Doctor Nicholas Gonzalez versus the Medical Mafia

RyanX

The Living Force
Anybody on facebook should be able to read this here:

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?saved&&note_id=422781009365

Maybe this was just a waste of time, but I felt like somebody should be speaking out against such blatant lies about supplements and detox.


Doctor Nicholas Gonzalez versus the Medical Mafia

Until today, I had heard nothing about this man, Nicholas Gonzalez, until a friend on here posted a video link where he discussed his philosophy of medicine. There really wasn't much to the video, just some general proclamations about the importance of diet in health and the importance of keeping a positive mindset in the face of a cancer "sentence". I generally agree with this - fear is not a good state of mind to be making life-altering medical decisions.

I posted something to the effect of this being a good philosophy, but that there is a lot more to the story of cancer. Shortly after this, I saw somebody post a couple links debunking Dr. Gonzalez's claims. After a little more digging, I realized that there is quite a bit of controversy around Dr. Gonzalez and his claims. A quick search on Google brings up a number of sites calling Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez a "quack".

I'm going to pick apart one of those articles below, but first I think it's important to understand just what is this treatment that Dr. Gonzalez recommends for cancer patients. Here is how Dr. Gonzalez describes his treatment protocol:
Although our published research deals with pancreatic cancer, in our office we treat patients with all types of cancers. We also treat patients with a variety of other problems, ranging from chronic fatigue syndrome to multiple sclerosis. Each treatment protocol is individualized for each patient, regardless of the underlying problem.

The therapy itself is quite complex, but basically involves three components: diet, aggressive supplementation with nutrients and enzymes, and detoxification. The protocols are individualized and each patient receives a diet designed for his or her specific needs. The diets are quite variable, ranging from a pure vegetarian program to a diet requiring fatty red meat 2-3 times a day.

The supplement regimens are also individualized, and intense: each cancer patient consumes between 130 and 175 capsules daily. Non-cancer patients will require considerably fewer supplements per day. The supplement regimens include a range of vitamins, minerals, trace elements, anti-oxidants and animal glandular products, prescribed according to the particular patient's needs and cancer type. These nutrients do not, we believe, have a direct anti-cancer effect, but instead serve to improve overall metabolic function. In addition to these supplements, every cancer patient takes large quantities of enzymes in capsule form, which we believe provide the main anti-cancer action.

The animal glandular products and proteolytic enzymes that we use are derived from animals raised in Australia and New Zealand, where there has been no history of BSE (mad cow disease) or other prion diseases such as scrapie. The animal husbandry regulations in Australia and New Zealand are the strictest in the world, and prohibit the feeding practices that have caused problems in other countries.

The third component of the protocol involves what we call "detoxification" routines. On this therapy, we find that as patients repair and rebuild, large amounts of metabolic wastes and stored toxins are released. As a result, patients routinely develop a variety of symptoms, most commonly described as "flu-like," such as low grade fevers, muscle aches and pains, even rashes that we hypothesize result from low grade tumor lysis. "Detoxification" refers to procedures such as the coffee enema, which are believed by alternative practitioners to enhance liver function and in turn, the processing and excretion of metabolic wastes. The coffee enemas are done twice daily, and patients most commonly report symptomatic relief.

And for helping patients deal with vitamin, mineral and enzyme deficiencies, helping them remove toxins from their body, and claiming this can be used to successfully treat cancer, Dr. Gonzalez appears to have brought down the wrath of the medical mafia. Here is one example from a list of many:

_http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=883

Cancer Quackery is Dangerous – The Gonzalez Treatment

Now, for those not familiar with medical literature, it's these kind of blog posts that are so effective in molding public opinion of any issue, including cancer research. Here is how the blog post starts off:

Nicholas Gonzalez is a controversial doctor practicing in New York. He has been promoting for years a largely dietary treatment for cancer including an individualized organic diet, large amounts of supplements,and pancreatic enzymes. He is a case study in why we need rigorous science to decide which treatments are safe and effective, of the lure of quack claims, the power of bias, and the inadequacy of our current regulations.

