell membrane, which allows the cytoplasm to leak out. The researchers called this autoschizis The cell shrinks in size until about only 1/3 its original size and only the nucleus and organelles remain surrounded by a tiny ribbon of cytoplasm. If apoptosis is a quiet cell suicide in which the cell curls up and dies, autoschizis (necrosis) is a bit more violent; the cell slashes itself open violently spilling out its insides. Studies have looked at autoschizis in experiments with: Pretreatment with this vitamin C/K combination also potentiates the effect of chemotherapy and radiation. It also appears to be nontoxic, leaving normal cells unaffected. Beating Cancer As a Whole Here at CHIPSA Hospital we utilize intravenous Vitamin CK3 as part of our integrative approach to treating cancer and autoimmune disease. Here are some of the protocols we utilize:
We are not in any way, shape or form, stating that we have a cure for cancer. It’s very common to see alternative practitioners making claims that one substance or “thing” is an all out cure. We know from our experience in treating cancer for 37 years , that cancer is very complex and always evolving. There is no 100% cure. What we do know, however, is that CHIPSA has had great success treating many patients that were sent home to “die” in their home country because conventional medicine failed them. We also know, that a 5 year, retrospective Melanoma case study done at our hospital showed a higher success rate treating Melanoma than any treatment available by the establishment. And we do know that many times within a 3-4 week stay, we will see peoples tumor markers be cut in half or go away and large tumors disappear. We feel that combining Vitamin CK3 with some of our proven immune boosting protocols and our 37 years of research into immune function may allow for some groundbreaking cancer treatments and get us closer to an answer.