Chemotherapy refers to the treatment of cancer by chemicals that kill cells, specifically cancer cells. Chemotherapy acts by killing cells that divide rapidly, one of the main properties of cancer cells. This means that it also harms cells that divide rapidly under normal circumstances: cells in the bone marrow, digestive tract and hair follicles; this results in the most common side-effects of chemotherapy-myelosuppression (decreased production of blood cells), mucositis (inflammation of the lining of the digestive tract) and alopecia (hair loss).

Chemotherapy was first proposed as a treatment for cancer right after World War II, when research on mustard gas demonstrated that it has the ability to kill living cells, particularly those which rapidly divide, such as those in the intestinal tract, bone marrow and lymph system. Doctors soon came up with the idea that they could use mustard gas to poison cancer, which constitutes the most rapidly dividing cells of all. In fact, many of the drugs we use today are close cousins of mustard gas one reason we find them so toxic (The Immortal Cell, Dr Gerald B Dermer, Avery Publishing Group, Garden City Park, 1994).

Oncologists define “cure” and “response” in different terms. They look only at “response” that is, shrinking the tumour as a measure of success, without considering whether it increases survival or improves quality of life. Dr Urich Abel, a German epidemiologist, who examined virtually all the articles (several thousand in all) on chemotherapy, plus the work of some 350 scientists working on cancer therapies, has found that when a tumour mass partially or temporarily disappears, those tumour cells which are remaining and resist the effect of the chemo can sometimes grow much faster afterward. Often, patients who did not respond to chemo survive longer than those who do (Der Spiegel: 1990; 33: 174-6. See also J Otolaryn, 1995; 24(4): 242-52).

A top NCI scientist has observed that for most forms of cancer, many patients may initially respond. But in only three forms of cancer ovarian, small cell lung cancer, acute nonlymphocytic leukemia did any appreciable percentage survive without disease, and even then it was, at best, less than a sixth of the total group of patients. In all the other types of cancer, disease free survival was rare.

Shrinkage of solid tumours should not be overinterpreted, as it often has little or no survival benefit, according to oncology consultant GM Mead of the Royal South Hants Hospital (BMJ, January 28, 1995). Major chemo manufacturer Bristol Myers discloses that only 11 per cent of patients taking the carboplatin and 15 per cent of patients taking cisplatin had a complete response to the drugs; remission lasted on average, about a year, and both types of patients survived, on average, only two years.

One of the most used chemotherapy drugs is cyclophosphamide, which comes from mustard gas. It can cause nausea, vomiting, hair loss, anorexia, and damage the blood, heart and lungs. Another drug, cisplastin (Platinol), made of the heavy metal platinum, can damage nerves, kidneys, and cause hearing loss and seizures. It can also cause deafness, irreversible loss of motor function, bone marrow suppression, anemia and blindness.

Mechlorethamine, an analogue of mustard gas (the “M” of MOPP treatment, the standard procotol for Hodgkin’s disease), is so toxic that those administering the drug are advised to wear rubber gloves and avoid inhaling it! This drug is known to cause thrombosis, jaundice, hair loss, nausea and vomiting. Merck, its manufacturer, warns in the PDR that “the margin of safety in therapy with MUSTARGEN is narrow and considerable care must be exercised in the matter of dosage. Repeated examinations of blood are mandatory as a guide to subsequent therapy. ”

Chemotherapy can cause heart problems, destroy bile ducts, cause bone tissue death, restrict growth, cause infertility, lower white and red cell counts and lead to intestinal and lactose malabsorption. 90 per cent of the time it doesn’t even work to eliminate the cancer completely.

Italian Oncologist Dr. T. Simoncini discovered some interesting facts:

The great lack of trust is evident even amongst doctors. Polls and questionnaires show that three doctors out of four (75 per cent) would refuse any chemotherapy because of its ineffectiveness against the disease and its devastating effects on the entire human organism.

This is what many doctors and scientists have to say about chemotherapy: “The majority of the cancer patients in this country die because of chemotherapy, which does not cure breast, colon or lung cancer. This has been documented for over a decade and nevertheless doctors still utilize chemotherapy to fight these tumors.” (Allen Levin, MD, UCSF, “The Healing of Cancer”, Marcus Books, 1990).

“If I were to contract cancer, I would never turn to a certain standard for the therapy of this disease. Cancer patients who stay away from these centers have some chance to make it.” (Prof. Gorge Mathe, “Scientific Medicine Stymied”, Medicines Nouvelles, Paris, 1989).

“Dr. Hardin Jones, lecturer at the University of California, after having analyzed for many decades statistics on cancer survival, has come to this conclusion: “… when not treated, the patients do not get worse or they even get better’. The unsettling conclusions of Dr. Jones have never been refuted.” (Walter Last, “The Ecologist”, Vol. 28, no. 2, March-April 1998).