So, we can tell right off the bat that this author is biased against Dr. Gonzalez. The phrase "quack claims" is an emotional appeal to the reader to illicit a negative emotional response. The same can be said about using the phrase "conspiracy theory" or any other phrase the emotionally short-circuits the reader. So, let's try to see past this claim and focus on what the author is really asking which is: Is treating cancer with an individualized organic diet, large amounts of supplements, and pancreatic enzymes, as Dr. Gonzalez recommends, safe and effective? According to this author, apparently the answer is a resounding "No", but from the rest of what he has to say, it doesn't sound like he is too interested in this question.
"And in the final analysis Gonzalez's claims are just recycled CAM propaganda – claiming that supplements will boost the immune system and detoxify the body."

Bull! Supplements in the right form and right doses DO boost the immune system and help detox the body. The interested reader should pick up a copy of Mark Hyman's <a href="http://www.ultramind.com/">The Ultramind Solution</a> or Sidney Baker's <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Detoxification-Healing-Key-Optimal-Health/dp/0658012193">Detoxification and Healing</a>. These are both practicing MD's with loads of experience and knowledge on the subject of supplements and the way they aid the detoxification process. You'll learn more about this topic than you'd ever imagine from these two books.

Going on the author talks about an animal study with rats using a similar form of pancreatic enzyme therapy that Dr. Gonzalez recommends for his patients.

In 1999, an animal study tested the effect of different doses of pancreatic enzymes taken by mouth on the growth and metastasis (spread) of breast cancer in rats. Some of the rats received magnesium citrate in addition to the enzymes. Rats receiving the enzymes were compared to rats that did not receive the enzymes.

* Results showed that the enzyme did not affect growth of the primary tumor (where the cancer started).

* The cancer spread to the most places in the rats that received the highest dose of enzymes.

* The cancer spread to the fewest places in the rats that received the lowest dose of enzymes plus magnesium citrate.

Another animal study looked at the effects of pancreatic enzymes on survival rates and tumor growth in rats with pancreatic cancer. Rats receiving the enzyme treatment lived longer, had smaller tumors and fewer signs of disease,and were more active than the rats in the control group, which did not receive the enzyme.

So results are mixed at best, but the study showing a worsening of cancer with the treatment should have been cause for extreme caution before giving the therapy to humans.

But if you take the time to read about Gonzalez protocol above, taking enzymes is only a small part of it. Another piece involves a huge array of supplements and coffee enemas. Did they give coffee enemas during the animal studies to rats! LOL!

Furthermore, the author fails to reference a 2004 study on mice that claims more (_http://www.dr-gonzalez.com/mice04.htm) positive results with the enzyme therapy.

In addition to these clinical trials, we have collaborated with basic science researchers to test our enzyme approach in animal models of pancreatic cancer. In May, 2004, the results of these studies were published in the peer-reviewed journal Pancreas. In these experiments, a very aggressive form of pancreatic cancer was induced in mice, then half the animals were given our enzymes, half were given no therapy. Those treated with the enzymes showed a significant improvement in survival and behavior compared to animals not receiving the enzymes. In a second experiment, tumor growth was substantially reduced, and survival prolonged again, in animals receiving the enzymes.

Animal studies can be a guide to further a hypothesis, but the big test in any medical intervention is trials with humans. Animal trials cannot be taken as a one-for-one guide to how humans might respond to a similar treatment. The author goes on to describe a pilot study developed by Gonzalez to test his treatment protocol.
"Dr. Gonzalez did publish a case series of his treatment for pancreatic cancer, which is a particularly deadly form of cancer with a 1 year survival of only 2%. He reports that in his case series of 11 patient their average survival with his treatment was 17.5 months. That is very impressive, if true. Proponents used this data to support the Gonzalez treatment and dismiss critics, while science-based physicians pointed out the fatal weaknesses of case reports – namely they are not controlled, and therefore are subject to a host of biases."

The later in the blog the author writes:

"But first this raises an interesting question – how did Gonzalez get his impressive 17.5 month survival in his case series when a prospective study shows a 4.3 month survival? We will never know for sure – the possibilities include that some of the patients did not have pancreatic cancer (he says they were biopsy proven), but most likely is that he simply cherry-picked the cases that did well."

This does raise some interesting questions. To this I found another (_http://www.sawilsons.com/cancersenema.htm) article that quotes Gonzalez on this very issue of his methodology used in the pilot study.
"What really gets Gonzalez riled is that some researchers suggest the patients in his pilot study may have been healthier than those in other pancreatic cancer studies to start with, thereby skewing results. One National Cancer Institute website, for example, mentions this possibility.

'That's a pile of garbage,' he said. 'There's no such thing as a group of pancreatic cancer patients that lives a long time.'

