Foundation for Advancement in Cancer Therapy

Non-Toxic Biological Approaches to the Theories, Treatments and Prevention of Cancer

The Foundation for Advancement in Cancer Therapy (FACT) founded in 1971, is a federally approved 501(c)(3) organization. All proceeds from donations, sale of the DVD, and the books Triumph Over Cancer, Rethinking Cancer, and Detoxification are tax deductible. Your contributions help to fund FACT's educational efforts.

More About FACT

Visit the new
FACT Product Guide

Alternative Cancer Concepts II
By Ruth Sackman

The feature article of this issue of Cancer Forum is the concluding half of a talk I gave at the FACT Annual Cancer/Nutrition Convention held in Elizabeth, New Jersey, on October 8, 9, 1993. The first part of the transcript appeared in the last issue of Cancer Forum.

For those who did not receive the previous issue, I feel it is paramount to emphasize that the point of this talk was to present a different concept of cancer than what is ordinarily thought of as alternative cancer therapy.

Unfortunately, due to the deluge of information available now via books, radio, TV, etc., the popular impression has evolved that "alternative therapies" are all based on the same concept. I would like to clarify FACT' s policy. FACT supports only non-toxic, biologically-sound systems and emphasizes host restoration over tumor reduction. Tumor reduction without host repair is usually only temporary, whether alternative or conventional techniques are used. It is on the basis of this policy that the evaluations and comments in the talk are made. As I mentioned at the beginning of the first half, the transcript has been minimally edited.

Such alternative modalities as Cancel!, shark cartilage, 714X, hydrazine sulfate etc. may, indeed, be "alternatives" in the sense that they are not accepted by the mainstream. But in concept they are often similar to conventional medicine, i.e., they focus on tumor reduction and some can be harmful to the body. Harmful substances would violate FACT's non-toxic policy.

In the view of this organization, an effective alternative cancer therapy, in addition to being non-toxic to the body, must focus on correcting the cause of the overproduction of abnormal cells that has resulted in a symptom such as the tumor or abnormal blood picture. In FACT' s 23 years of experience with thousands of patients, systems that follow these guidelines have been helpful in bringing a cancer situation under control to the point of long-term well-being. From a logical standpoint this should not be surprising when the breakdown in body chemistry is addressed rather than just the alleviation of symptoms and when the treatment is directed toward enhancing the body' s natural healing abilities. Preserving the integrity of the body by using safe techniques should be stressed in order to reach the goal of restoring host resistance.

In the first half of my talk I discussed various alternatives which do not adhere to FACT' s concept of cancer treatment, although positive information about them may be widespread as possible answers to cancer. I explained how treatments, such as hydrazine sulfate, basically are similar to conventional chemotherapy in that they focus on destroying cancer cells by depriving them of an essential nutrient, simultaneously depriving normal cells of the 111 same essential nutrient. Moreover, because the end goal of such therapies is the killing of cancer cells without attention to rebalancing body chemistry, too many of these tumors recur.

FACT' s alternative concept of cancer treatment is presented here for your information in evaluating the myriad of cancer therapies available today. I feel an obligation to present my experiences, observations and conclusions acquired in my unique position as president of FACT in the hope that they will help those seeking an alternative therapy to evaluate the many systems competently enough to select their best resource.

Let's talk about ozone therapy. The whole concept of bringing more oxygen into the cells is based on research by Dr. Otto Warburg who claimed that cancer celLs can't survive in an oxygenated environment. But that doesn't mean just providing oxygen for the cancer cells is going to make a biological restoration, though it can be useful to use ozone. Oxygen doesn't necessarily have to be supplied by injection, nor would I suggest to anyone that they take hydrogen peroxide, another substance designed to oxygenate the body. My information is that peroxide can interfere with normal cell production, so I believe that should be avoided; What one has to do, and this may sound too simple, is to breathe properly so that enough oxygen enters the bloodstream. Or, take up yoga and do breathing exercises. They can be very beneficial and your whole body can benefit. Yoga exercises relax the nerves and muscles. As a matter of fact, there are other systems that ought to be beneficial. These would include osteopathy, chiropractic, massage, meditation or biofeedback.

Dietary Regimens

It's important to talk about many of the dietary regimens that are suggested as programs for cancer patients. There are a whole range of them - vitamin programs, macrobiotic diet, vegetarian diet, hygienist diet. It remains to be seen whether these are appropriate diets and if they can accomplish the ultimate goal which is to find oneself in a long term survival situation. Some of them can be extreme and very difficult to carry out. There will not be enough time to talk about all of them.

