…languishing because there is little money in it!

This scientific breakthrough cancer treatment is non-toxic and effective. But it has been languishing for more than 25 years because it cannot be patented and is very low-cost.

It really is true! Please read on…

This cancer therapy is based on blocking a critical enzyme in uncontrolled cell growth, Ribonucleotide Reductase (RR), which converts building blocks of RNA into DNA. The free-radical (lone electron) at the active-site of enzyme RR can be quenched (paired-up) by a stream of electrons or low-level electric current. Thus gentle electrotherapy would disable enzyme RR and arrest cancer growth. Alas, this therapy would cripple the cash flow of cancer institutions; hence they won’t touch it!

My two scientific publications, in 1997 and 2014, describe the theoretical basis of this (GEIPE) cancer treatment along with ample supporting experimental evidence, with both animals and humans:
Breakthrough Cancer Treatment – 1997 Publication => (Click here)
Breakthrough Cancer Treatment – 2014 Publication => (Click here)

Top research institutions like National Cancer Institute and MD Anderson Cancer Center have acknowledged the validity of this approach to treat cancer. See:
June 1994 Letter of MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA

It states: “… the [electrotherapy] information are interesting and deserving of further investigation.”… “We will keep the material on file should opportunities arise to study the effects of electric currents on regression of tumors.”

That “opportunity” has not come in more than 25 years, though funds needed to explore electrotherapy would be miniscule. (I have written to hundreds of cancer institutions around the world; MD Anderson Cancer Center was one of the very few that responded.) Self-preservation! Chemo and radiation oncologists don’t want to lose their jobs, do they?

This cancer therapy should be applicable to all cancers since malignant cells in any tissue need to synthesize their DNA to grow. At molecular level, cancer is a single disease!


Scientific Proof of Efficacy of This Treatment:

The very first cancer electrotherapy study was published in 1959 in journal ‘Science’. In it, two Johns Hopkins scientists reported “total regression” of tumor in 60% of mice, which was highly remarkable for a maiden study.
Breakthrough Cancer Treatment – Journal ‘Science’ Article (1959)
Mysteriously, authors did not do follow-up studies.

In 1985, a study published in preeminent journal ‘Cancer Research’ reported up to 98% tumor-shrinkage – virtual cure – after only 5 hours of gentle electrotherapy over 5 days.
Breakthrough Cancer Treatment – Journal ‘Cancer Research’ Article (1985)

Despite such positive results, further funding was denied. Please see response of the lead author to me:
Letter of Author Dr MA Herbert of the Remarkable 1985 “Cancer Research” Study
Together, we applied for a grant from CapCure Foundation but were turned down.


Help of National Cancer Institute; Inaction by City of Hope:

In 1994, National Cancer Institute found my ideas “very interesting” and referred me to Dr. Chou of City of Hope Medical Center (near LA) who was working with electric currents.
May 1994 Letter of National Cancer Institute, USA

A colleague of Dr. Chou, Dr. Y. Yen – PhD and MD, who had just moved from Yale — happened to be working with enzyme RR. He fully agreed with my premise. But City of Hope management nixed the collaboration, as the therapy would not bring [moneyed] patients.
Details of meeting at City of Hope National Medical Center

Dr. Y. Yen continued to work on enzyme RR, publishing dozens of papers — and touting its inhibition an important aim in anti-cancer chemo-therapeutic drug design.
Ribonucleotide reductase inhibitors and future drug design

Such chemo drugs have limited effectiveness and high toxicity. Dr. Yen DOES NOT MENTION that the enzyme RR can be easily disabled – in non-toxic way – by mild electric current.

He recently became president of Taipei Medical University, Taiwan. In May 2016, I sent him my two publications, and implored him to explore and standardize the therapy. He was “glad to know your good progress…” but claimed “I moved to Taiwan and no longer work on this project.”

How? In 2016, he published at least two papers on enzyme RR. The Taipei Medical University has a large “Center for Cancer Research” with 25+ scientists, including Dr. Yun Yen. Do cancer researchers not work on finding better treatments? Otherwise WHAT DO THEY DO?


Universality of GEIPE Cancer Treatment:

This cancer therapy should be applicable to all cancers since malignant cells in any tissue need to synthesize their DNA to grow. At molecular level, cancer is a single disease!

We offer our GEIPE device for only visible/palpable cancers, simply because they can be treated as a home-remedy, without any assistance from a medical professional. Otherwise, the principle of GEIPE treatment (use of gentle electricity) is universally applicable, as shown by the following 2 examples.