Outside labs performed the diagnoses and biopsies for the patients in Gonzalez's pilot study, he said. Of 11 patients, eight were in stage four, meaning the cancer had spread to other organs.


Such a diagnosis is almost always a death sentence. Only 4 percent of all pancreatic cancer patients live five years or longer, and more than 80 percent die in the first year.


Gonzalez was incredulous that anyone might believe he could handpick "healthier" cancer patients.

'I have this magical ability to find pancreatic cancer patients no one has ever been able to find? We can outsmart an entire pharmaceutical company in our puny little office with one other doctor?'"

So, was the Gonzalez pilot study flawed? It certainly wasn't up to the standards of a "serious" double-blind, clinical trial, but I'll let the readers be the judge of whether this makes it irrelevant - the author of this blog certainly thinks so. In any case, the Gonzalez pilot study seems to show remarkable improvements in lifespan for one of the most deadly forms of cancers known to man. Not bad, actually...

Next the author moves on to discuss the recent clinical trial to test the Gonzalez protocol. This apparently was supposed to be the final word on whether Gonzalez's protocol have any merit as a treatment for cancer. This was Gonzalez's big "trial".

But finally we have the results and they show:

At enrollment, the treatment groups had no statistically significant differences in patient characteristics, pathology, quality of life, or clinically meaningful laboratory values. Kaplan-Meier analysis found a 9.7-month difference in median survival between the chemotherapy group (median survival, 14 months) and enzyme treatment groups (median survival, 4.3 months) and found an adjusted-mortality hazard ratio of the enzyme group compared with the chemotherapy group of 6.96 (P < .001). At 1 year, 56% of chemotherapy-group patients were alive, and 16% of enzyme-therapy patients were alive. The quality of life ratings were better in the chemotherapy group than in the enzyme-treated group (P < .01).

That's right - standard therapy mean survival was 14 months and on the Gonzalez treatment 4.3 months. That is a dramatic difference, and supports what critics have been saying for years.

Well, to be fair, the abstract isn't specific about how this enzyme therapy was carried out. Was the full regime that Gonzales proposed adhered to by all patients in the trial? Or were they just given some enzyme pills and told to go on their merry way? What about the array of supplements needed to complete the program? What about the coffee enemas? Did the patients follow all the instructions by all the patients? Again, the abstract isn't clear.

My understanding is that medicine is more of an art form, there's no one-size fits all approach to dealing with all patients. People have different nutritional requirements for supplements and different methods of detox. I don't see how any static approach, whether by Gonzalez or the medical establishment, is going to work without taking into account unique patient histories. Maybe this was the secret to Gonzalez's success with his pilot trial: He got to know his patients and their unique needs, and customized his therapy to them. He claimed in his protocol description above to customize treatment plans to his patients. Maybe this was part of the success?

Continuing on...

"The bottom line is this – that Gonzalez treatment is not only worthless it is harmful and reduces quality of life. "

Now from this point on, the blogger takes a turn for the worst. This is a pretty bold statement since there was nothing in the study that measured "quality of life", only length of life. The blogger is jumping to conclusions without the facts.
"But further, the Gonzalez case taken as a whole shows us that you can promote a treatment that actually causes harm and yet still create a faithful following, bamboozle regulators, charm the media, and delay (sometimes indefinitely) definitive testing of your claims."

Where is the evidence to support this? To me this sounds like a projection of what the medical establishment is already guilty of.

"The 32 patients in this study that selected the Gonzalez treatment were victims – they lost quality of life and on average 10 months of life. Was their sacrifice justified? I and others say no – before the Gonzalez treatment was given to a single person far more basic science and animal testing should have been done."

This is a clear example of a Paramoralism. As if the failure of some protocol at a clinical trial designed to test one variable on a very narrow set of patients is enough to brand it "unethical" or immoral as the author insinuates.

How were these patients "victims"? Did Dr Gonzalez coerce them into following his protocol? Did Dr. Gonzalez himself somehow "give" them a terminal form of cancer? How can the author claim to take the moral high ground when the medical mafia sacrifices people all of the time for their heinous <a href="http://horror.kaiserpapers.org/meashots.html">experiments</a>.

We use this sequence for a reason – because most new ideas in medicine are wrong. Because in order to "first do no harm" we need to proceed carefully with experimental treatments and only give them to people when there is sufficient plausibility and pre-clinical data to justify it. This is the ethical standard in medicine, but the public has fallen victim to the successful creation of a double standard with clever marketing of terms like "alternative," "holistic," "natural," and "detoxify.""