“Many oncologists recommend chemotherapy for almost any type of cancer, with a faith that is unshaken by the almost constant failures.” (Albert Braverman, MD, “Medical Oncology in the 90s”, Lancet, 1991, Vol. 337, p. 901).

“Our most efficacious regimens are loaded with risks, side effects and practical problems; and after all the patients we have treated have paid the toll, only a miniscule percentage of them is paid off with an ephemeral period of tumoral regression and generally a partial one.” (Edward G. Griffin “World Without Cancer”, American Media Publications, 1996).

“After all, and for the overwhelming majority of the cases, there is no proof whatsoever that chemotherapy prolongs survival expectations. And this is the great lie about this therapy, that there is a correlation between the reduction of cancer and the extension of the life of the patient.” (Philip Day, “Cancer: Why we’re still dying to know the truth”, Credence Publications, 2000).

“Several full-time scientists at the McGill Cancer Center sent to 118 doctors, all experts on lung cancer, a questionnaire to determine the level of trust they had in the therapies they were applying; they were asked to imagine that they themselves had contracted the disease and which of the six current experimental therapies they would choose. 79 doctors answered, 64 of them said that they would not consent to undergo any treatment containing cis-platinum – one of the common chemotherapy drugs they used – while 58 out of 79 believed that all the experimental therapies above were not accepted because of the ineffectiveness and the elevated level of toxicity of chemotherapy.” (Philip Day, “Cancer: Why we’re still dying to know the truth”, Credence Publications, 2000).

“Doctor Ulrich Able, a German epidemiologist of the Heidelberg Mannheim Tumor Clinic, has exhaustively analyzed and reviewed all the main studies and clinical experiments ever performed on chemotherapy …. Able discovered that the comprehensive world rate of positive outcomes because of chemotherapy was frightening, because, simply, nowhere was scientific evidence available demonstrating that chemotherapy is able to ‘prolong in any appreciable way the life of patients affected by the most common type of organ cancer.’ Able highlights that rarely can chemotherapy improve the quality of life, and he describes it as a scientific squalor while maintaining that at least 80 per cent of chemotherapy administered in the world is worthless. Even if there is no scientific proof whatsoever that chemotherapy works, neither doctors nor patients are prepared to give it up (Lancet, Aug. 10, 1991). None of the main media has ever mentioned this exhaustive study: it has been completely buried” (Tim O’Shea, “Chemotherapy – An Unproven Procedure”).

“According to medical associations, the notorious and dangerous side effects of drugs have become the fourth main cause of death after infarction, cancer, and apoplexy” (Journal of the American Medical Association, April 15, 1998).

Before agreeing to a treatment, it is important to know what the treatment consist of. With this in mind, I have introduced below the main form of treatment used to treat cancer:



Chemotherapy – Chemotherapy was developed after scientists realised that the deadly Mustard gas used in the Second World War to kill people – Cyclophosphamide – could kill rapidly dividing cells such as those of cancer. Chemotherapy will kill all rapidly dividing cells (Our T and B cells responsible for our immune system would also be targeted as they divide rapidly).



Let’s see what reputable scientists are saying about this drug:



* Late Dr Hardin Jones, professor at the University of California in Berkeley concluded in 1975 after analysing cancer survival statistics for several decades that “patients are as well, or better off, untreated”.



* Dr Charles Moertel of the Mayo clinic in Baltimore said that the major chemotherapeutic drug, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) only produces an objective response in 15 to 20% of patients. Even then, improvements were only partial and temporary. This very poor result is offset by the toxicity of the drug and the disastrous emotional upsets caused by the side effects.



* A German epidemiologist Dr Ulrich Abel studied most of the published reports on chemotherapy and wrote to a further 350 cancer centres and experts and stated that “the success of most chemotherapy is appalling. There is no evidence for its ability to extend in any appreciable way the lives of patients suffering from the most common organic cancer”. He also commented that: “when a tumour mass partially or temporarily disappears, those tumour cells which remain can sometimes grow much faster afterwards. Often, patients who do not respond to chemotherapy survive longer than those who do”.



