Cancer: A Controversial Subject
Factual information regarding of the CCRG approach
(1) Basis of CCRG Research Observations >>
(2) Research Observations >>
(1) Basis of CCRG Research Observations
CCRG does not provide “survival statistics”. Even the “gold-standard” SEER survival data is extremely complex and easily subject to
misinterpretation (visit National Cancer Institute: Surveillance
Epidemiology and End Results, www.seer.cancer.gov). Patients are
individuals. The disease that presents in one patient may present
entirely differently in another.
The CCRG metabolic and immune system management methodology has been
based on:
a)
Review of peer-reviewed literature
b) Hundreds of individual case studies and patient testimonials
c) Background on Case Series Research and Clinical Research Studies
a) CCRG has conducted exhaustive reviews of thousands of conferring, peer-reviewed studies regarding
the impact of nutraceuticals on cancer and other immune system
disorders. It is very often the case that one clinical trial by itself
has limited information hence, systematic reviews attempt to bring together
all reports of controlled trials using a particular therapy or
treatment, in order to evaluate the therapy over a range of settings and
patients groups.
The peer-reviewed efficacy evidence is indisputable. As a very small
example:
- Cell level research has shown that
in early stage of cancer cell development, nutrients can reverse
pre-malignant cancers (Singh, VN, Am.J. Clin.Nutr., vol.53, p 386S,
1991)
- Folate & B-12 reverse bronchial
metaplasia (Heimburger, JAMA, vol 259, 1988)
- Beta-carotene & vit A & vit E
reverse oral leukoplakia (Stich, AJCN, vol 49, 1991)
- Selenium reverses pre-cancerous
mouth lesions (Toma, Oncology, vol 49, 1992)
- Vit C & calcium reverse colorectal
adenomas (Wargovitch, Gastroenterology, vol 103, 1992)
- Vit E reverses fibrosystic breast
disease (increases cancer risk by 50-80%)
(Kreiger, AJ Epidemiology, vol 13, 1992)
- Vit E & betacarotene reverse mouth
cancer (Shklar, Nutr Cancer, vol 12, 1989)
- Pure malnutrition (cachexia) is
responsible for 22% - 67% of all cancer deaths. (Hoffman, Cancer,
Vol 55, 1985)
........and the list of evidence for
vitamins, enzymes, co-factors, minerals, antioxidants and amino acids goes
on & on! CCRG has identified 4,000+ peer-reviewed studies on
nutraceuticals & cancer.
Follow this link for further specific examples/discussion of peer-reviewed research confirming the impact of nutraceuticals on cancer
management.
Top of Page
(b) Case Studies and Testimonials
Over a 15 year period, CCRG has developed hundreds of individual case
studies and patient testimonials.
Note that individual case studies are not scientific or medical evidence
of efficacy. They may indicate that certain individuals have found
success with specific treatment approaches and combinations. However,
one must recognize that each and every individual will have a different
experience as they tackle their overall health situation. Case studies
do form the basis of what is referred to as “Case Series Research” that
CCRG has undertaken. The following case study summaries are provided
only to indicate the nature and progression of a cross-section of CCRG
interactions with people having cancer.
Case summary examples follow:
Patient 1 - Breast Cancer:
63 year old female presented in 1997 with low grade breast cancer.
|
- |
Pursued radical mastectomy and prophylaxis of
chemotherapy and radiotherapy. |
|
- |
Relapsed with advanced stage IV disease in 1999.
Expected 1 year survival of less than 3%. |
- Patient presented with advanced
disease in multiple sites in 1999.
- Between 1999 and 2004 we conducted 4
amino blood assays and delivered 10 sets of therapeutic compounds.
- Patient elected radiotherapy in 2002
for clavicular node and chemotherapy for skin metastasis in 2004.
- In 2005, patient presents with
disease stabilization with minimal or no side effect from
chemotherapy.
|
| Patient 2 - Prostate Cancer: 66 year old male presented in 2000 with
high grade poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma of the prostate. Grade
and differentiation known to preclude response from gold standard
treatment.
- Patient presented with untreated
advanced/high grade disease in 2001.
- Between 2001 and 2004 we conducted 8
blood assays and 4 sets of therapeutic compounds.
- In 2005 the patient presents with no
evidence of disease and is in excellent health.
|
| Patient 3 - Colorectal Cancer:
47 year old female presented in 2001 with
stage IV colorectal cancer.
- Patient presented in 2001 with
advanced disease in multiple sites.