I'd like to talk about macrobiotic because it has received a lot of attention. My conclusion about the macrobiotic diet is that it is not optimum. Ann Wigmore has said about the diet that it's alright as a transitional diet - in other words, going from bad eating into something better.

The reason we feel it's not optimum is understandable. First of all, it doesn't adhere to acid/ alkaline balance which is 80% alkaline and 20% acid. (The 80120 ratio might be ideal though extreme and difficult to maintain. The body very wisely allows some leeway.) The diet that works best is one that is more alkaline than acid. Macrobiotic upsets the acid/alkaline balance because it is more acid than alkaline as it includes the heavy use of grains which are acid. Another problem with macrobiotic is that, by cooking all the food at temperatures above 112-120 degrees F., all the enzymes are destroyed. Enzymes are the catalysts essential for metabolism of the food (metabolism is the process whereby the foods are broken down into minute components for utilization by the body for homeostasis). I understand from recent feedback that some of the macrobiotic practitioners are adding some raw food to the diet. Well, I would be inclined to ask, if they're copying the work of other clinicians, why call it macrobiotic? It's confusing. The reason raw food is used is because it has all of the nutrients in an unaltered state. All the food does not have to be raw, but certainly enough is required so that the body gets sufficient natural nutrients, as nature intended for the human animal, and that's what we are, another species of animal. Nature has provided the right food for all animals, including humans. If all the food was meant to be cooked, we would have learned to use fire from the very beginning of time rather than later.

Now we have time for some questions and answers. (Wherever the original tape was unclear, I have restated the questions.)

The first questioner asked about Cartilade (shark cartilage).

A. I try to keep an open mind about the shark cartilage, which is sold under the brand name Cartilade. We're getting negative feedback as I said before. I think Dr. Bill Lane might be unhappy with me that FACT is not ready to support Cartilade and doesn't refer people for the shark Cartilade, but that's the policy. It is unwise to accept a claim without waiting to see if it works. There are so many other things that people can do that we know are safe.

Q: Are you familiar with Dr. Enderlein? ( We couldn't hear the end of this question.)

A: Yes, but I would prefer not going into that and that's another thing we're struggling with because a writer decided to write about the work of a Dr. Enby from Sweden. It is based on an original premise which is the work of Dr. Antoine Bechamp (who disagreed with Pasteur about germs) which was used by a Dr. Enderlein. It would take a whole program to explain the difference between Bechamp and Pasteur. But if you're interested there is a book on our book list which explains the differences.

Enderlein is not the person doing the work. He died a long time ago. The work is being promoted by a Dr. Enby in Sweden. And again, I'd like to say the only way to evaluate the success or failure of someone's work or ideas is to see how they hold up in time. That's what we do. We're here to investigate all these ideas. You can take advantage of that by calling the organization.

Q: Mrs. Sackman, I would like to ask you again about the autogenous vaccine and that's because I'm from the Buffalo area and happen to know one of the physicians at Roswell who has done a paper and presented it at the AMA. Now, specifically, Roswell is importing thousands of dollars worth of herbs and tree barks and beginning to do research on them. If I can communicate certain things relative to the autogenous vaccine, it may very well assist them.

A: I was talking specifically about the type of autogenous vaccine that uses your own bacteria, such as the work of Virginia Livingston Wheeler. We've watched that kind of therapy for a long time. I've known hundreds of people who used that type of autogenous vaccine and, ultimately, failed.

There's another autogenous vaccine which is very much in the research category now. You probably have never heard about it. Hopefully, it will be funded by the government; we have been funding it for years. This autogenous vaccine uses the antigens from the periphery of the cancer cell-antigens are the disease fighters. A specially-designed gadget removes the antigens from the cell, making an ample supply available to fight the tumor. We don't know yet what the outcome will be, but the principle sounds logical. In this instance the doctor first has to do a surgical removal of the tumor and use that tumor as its supply for the antigens.

Q: An additional question. What about the use in any type of autogenous vaccine, more particularly the one that seems more related to herbs and nutrition?

A: Herbs and nutrition are not autogenous. Autogenous implies one's own material.

Q: Yes, but how about utilizing herbs and nutrition in conjunction with that type of therapy?

A: It depends on the makeup of the vaccine. If using more that one system, they have to be compatible.

Q: The selenium you talked about earlier, I was told to take it to enhance the vitamin E.

A: I don't care what someone told you to do. Selenium is a poison. Our bodies require trace amounts of selenium and other toxic substances. Beyond that trace amount, it is toxic. Sometimes health food stores pick up reports in health magazines, suppliers prepare the material, so you'll find it on your health food store shelves. It's up to you to know what you're doing. When anybody tells you to do something, try to find out the person's experience, background, what skill he/she has to advise you to do something. People are telling other people what to do mistakenly, and it's sad.