Dr Abel also published details of survival rates for cancer patients treated with chemotherapy as follows:



* Bladder – No statistics available



* Breast – No evidence of an increase in life expectancy



* Cervical/Uterine – No evidence of an increase in life expectancy



* Colorectal – No increase in life expectancy



* Gastric cancer – No evidence of improvement



* Head & neck – No improvement in life expectancy (tumours may shrink)



* Ovarian – No evidence of an increase in life expectancy



* Pancreatic – More negative than patients who were not treated



Depending on which specific chemotherapy drug is used, side effects include nausea, vomiting, hair loss, potential damage to nerves and kidneys, hearing loss, seizures, bone marrow suppression, anaemia, blindness, irreversible loss of motor function, thrombosis, mucositis, heart problems, destruction of bile ducts, bone tissue death, restricted growth, infertility, lower white and red cell count, increased risk of leukaemia (specially for women who received chemotherapy and radiation for breast cancer), ovarian failure, early menopause, lactose malabsorption etc..



Chemotherapy also often destroys the patient’s liver and kidneys with its harmful effects and negatively assaults their immune system.



Mechlorethamine, one of the drugs used is so toxic that medical staff handling it are advised to use gloves and avoid inhaling it.



A reference for medical personnel handling chemotherapy advises:



The potential risks involved in handling cytotoxic agents have become a concern for health care workers. The literature reports various symptoms such as eye, membrane, and skin irritation, as well as dizziness, nausea and headaches experienced by health care workers not using safe handling precautions.



In addition, increased concerns regarding mutagenesis and teratogenesis [deformed babies] continue to be investigated. Many chemotherapy agents, the alkylating agents in particular, are known to be carcinogenic [cancer causing] in therapeutic doses.



Medical personnel handling these drugs are advised to wear double latex gloves, mask, goggles and protective gown. Amazingly, needles used for injecting the lethal drug is classified as “hazardous waste” ! Incredible when we are told that this drug will cure our Cancer.



The medical journal (Lancet 1998) stated that Irinotecan, a new chemotherapy drug only extends survival by about 3 months but with many side effects.



Chemotherapy is also useless at helping with metastases in the liver (Arch Med Res, 1998). It has however been shown to increase the life of patients suffering from ovarian cancers by a few years and that of lung cancer patients by a few months.



Treatment of Hodgkin’s disease with chemotherapy has also shown positive results. However, girls treated this way also have a 35% chance of developing breast cancer in later life. All children treated this way also are 18 times more likely to develop secondary tumours.



As Chemotherapy has been found to be (1) carcinogenic (2) immunosuppressant (3) toxic (4) futile, why is it then that doctors keep prescribing it?



The answer is extremely simple: they do not know what else to do and wish to keep in line with what other doctors do. Although most know that chemotherapy only has a very small chance of success, they feel that unless they prescribe something, the patient will go elsewhere and, in most cases (for allopathic medicine), be prescribed chemotherapy. We have to understand that this is their training.



In a survey of 79 cancer doctors conducted by McGill University in the United States, 58 doctors stated that they would not be part of trials on Chemotherapy drugs. Why? Because of the ineffectiveness of Chemotherapy and its toxicity.

Heated Intraoperative Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy Mesothelioma Cancer Treatment

A procedure known as heated intraoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy was developed by Paul Sugarbaker at the Washington Cancer Institute.The surgeon removes as much of the tumor as possible followed by the direct administration of a chemotherapy agent, heated to between 40 and 48°C, in the abdomen. The fluid is perfused for 60 to 120 minutes and then drained.

This technique permits the administration of high concentrations of selected drugs into the abdominal and pelvic surfaces. Heating the chemotherapy treatment increases the penetration of the drugs into tissues. Also, heating itself damages the malignant cells more than the normal cells.

Dr. Paul Sugarbaker, renowned oncologic surgeon specializing in mesothelioma at the Washington Cancer Institute, developed a leading-edge surgical procedure to treat mesothelioma called heated intraoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy. In this procedure, as much of the tumor as possible is first removed by the surgeon. Following the removal of the tumor, a chemotherapy agent heated to between 40°C and 48°C is administered into the abdomen. The fluid is perfused for anywhere between one and two hours and then it is drained.

High concentrations of selected drugs can be administered into the abdominal and pelvic surfaces using this technique. The other benefit associated with using this technique to treat peritoneal mesothelioma is that the heated chemotherapy treatment increases the level to which the drugs can penetrate the tissues and damages malignant cells more than normal ones.