Oh pleeeeaze! So where was this "first do no harm" principle applied to Viox or the countless drugs and vaccines recalled (and still on the market) over the past decade? I agree there are some snakes in the holistic field of medicine, but that's why people need to do their own research before trying anything! Don't rely on snake oil salesmen to make decisions for you, especially not the professionals in white coats!

Bottom line, even if this big clinical trial is correct and the Gonzalez's treatment for terminally ill pancreatic cancer patients is a failure, how does that apply across the board to all cancer patients or just people looking to retain their health? It doesn't. Maybe his treatment works quite well for people who still have a ounce of health left in them? Maybe the quality of life for those terminal cancer patients was better than the ones who received chemotherapy? The results of this clinical trial just don't say.

Sometimes the body is so broken that no amount of treatment or therapy can help. Radiation might be the best choice in that instance because, as they claim it "kills cancer cells". The problem is that it kills all your other cells as well and DOES destroy your quality of life while at the same time delaying the inevitable. Big clinical trials only test for one specific parameter while attempting to isolate the other variables (even though they can't). They then go on to claim that the study was either a complete success and should be given to EVERYBODY, or it was a complete failure and should be given to NOBODY! They don't test for all the nuances that come up.

To make sweeping generalizations and ad-hoc moral insinuations and call it "science", as the blogger claims to represent, is not "science" - it is propaganda. All this study concludes is that Gonzalez's treatment leads to shorter lives in terminally ill pancreatic cancer patients in comparison to those who received chemotherapy, and nothing more (and even that claim is questionable based on prior research). It says nothing about how the Gonzalez protocol applies to any other segment of the population.

Nothing about what Gonzalez proposes is dangerous and any reasonable medical doctor would recognize this. Supplements and detoxification are not the enemy, they are useful tools in the fight for health and they cost a lot less than the medical interventions most doctors propose for cancer. Gonzalez's only sin is that he claimed to have a "cure for cancer". For this he inherited the wrath of the cancer establishment and all their unwitting dupes such as the author of this blog. He might not have the cure for cancer, but he's sure a heck of a lot closer to it than those doctors who prescribe chemotherapy!
 
I first found out about Dr. Gonzalez through a good friend who had contracted "terminal " colon cancer. He was told by conventional doctors that he only had months to live and that chemo and/or radiation therapy were even out of the question in his case. Since he had nothing to lose he went with Dr. G's treatment plan. He has now been in remission and quite healthy for going on 8 years now.

There's a great interview on Dr. Joseph Mercola's website as he's interviewing Dr. Gonzalez.

_http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/04/23/dr-nicholas-gonzalez-on-alternative-cancer-treatments.aspx

He goes into much of the criticism directed against him.

Thanks for bringing Dr. Gonzalez's work to light on this site.

cheers

David
 
Here is someone going against the atkins (ketogenic) diet in the case of cancer :
Dr. Gonzalez
_http://www.chrisbeatcancer.com/dr-gonzalez-dismantles-ketogenic-diet-for-cancer/

He was studying the Kelley protocol (high carb, carrot juice...), and he says that the Atkins diet was not working for cancer (but working for other conditions).

As I was to learn, the diets Dr. Kelley prescribed ranged from largely plant-based high-carb to an Atkins-like diet, with patients prescribed fatty meat several times daily. In general Kelley believed patients diagnosed with the typical solid tumors – cancers of the breast, lung, stomach, pancreas, colon, liver, uterus, ovary, prostate – did best adhering to a plant-based, high carb type diet, low in animal protein and animal fat.
Patients diagnosed with the immune based “blood cancers” like leukemia, lymphoma, and myeloma, as well as the sarcomas, a type of connective tissue malignancy, required a lower carb, high animal fat, moderate animal protein diet. Other patients, usually with problems other than cancer, thrived on a more “balanced” diet, incorporating a variety of plant and animal foods.