- Between 2001 and 2004 we conducted 8 blood assays and
delivered 6
sets of therapeutics compounds.
- In 2004 the patient presents with
complete remission of side effects, adverse reactions and disease.
- The patient remains stable, in
excellent health and disease free.
|
| Patient 4 - Lymphoma: 62 year old male presented in 2000 with
high grade lymphoma. Had 8 cycles CHOP chemotherapeutic with stable
disease.
- Patient presented in 2001 with
stable disease with high likelihood of relapse and multiple medium
term side effects and durable adverse reactions to chemotherapy.
- Between 2001 and 2004 we conducted 5 blood assays and
delivered 6
sets of therapeutics compounds.
- In 2004 the patient presents with
complete remission of side effects, adverse reactions and disease.
- Consult with oncologist and patient
with CCRG staff revealed an expected poor outcome with relapse and
unresponsive disease and death within 1 year of diagnosis.
- The patient remains stable, in
excellent health and disease free.
|
| Patient 5 - Leukemia: 47 year old male presented in 1997 with
chronic mylogeonous leukemia. Had CHOP chemotherapeutic protocol and
failed therapy. Advised bone marrow transplant only treatment. Expected
survival of 2 years.
- Patient presented with advanced
refractory/resistant disease and enrolled in protocol in 1999.
- Between 1999 and 2004 we conducted 6 blood assays and delivered
10
sets of therapeutics compounds.
- In 2004, the patient presents with
no evidence of disease conferred through clinical presentation and
repeated imaging studies. At diagnosis, the patient was positive for
the Philadelphia chromosome…subsequent bone marrow aspirates are
negative for this chromosomal aberrancy that is directly associated
with chronic mylogeonous leukemia.
- The patient remains stable, in
excellent health and disease free.
|
Patient 6 - Polymyositis: (Note: CCRG
is working with more & more non-cancer patients)
70 year old female with untreatable and rapidly debilitating
pathologically confirmed neuromuscular disease: polymyositis. No known
treatment (conventional or experimental) to treat disease or mitigate
symptoms.
- Patient presented in advanced
disease state with CK enzymes over 5000 and enrolled in protocol in
2002.
- Between 2002 and 2004 we conducted 8 blood assays and
delivered 4
sets of therapeutic compounds.
- In 2004 patient presents with
disease remission, normal CK enzymes (less than 100) and complete
remission of all symptomotology.
|
Testimonials:
Note that individual testimonials are not scientific or medical evidence
of efficacy. They may indicate that certain individuals have found
success with specific treatment approaches and combinations. However,
one must recognize that each and every individual will have a different
experience as they tackle their overall health situation. The following
testimonials are provided as a balance to the
stories promoted by the complementary medicine detractors.
To many people, words speak louder than science… …
“Hugs and kisses reflect how I feel about you & your staff and what you
have done for me - nothing short of giving me back my life & giving
‘Joe’ back his wife”.
“I wish to thank you for all your help to ‘P.’ in giving him an
extension on his life. His doctors originally only gave him 3-4 months
and that was 2.5 years ago!”
“....one of my friends pointed out that at this time last year he
thought he’d be burying me. Thank you. Each day, you and your staff save
lives and make a difference”
“…. just a note to remind you that your work and who you are is greatly
respected and appreciated.”
“Yes, you are a “merchant of hope”, but behind your encouraging words
exist true compassion – a rare gift in this world… thanks for being
there…. you make people want to go beyond their frontiers.”
“Within 6 weeks, no one could deny the change in me. I was getting the
spring back in my step and my energy was back to pre-cancer levels. For
the first time in three years, I started to have some flesh on my
bones.”
“Of eleven of us in my support group with the same cancer, I was the
only one on the CCRG program. Five years later, I am the only one
alive.”
“I am confident that the CCRG program was a key factor in the fact that
I am here today. Thank-you fromm the bottom of my heart.”
Top of Page
(c) Background on the Concept of Case Series Research
CCRG has been involved with three separate case series research studies
on the impact of amino acids on prostate, breast and colorectal cancer. See our full prostate research observations.
The concept of Case Series Research is “a retrospective analysis of
clinical data that a practitioner has developed”.
A Case Series Study is
more formal than the case report since the case series is deliberately
assembled for the specific purpose of describing or summarizing a group
of similar patients. The Office of Alternative Medicine of the National
Institute of Health (USA) have suggested that Case Series Research
methods are an effective means to determine whether a complementary
anticancer therapy demonstrates potential efficacy.
