This is in response to Dr. Joseph P. Imperato’s Mar. 9 letter about cancer treatment options mentioned in the series by John Crewdson and Judy Peres (Page One, Feb 27-29).
Imperato first points out that STI 571, a new treatment for chronic myelogenous leukemia, was able to produce a complete remission in a group of 31 patients, but that it is far too soon to present it as a cure.
People with cancer do not have the luxury of time to prove if the remissions are durable, or how long patients will require treatment with this drug. Considering the treatments that the medical field uses such as radiation and chemotherapy, which damage the body, an alternative treatment seems better.
His second example is of the use of Thalidomide to produce a complete response in a patient with a rare Merkel cell cancer. He comments that Thalidomide has not worked as expected in a variety of other cancer sites, such as brain tumors. So what? It helped this one patient with the type of cancer he had.
Imperato goes on to say that focusing on the positive news will confuse people and lead them to believe that they are receiving inferior treatments, when in reality they are receiving the “best proven treatment.”
Who sets the standard for best proven treatments? Do those who set the standard allow all treatments to be tested? Not all cancer treatments, such as non-invasive herbal remedies, are even allowed to be introduced in any clinical trials. This is the situation even though many cases of cancer remission have been documented using natural, non-toxic methods.
I know personally about this since my son Michael, 27, had brain surgery on Dec. 9, to remove a gemistocytic astrocytoma–a Grade 3 tumor from his right temporal lobe.
After removal of the entire visible tumor, a CAT scan showed that there remained locations of this fast-growing cancer still in his brain. The oncologist and neurologist recommended radiation and chemotherapy as the only method of treatment, with a 60 percent chance of a five-year survival.
We respectfully rejected their treatment suggestion and earnestly pursued alternative methods of treatment. Michael started a protocol of Issine, Laetrile, Cantson, Ambrotose, Colostrum, and Ozone Therapy on Jan. 3. Within one month’s time, a third CAT scan was taken, and it showed that there was no cancer.
The neurologist did not ask us how this was possible. He only recommended that Michael have radiation treatments.
The neurologist then suggested that Michael have an MRI to verify the CAT-scan findings. The MRI was taken on Mar. 3. On Mar. 9,we received a call from the neurologist again, revealing that the MRI was negative–no cancer.
Again no questions as to how this was possible, just another recommendation that he have radiation therapy.
It seems to me that our trust in the medical system needs to be questioned, since it does not acknowledge or suggest any other treatment except what is its “best proven treatment,” i.e., radiation and chemotherapy.
As Imperato stated, ” . . . these types of anecdotal results are similar to ones reported in the literature of quack treatments. “
What is, and who coined the term “quack?” Was it someone in the medical profession trying to belittle someone else with an alternative method of treatment?
Imperato goes on to say that the goal of the American Cancer Society is to eradicate cancer. Is this to be accomplished only within the closed medical system, or will the society do the same research for alternative therapies and treatments?
There are successful alternative treatments being used in the United States and worldwide. But there does not seem to be government funding allocated for identifying and researching their efficacy.