Coliseum Technique for Hyperthermic Intraoperative Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy

Cytoreductive surgery was attempted to make each patient macroscopically disease-free. At the end of the procedure, four closed suction catheters (Zimmer Inc, Warsaw, IN) were placed through the abdominal wall, using stab incisions, to lie beneath each hemidiaphragm and two within the pelvis (Figure 2). A Tenckhoff catheter (Quinton Inc, Seattle, WA) was placed through the abdominal wall if early postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy (EPIC) is planned. Otherwise, the Tenckhoff catheter was placed over the midline abdominal incision for use in HIIC. The Tenckhoff catheter functioned as an in-flow line. The closed suction catheters were used as drainage lines for intraoperative lavage and remained in place for postoperative abdominal drainage. Two temperature probes (Respiratory Support Products Inc. Irvine, CA) were then placed over the edge of the abdominal incision. One temperature probe was tied to the Tenckhoff catheter. The other temperature probe was tied to a closed suction drain at a distant location from the Tenckhoff. All transabdominal tubes were secured to the skin and to the peritoneum with purse string sutures to prevent fluid leakage. The Thompson retractor (Thompson Surgical Instruments, Traverse City, MI) was then repositioned as in Figure 2. The abdomen was left open with the skin edges suspended to the Thompson retractor with a number 2 running nylon suture. To prevent spillage of the chemotherapy and to control potential chemotherapy vapors, a plastic sheet was sutured to the wound edges. A slit incision was then made in the center of the plastic sheet to allow the surgeon access to all intraabdominal surfaces and to manually control the fluid distribution. After the hyperthermic perfusion was complete, bowel anastomoses and other reconstructive procedures were performed.

The hyperthermic perfusion with mitomycin C was carried out for ninety minutes using a HIIC custom tubing pack (Bard Cardiology, Haverhill, MA), two cardiopulmonary bypass pumps (Travenol Labs, Morton Grove, IL) and a Sarns heater/cooler unit (3M Cardiovascular Systems, Ann Arbor, MI). Three liters of 1.5% dextrose peritoneal dialysis solution containing the appropriate cytotoxic drug(s) were heated and infused at approximately 1 liter per minute into the abdominal cavity. The perfusate was heated to approximately 43oC. Temperatures were measured with a Labcraft digital thermometer (Curtin Matheson Scientific, Jessup, MD). The temperature at the In-Flow line was approximately 44oC. The Tenckhoff temperature probe was maintained between 42 and 43oC. The temperature probes and all temporary 3-0 chromic sutures were removed at the end of the hyperthermic perfusion.

Urine output was monitored by the anesthesiologist. At his or her discretion fluid challenge, furosemide, renal dose dopamine or mannitol were instituted to maintain a brisk diuresis. Urine output was measured every 15 minutes. It was maintained at greater than 400 cc per hour during the ninety minutes of the hyperthermic perfusion and for one hour thereafter.

In addition to intraoperative hyperthermic perfusion, patients with high grade tumor or incomplete cytoreduction received five days of early postoperative intraperitoneal chemotherapy. These five days of chemotherapy were given on postoperative days 1-5. Each dose was prepared in 1000 to 2000 cc of 1.5% dextrose peritoneal dialysis solution, depending on body size. Each dose was infused as quickly as possible, allowed to dwell for 23 hours then drained for one hour prior to the next infusion.

Levels of 5-FU were monitored in the peritoneal fluid and plasma of 9 patients on the first postoperative day. Three patients received cytoreductive surgery, HIIC and early postoperative 5-FU. Six patients received only cytoreduction and early postoperative 5-FU. Samples were obtained at regular intervals from 0 to 180 minutes post infusion.

Drug doses were as follows:

For pseudomyxoma peritonei and adenocarcinoma from appendiceal, colonic and rectal cancer:

Drug Day Route Dose Mitomycin C 0 IP 12.5 mg/m2 (max. 25 mg) for males or
10.0 mg/m2 (max 20 mg) for females in 3 liters. 5-Fluorouracil 1-5 IP 15 mg/m2 x 5 days

For gastric, pancreatic and ovarian cancer, mesothelioma, and sarcoma:

Drug Day Route Dose Cisplatin 0 IP 50 mg/m2 (max. 100 mg) Doxorubicin 0 IP 50 mg/m2 (max. 100 mg) Mitomycin C 0 IP 7 mg/m2 (max. 14 mg)

Doxorubicin 1-5 IP 15 mg/m2 x 5 days

Standardized dose reductions occurred as follows:

33% dose reduction for age > 65 years
33% dose reduction for patients with compromised renal function.
50% dose reduction for prior exposure to heavy chemotherapy or radiation therapy
Other dose reductions as deemed necessary by the Principal Investigator.

For patients undergoing pharmacokinetic monitoring, samples of plasma, urine and perfusate were obtained at fifteen minute intervals during the hyperthermic perfusion and at the end of the procedure. These measurements were used for pharmacokinetic calculations and to help relate possible complications to systemic and intraperitoneal drug levels.

Patients were monitored for complications associated with intraperitoneal hyperthermia including: enteral complications (fistulas, anastomotic leaks), wound complications (pancreatitis, bile leaks, wound dehiscence), hematologic toxicities, prolonged ileus and line sepsis.