Reports in health magazines should be evaluated carefully.

Q: You're saying not to take selenium at all?

A: I would not take selenium supplements. You get enough selenium in your food supply. Carleton Fredericks reported an item printed in a medical publication that there was a community somewhere in the Midwest that had a higher than normal rate of cancer. They found there was less selenium in the soil and concluded that the limited selenium was the cause of the cancer. That's poor research. It could have been a hundred other things, but they boxed selenium and cancer together. That kind of reasoning isn't always correct.

Q: I just wanted to say, first of all, I was encouraged to hear you speak positively of Dr. Burton of the IAT down in the Bahamas. We were down there in 1988 so it's results are positive. But I wanted to ask you about shark Cartilade. I just wanted to ask another point because you were talking about the calcium.

A: Shark Cartilade is a calcium product.

Q: Don't you think that there's something - an anti-angiogenesis process that goes on in the body - if there's something that prevents angiogenesis and shark Cartilade has those three proteins and, if you're able...( And then the question runs off.)

A: You have to be careful. What I said about the hydrazine sulfate was that it functions like chemotherapy because it blocks the cells from getting glucose. Anything that causes a blocking action so that the cancer cells are deprived of a needed element deprives the healthy cells. That is an abuse to the human system. That's what I'm talking about. The human system needs to be repaired and restored to normalcy.

I think using Cartilade ought to be tabled for awhile.

Q: The therapy though, the theory though is that...

A: I don't want to debate this. We're still watching shark Cartilade and frankly, at this point, I am not encouraging or discouraging people from using shark Cartilade. There are enough other materials around though, that have been around for a long, long time of which we know the efficacy and failure if there's any, so you see, things can be done without making guinea pigs of a group of people.

Q: This is on Essiac primarily because you very strongly state that if the tea doesn't have the 9 components, it is not the correct product. You also say that the Resperin Corporation in Canada has that. I have had 6 conversations with the Resperin Corporation and the person David Dobie who supplies the product for them. He went and looked at all the papers. They swear upside down they don't know what you're saying. They swear, having looked at the papers, Rene Caisse's sworn statements that there are 4 components in Essiac. Excuse me, I know you're very definite, but please let other people hear what you say: the Resperin Corporation has the right thing. Because of what you're saying, I called them several times.

A: There's a story behind that.

Q: Let me just finish what I'm saying. They sent me what they put into the National Institutes of Health to have the product tested which came out with 4 different substances so it's creating a controversy in terms of what you're saying.

A: Look, we're always going to have controversies. This is the position of the organization. By the way, I knew Rene Caisse. I know people who were close to her. I know one woman who has the formula, because she's a recovered patient and Rene gave her the formula just before her death although they had known each other for years. This is not the time or place to go into all the ins and outs of this situation. Suffice it to say that the Resperin Corporation gave the National Institutes of Health, the department in Canada similar to our FDA, 4 herbs. That's what Gary Glum got. There are more herbs than that in the full formula. Perhaps Resperin did not have the entire formula.

(Editor's note: After a very careful investigation, calling all of the resources advertised and unadvertised pertaining to Essiac, I found that the best resource for Essiac is one that has been authorized by Charles Brusch, M.D., who researched Essiac with Rene Caisse at the Brusch Clinic in Cambridge, MA . It is called Flor Essence and can be purchased in some health food stores. For further information, call 800-446-2110.)

RS: Hello, John (John Yiamouyiannis, Ph.D., biochemist and fluoride authority, author of Fluoride: The Aging Factor).

Q: There are two quick things. I'm not going to take all day on this. First of all, we can deal with the element more quickly. You mentioned earlier that you think small amounts of fluoride are necessary for the body. (Ed. Note: This is not what I meant to express.) Having read 3,000 articles on the subject, and most recently, even the comments of the National Academy of Sciences, which is not our best friend, I and they admit that as low as we've been able to take fluoride down in the body, it has never been shown to have any essential function, unlike selenium which is in thiamine, which is a good free-radical scavenger. Fluoride has never been found in any natural compound with biological function occurring in the body and, in all the studies I have read, has never been shown to be essential at even minimal levels. If we take the fluoride down to 1 molecule some day, maybe we'll find it, but I just wanted to make that clear.

The thing about Linus Pauling, you imply that the fluoride might be good for the teeth.

RS: I don't think I said that. Linus Pauling may have said that. No one should take fluoride.

JY: All the large studies that have been done recently have shown that fluoride is ineffective in reducing tooth decay.

A: Let me agree with you, John, because no one should take fluoride. There is substantial scientific evidence that fluoride can cause cancer.