The hallmark of good research is the rigor with which it is conducted.
The essential elements of Case Series Research (OAM, 1994) as followed
by CCRG are:
• confirmation of patient diagnosis
• description of methodology
• objective response criteria definition
• maintenance of patient records
• record all past and ongoing cancer treatments
• record patient’s disease status at onset of support and during
support
• identify primary tumour site and staging
• describe patient’s overall clinical status and medical condition
• report customization of any support modalities
• ethical conduct (see
CCRG’s ethics research policy)
With the recent emphasis on randomized,
controlled trials, Case Series Research studies have sometimes been
somewhat glibly maligned. In spite of this, they remain very important because many
questions can be efficiently answered by these methods. Often case
series studies are the only practicable method of studying various
problems especially in chronic disease instances or where a randomised
controlled trial might be unethical or in clinical situations where
subjects are quite varied and outcomes can be influenced by known and
unknown confounding variables. Medicine is not just a science—it is a
human activity. Often the only way to observe the larger picture is
through Case Series Research.
Science rarely has definitive and conclusive results. Our body's 60 trillion cells and their reaction to our environment is infinitely complex. It is comminly recognised that Case Series Research:
• does not typically distinguish between cause and effect. (note that most randomised clinical trials also cannot make this distinguishment because of the complexity of thousands of inter-related parameters.)
• can be difficult to interpret, largely because it is not known how
the research subjects relate to typical public subjects. (note that the effect of even potentially toxic pharmaceuticals on the mass public is often not clearly ascertained by clinical trials because of the large number of variables involved)
Does a clinical trial on a treatment or pharmaceutical guarantee
efficacy?
It is often misunderstood that clinical trials are the only form of
truth in evaluating efficacy of medical treatments. There is a new wave
of scientists and medical researchers that are starting to question the
relevance of this “gold standard” research. As with any research, the
study is only as good as the rigor with which it is conducted.
Miracle “Peer-reviewed” Cures That Weren’t (Source: Fortune,
2004)
Radiation therapy: Soon after Wilhelm Roentgen’s discovery of
X-rays in 1895, some doctors predicted that the high-energy waves from
exotic “cyclotrons” could be used to kill most cancerous tumors. A
century-plus later, targeted radiation is a critical weapon in the
oncologist’s arsenal but not the magic bullet many thought.
Interferon: In 1980, the world was afrenzy about the big “IF”—an
immune-system booster produced by the body in tiny quantities—as word
spread that this natural virus fighter could also shrink tumors. Though
still in use in some cancer therapies, IF has not fulfilled its early
promise.
Interleukin-2: Like Interferon, this protein helps activate the
body’s immune system. And like IF, IL-2 was once thought to be the
“cancer breakthrough” we were waiting for. But after years of testing
and tweaking, the therapy has led to only scattered remissions in
patients.
Endostatin: After a flurry of early hype, this first of many
compounds designed to fight tumor angiogenesis failed dramatically in
human tests. The jury is still out on its next-generation kin.
Gleevec: The little yellow pill from Novartis has wondrous effect
in a few rare cancers involving simple mutations, although the disease
can grow resistant to this “targeted” biological drug.
|
People with serious disease must recognize that drugs often go to market
without being fully optimized at the clinical trial level. Even
blockbuster drugs are not efficacious all the time and adverse drug
reactions cause many untimely deaths. "Right now, even the best of
medicines work in only 50% to 70% of the patients who get them,"
reported The Wall Street Journal in its April 16, 1999 issue. In
addition, adverse drug reactions in U.S. hospitals may be responsible
for more than 100,000 deaths nationwide each year, making it one of the
leading causes of death, according to an article in the April 14, 1998
issue of The Journal of American Medical Association.
CCRG strongly urges anybody with cancer to consider all information
available when assessing the optimum healthcare approach for yourself.
Clinical Studies Related to CCRG Compounds
Virtually all of the individual active components of CCRG compounds have
undergone third party clinical research studies to demonstrate their
safety and effectiveness in the defense against cancer and other immune
system disorders. Systematic reviews of individual clinical trials attempt to bring together all reports using a particular therapy or treatment, in order to evaluate the
therapy over a range of settings and patients groups. Positive impact on
cancer has been irrefutably concluded on many of the CCRG component
compounds.
CCRG is currently finalizing details for a clinical research study
that will further confirm the effectiveness of the CCRG protocol.
Research should commence in Q3/Q4 of 2006.
Top of Page |