In my previous articles, I discussed my friend, the late Dr. Robert Atkins, the famed diet doctor, who long before Dr. Seyfried appeared on the scene hoped his “ketogenic” diet might be an answer to cancer. During the late 1980s and right through most of the 1990s, Dr. Atkins treated hundreds of cancer patients, many, though not all, with a ketogenic diet, along with a variety of supplements and intravenous vitamin C.
It was 1992, when his chief IV nurse, who had been with him for years, called me, wishing to take me to lunch. I knew him through my friendship with Dr. Atkins, and in fact he had been quietly referring a number of patients to me from the clinic, patients who were not responding to the Atkins’ treatment.
We did meet for lunch several days later, and I was surprised that after some general chatter, he asked me point blank if there was any chance he could work for me! He seemed quite serious, but I explained that my colleague Dr. Linda Isaacs and I didn’t use IV treatments so I would have no use for his particular skills.
Now intrigued, I asked why he would want to change jobs, since our practice was by design slower paced, whereas Bob ran a very busy clinic and active IV unit which would seem perfectly suited for this nurse’s expertise. He then explained, with obvious disappointment, that none of the hundreds of cancer patients they had treated or had been treating had responded to any significant degree, with the exception of those he had referred to me.

So maybe the Atkins ketogenic diet was not yet perfected, with some of the supplements we have now (see : the "new atkins diet").

He has a "stem cell theory" about cancer (see part 8). He says that cancer stem cells can be keto-adapted, so therefore ketosis will not affect cancer (?!):

Unknown to most, even within the alternative world, my friend Bob Atkins tried the ketogenic diet for some 12 years on many of his cancer patients, with no significant success as he reported to me. As a telling point, under the name “Dr. Robert Atkins” on Amazon, one will find dozens of books he authored including his original diet book, its many incarnations and editions, along with books on vitamins, minerals – but glaringly absent, no book on cancer. Yes, the ketogenic diet has been tried before, with cancer patients, and without success.
I also might offer a thought as to why, from a more esoteric, more biochemical perspective, for most people diagnosed with cancer the ketogenic diet might not work. For the past 150 years, researchers have approached cancer as a disease in which perfectly happy, normal mature cells sitting in some tissue somewhere suddenly go awry, lose their normal regulatory restraint, develop a primitive, undifferentiated appearance or phenotype, begin proliferating without restraint, begin invading through tissues and organs, begin migrating, spreading, creating new blood vessels along the way to feed the rapacious appetite of cancer. But over the past 15 years, gradually, a new, more productive, and I believe more truthful hypothesis has emerged, spearheaded particularly by Dr. Max Wicha at the University of Michigan. Scientists such as Dr. Wicha have discovered that cancer may be a little more complicated than we have thought these long decades.
In recent years stem cells have been a hot topic in the research world, and a hot topic, for better or worse, in the media. These headline-grabbing stem cells are primitive undifferentiated cells, located as nests in every tissue and organ in the body, that serve as a reserve supply to replace cells in the tissue or organ lost due to normal turnover (as in the bone marrow or along the intestinal lining), disease, injury, or cell death.
In this way, stem cells allow complex life to exist and continue, providing tissue replacements as needed, appropriate for the tissue in which they live. That is, liver stem cells will create new liver cells as needed, bone marrow stem cells will create new bone marrow clones as required, intestinal stem cells will form, as necessary, intestinal lining cells. In this way, the developmental capacity of stem cells seems to be governed by the local environment.
After stem cells were discovered in the 1960s, scientists initially thought that they had a limited repertoire, that is, liver stem cells can only create more liver cells, but not bone marrow or intestinal cells, bone marrow stem cells can only create more bone marrow cells, but not liver cells, and so on. But we now know that isn’t the case.
Stem cells, wherever they may be found, can adapt quite nicely, and are far more flexible than originally believed. In laboratory animals, a liver stem cell placed into the bone marrow starts creating not liver, but bone marrow cells, a bone marrow stem cell transplanted into the liver begins to generate not bone marrow, but liver cells. The environment appears to be the key, ultimately determining the direction of stem cell development.
In terms of cancer specifically, many scientists believe that the disease does not develop from normal healthy cells that for some reason go molecularly berserk, but from stem cells that have lost their normal regulatory controls, creating in turn the disease we know as cancer.
Like any normal tissue or organ, in a tumor these cancer stem cells generate a variety of cell types that can mature to some extent, but the stem cells remain always primitive, undifferentiated, capable of replicating endlessly, capable of killing eventually. Most standard therapies fail, Dr. Wicha and his associates believe, because they attack the more mature tumor line, not the essential tumor stem cells, the actual engines of cancer creation.
Dr. Seyfried makes the case that normal stem cells, like cancer cells, are obligatory glucose consumers, relying solely on anaerobic glycolysis for the energy needed for survival. I agree, to a point. But I will also make the case that as with normal stem cells, cancer stem cells are very flexible, capable of adjusting to the local environment.
If deprived of oxygen, stem cells happily will turn to glycolysis as the main source of ATP energy. In an oxygen rich environment, I believe these stem cells can adapt accordingly, recoupling at least to some extent glycolysis to the citric acid cycle and electron transport, with great efficiency, and in terms of cancer, with deadly results.
Some years ago, a patient of mine, a professor at a well-known university, became interested in oxygenation therapies for cancer, used widely in the Mexican Clinics. These “oxygen” treatments were an offshoot of Dr. Warburg’s work, i.e., that cancer cells as obligatory anaerobes can synthesize needed energy supplies only via glycolysis. Therefore, the theory goes, in the presence of oxygen, particularly ozone, a form of hyped up oxygen, cancers cells, unlike normal cells, will be poisoned.
My professor patient seemed quite taken by the ozone approach, which he thought I should start implementing in my practice. However, I become somewhat doubtful about the theory, and the use of ozone as a treatment for cancer. At the time I had already taken care of dozens of patients who prior to consulting with me had been to the Mexican Clinics to receive ozone along with other treatments.
All seemed to have initial good responses followed by explosive return of their malignancy. I explained to my professor patient that I believed cancer stem cells could quickly adapt to oxygen, despite what the Warburgians might claim.

