X hits on this document

PDF document

Alternative Cancer Remedies - page 97 / 200

730 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

97 / 200

96

Alternate Cancer Remedies

try of Healing, 313.

That may have been one of the earliest posi- tions on a microorganism-causation of cancer. Back then, “germs” could refer either to bacteria or viruses. The closer distinctions we use today, were not commonplace then.

Throughout this brief historical overview, we have noted that Rife, Naessens, Enderlain, Coley, Stanislaw, Glover, Lincoln, Durovic, and Gregory all believed that cancer was caused by a microor- ganism.

In 1907, James Ewing, M.D., medical direc- tor of Memorial Hospital in New York City, listed 38 different kinds of protozoa, molds, bacilli, and spirochetes, which were possible causes of can- cer. Some even thought that parasites might be the cause.

But, by 1910, according to Michael Shimkin, M.D., in a 1976 NCI publication, “scientific con- sensus was for a noninfectious nature of cancer.” (M. Shimkin, Contrary to Nature, 176.)

Yet historical facts are not quite so neatly con- tained. Throughout most of the 20th century, as in the centuries before, many experienced physi- cians and researchers believed that cancer was caused by a “germ” of some kind.

As we found earlier in this historical review, in the first part of the century William Coley searched for a “mixed bacterial toxin” which could destroy cancer germs.

“Until it is settled beyond the shadow of a doubt that cancer is not due to a microorgan- ism, we believe that every effort should be made to stimulate to the utmost cancer research along these lines rather than to attempt to hinder or to discredit it.”—William Coley, American Jour- nal of Surgery, October 1926.

An intriguing claim had been advanced in 1910, when Peyton Rous, a medical researcher at the Rockefeller Institute said he had found an in- fectious agent in fowl—which would pass through the smallest filter known.

Rous was laughed to scorn by his contempo- raries, but the development of virology (the study of sub-microscopic organisms) caused scientists to re-examine Rous’ monograph. In 1966, at the age of 89, Rous was given the Nobel prize for his 1910 research.

But later official interest waned in viruses as a cause of cancer. But both viruses and bacteria have continued on as special topics of interest and study among cancer researchers and specialists.

In the latter part of this century, Dr. Virginia Wuerthele-Casp-Livingston-Wheeler (Dr. Living- ston, for short) has been at the center of the con- troversy over a bacterial origin of cancer.

It would require a lengthy paragraph to list all the medical hospitals, universities, and research departments that she has been affiliated with. By the early 1980s, she was working in San Diego at the Livingston-Wheeler Medical Clinic.

It was in 1946 that she first discovered that, injecting germs, which caused scleroderma, from a person to a guinea pig, caused cancer in the guinea pig—and cancer was extremely rare among guinea pigs.

At this juncture, her research caused Liv- ingston to adopt the theory we have noted sev- eral times earlier—that a microorganism can change in its size and shape.

“Instead of a bacillus being a bacillus, ad in- finitum, it can and does change into numerous other forms dictated by its need to survive or stimulated to greater productivity by an unusu- ally favorable environment.”—Virginia Living- ston, Cancer: A New Breakthrough, 1972.

By the early 1950s, her ideas were gaining fa- vor with many scientists, and she received grants from a number of foundations to carry on her re- search. She did much basic work at this time. It was decided that the organism in question was part of the Actinomycetales order, a family of germs (ibid.).

The famed researcher, Robert Koch (1843- 1910) had laid down four postulates which must be met in order to establish the microbial origin of any disease. Livingston and her associates said they had succeeded in achieving each one:

1. The organism must be present in every case of the disease which is examined.

2. The organism can be cultivated outside the host animal in an artificial medium.

3. Inoculation of this culture into a suscep- tible animal will produce the disease in it.

4. The germ can be obtained from the inocu- lated animal and cultivated once again.

By this time, in addition to her other work, Livingston was caring for 20-30 cancer patients daily at the Presbyterian Hospital in Newark. She obtained blood from them and injected it into guinea pigs. By doing this, the incidence of cancer among guinea pigs could be increased from the natural rate of 1 in 500,000 to 1 in 4. According to Livingston, the cancer microbe crossed the species line. This could mean, for example, that eating cancerous meat could induce cancer in the one eating it.

Livingston named this cancer-causing microbe Progenitor cryptocides (meaning “the hidden an- cestral killer”), and declared that animals could catch it from man, and that man could catch it from animals—especially by eating the contami-

Document info
Document views730
Page views730
Page last viewedMon Dec 05 15:04:53 UTC 2016
Pages200
Paragraphs5906
Words148734

Comments