Q: Are you familiar with, and there's ...something like Celia... (The tape was incomprehensible here.) It was recommended by a medical doctor.

A: I don't know enough about it. I need to know more about these things before I can make any comment on whether it has any value. I am very patient. If FACT doesn't have enough information, then we're not going to support it or be in a position to comment about it either.

Q: I'm doing intravenous vitamin C with my doctor. My question to you - I'm almost positive it's not 30 grams - it's not just vitamin C either. It contains minerals, magnesium and other things. Do you not recommend that at all or do you not recommend this at a higher dose, as you said?

A: I don't argue with a person's doctor and if you're with a doctor and you feel fine and he's supervising you, there's no need to question what he's doing because if it goes sour and he's in control of the situation, he can make the necessary changes. If he has to shift and change, he will. My position is that the body does not metabolize huge amounts of vitamins or minerals. Better results are obtained with normal amounts. The body responds beautifully when you work with its natural ability. But it's not up to me to debate with you or even discuss with you what your doctor is doing. If you're using a doctor and getting along well, you should continue. Our position is that if something is not broken, don't fix it. If you're under good supervision, the doctor will make adjustments if he has to.

Q: What is your position on colonies?

A: I favor colon cleansing. I think it's an important tool. The medical community, as you probably know, frowns upon colonies and colon cleansing. As a lay person I have no right to tell anyone to do colonies or an enema. That belongs in the medical community. But every good program that I know of, every good practitioner, has always included colon cleansing in the program Every patient I know that has recovered has included colon cleansing in their program. An unhealthy colon will harbor all kinds of putrefied material, hard matter collected in pockets. The body should be relieved of its waste. The waste should not remain in the colon too long. It will putrefy and toxins will be reabsorbed into the bloodstream. There's a portal vein in the colon which will absorb the liquid from the waste material. So I like to see people do everything possible so that their waste is eliminated adequately, more adequately than is normal because if there's a backlog, you have to reduce it. Does that answer your question?

Q: I know there are different procedures with colonies. Is there one that's better than another? Do you know?

A: I have no idea if one is better than another. I'm running late and the tape is almost finished, so let's see what we can do to get through here.

Q: Would you comment on germanium?

A: Here again, you can put it into perspective. It's not a natural material. The germanium comes from the ground. It's not edible as a food material.

Q: It is part of certain natural foods.

A: It is not food material. I will have to say this about the germanium. I heard Dr. Asai speak about his use of germanium in treating his own cancer successfully when I was in CaliforniA. I cannot say from my experience with people who've used germanium that we could measure any good results, nor harm either.

Q: On Laetrile, could you comment on that?

A: I already did. I think I commented on the Laetrile quite elaborately. It is a natural product. I do not feel that the Laetrile today is as effective as it was 20 years ago. It was less refined then than it is today. That may be making the difference.

Q: And one other thing, taking vitamin E in large doses, does that make sense?

A: No. In clinic work Dr. Max Gerson found that he could not use oil-based vitamins. There was a very logical reason for his not using them. The liver has the responsibility of metabolizing oil; the liver also has the responsibility to do most of the healing. One should never overburden the liver. Someone once said to me, "But we're taking dry E." Dry E is produced by using a chemical process. It isn't wise to take dry E.

Q: Vitamin therapy, homeopathy, DMSO and Reiki treatments?

A: Some of them are all right. Certainly homeopathy is all right if one needs natural medical help. It's safe medicine. Reiki is a massage system and certainly it's in a category where manipulation of some kind or other is all right if there's no harm and part of a comprehensive program. I've never known it to be harmful.

DMSO. Again, we're back in a category of material that's not natural for the human system and we will fall into that category with everything else of that ilk. DMSO is a chemical that comes from the manufacture of paper.

To answer your question about vitamin therapy, vitamins are useful tools, but only if you determine that your body requires the vitamin and the vitamin is of exceptionally good quality. There's a lot of junk on the market. There's no point in taking junk vitamins if you're trying to escape junk food. There are many unnatural things put in vitamins that you have to look into very carefully. There's coloring added and taking that consistently over a long period of time can produce the negative results that you're trying to avoid. You'll also find that there are preservatives, synthetics, binders, I can't think now of what all of them are. It could be dangerous if the additives are toxic colorings, preservatives, etc., especially since they tend to be cumulative.

I'm sorry, that' all the questions we have time for. I hope this has been helpful for you. Thank you.

This article is a continuation of the previous article Alternative Cancer Concepts I

Watch Online

Watch on Amazon Video Watch on iTunes

Watch on DVD

Get the Book

Rethinking Cancer, by Ruth Sackman, is an excellent companion book to the film. Learn More

Newsletter signup

Bookmark and Share