Dr. Gonzalez talks also about D'Agostino quoted here : http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,31686.msg436944.html#msg436944

And Seyfried quoted here : http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,29102.0.html

And one reader-comment states that ketones feed cancer ! (source : Dr. Michael P. Lisanti)

_http://www.breastcentre.manchester.ac.uk/Michael_Lisanti/The_autophagic_tumor_stroma_of_cancer_metabolism

see also _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_Warburg_effect

and _http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3117136/
and _http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3047616/

Another comment refers to Dr Ralph Moss :

Have you read Dr Ralph Moss’s review of the Kelley/Gonzalez protocol? I think you might find it interesting. I have Moss’s report and can fax you the info. Just as Gonzalez “dismantles” the ketogenic diet, Moss does that with Gonzalez protocol.

For me, it is an endless merry-go-round of opinions, self-interest ( Gonzalez mentions Atkins net worth but does not mention how prohibitive his treatment is) and contradicting information…

So here is a link about Ralph Moss, but not the mentioned review : http://www.mercola.com/article/cancer/cancer_options.htm

Dr Gonzalez also wrote a book : _http://www.amazon.com/One-Man-Alone-Investigation-Nutrition/dp/0982196512/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1381203790&sr=1-1&keywords=one+man+alone

This monograph describes Dr. Gonzalez's investigation of the nutritional/enzyme cancer treatment developed by the alternative practitioner Dr. William Donald Kelley. The book provides an in-depth analysis of Dr. Kelley's theories and practice, as well as evidence demonstrating the treatment's value against even the most aggressive of cancers. The author includes 50 representative case histories of patients diagnosed with a variety of poor prognosis or terminal malignancies who did well under Dr. Kelley's care, with copies of the actual relevant medical records. Originally completed in 1986, this monograph generated interest in the alternative and conventional medical world for over two decades even though it was not formally published until 2010, rewritten and with an updated introduction by Dr. Gonzalez. In this book, you will read why Dr. Kelley believed no one ideal diet suits everyone and how he developed ten basic diets for his patients ranging from vegetarian to carnivore. You will also learn the underlying rationale for Dr. Kelley's precise use of nutritional supplements including pancreatic enzymes, which provided the main anti-cancer effect of his therapy. The book also discusses the various "detoxification" routines prescribed by Dr. Kelley, such as coffee enemas, which he claimed helped neutralize the effects of dead tumor wastes that accumulate during treatment. The results of Dr. Gonzalez's investigation have been discussed before a Congressional committee, on national TV, and in print media such as The New Yorker and Prevention. This pioneering book is now available to all those with an interest in cancer in general, the enzyme treatment of cancer in particular, alternative medicine, and Dr. Kelley. Note: this is not a "how-to" book for self-treatment. Dr. Gonzalez is a graduate of Brown University and Cornell University Medical College, and completed a postdoctoral fellowship in cancer immunology. He currently practices in New York City.
 
Back
Top Bottom