Already in use to treat brain and spinal cord tumors:

See this link at webmd.com: FDA Approves New Electrical Fields Device for Brain Tumor Treatment
And, this link at cancer.org: Alternating Electric Field Therapy for Adult Brain & Spinal Cord Tumors

Proven effective for leukemia using The Kanzius Machine:

The esteemed news-magazine “60 Minutes” of CBS has broadcast two episodes on The Kanzius Machine for treating cancer.
Apr. 2008 Episode of “60 Minutes” about Kanzius Machine 
Oct. 2009 Episode of “60 Minutes” about Kanzius Machine

A radio engineer John Kanzius, suffering from leukemia, built a machine that uses radio waves to produce a stream of electrons (RF current) as indicated by lighting-up of a fluorescent tube put in the path. Both he and Dr. S. Curley of MD Anderson Cancer Center initially thought that RF current/energy of the machine would heat metal nanoparticle embedded in cancer, and thus cook/destroy tumor.

However, in desperation, Mr. Kanzius started treating himself with just RF current, without any metal; lo and behold, his leukemia started receding. (Unbeknownst to him, most likely he was blocking enzyme RR thereby destroying cancer.) Mr. Kanzius was almost completely healed but unfortunately, he was made to go thru an intense chemo regime. The toxicity of the drug, according to Dr. Curley, killed him.

Dr. S. Curley kept doing studies with Kanzius machine, and after a few years, concluded that it does heal without any extra agent like metal nanoparticle. But that machine is NOT available to any cancer patient! A private company now owns it and has taken it off the market, for reasons you can guess.

Luckily, RF currents can be produced at multiple radio frequencies, including in CB radio range. Thus cancer patients can benefit from this protocol of GEIPE therapy once parameters are standardized.


Finally, why this breakthrough cancer treatment is the Most Scientific:

On May 12, 2016 in New York Times, one of the fathers of molecular biology, James Watson (of Watson-Crick DNA double helix fame) who spent 3 decades exploring genetic aspects of cancer, stated:

Locating the genes that cause cancer has been “remarkably unhelpful” … If he were going into cancer research today, he would study biochemistry rather than molecular biology.

Also note that most cancers are caused by chemicals (carcinogens) and therefore we should focus on biochemistry, rather than biology, of a cancer cell.

And according to biochemistry,

  • Whatever takes place in a biological cell is controlled by one or more enzymes.
  • For cancerous cell growth, the most critical enzyme is Ribonucleotide Reductase, RR, since it controls the rate-limiting step in DNA synthesis, without which cells cannot replicate or grow.
  • This GEIPE therapy disables RR by biophysical means. It is a non-toxic treatment with high degree of efficacy in both animals and humans. (Various cancer chemo drugs aim to block this enzyme, but with only partial success and much attendant toxicity.)
  • GEIPE treatment seems to selectively target cancer cells since active-site of enzyme RR in healthy cells is well-shielded. In malignant cells, where RR enzyme is in over-drive, due to mutations, the active-site likely becomes exposed, and thus vulnerable to a stream of electrons.
  • There is considerable evidence that cancer is initiated at the active-site of enzyme RR. (Dr. Yun Yen certainly thinks so.) Thus by targeting this enzyme, we may be nipping cancer in the bud.

We need to start a grass-root movement of concerned citizens, cancer patients, journalists and elected representatives. They should ask cancer institutions why this scientific, non-toxic and effective cancer treatment is not being established?

Cancer Cure Conspiracy Theories are true! Here is the “Smoking Gun”:

Countless cancer researchers working around the globe for Non-Profit and For-Profit companies would sure like to find an effective treatment, and possibly the cure, for cancer, but not if that treatment or cure is non-patentable and very inexpensive. (In such a case, no cancer institution will reap financial rewards and hundreds of thousands would be out of work.)

It so happens that an entirely scientific, non-toxic and effective cancer treatment is just that – not patentable and low-cost. It really is true! What is more, the top cancer institutions have acknowledged the validity of this approach to treat cancer but have done nothing to establish it in more than 20 years. Taken together these facts constitutes “the smoking gun” in favor of conspiracy theorist.

For details about (1) this remarkable GEIPE cancer treatment – which is based on biophysically-blocking, using mild electric current, the most critical enzyme Ribonucleotide Reductase in uncontrolled cell growth, which has free-radical (unpaired-electron) at its active-site, and (2) communications with top cancer institutions, including National Cancer Institute, please see the main article.

Also note:

  • The very first article on this cancer treatment was published in highly regarded journal Science in 1959, reporting “total regression” of tumor in 60% of mice. No follow-up studies were ever done or published.
  • The 1985 article in esteemed journal Cancer Research reported up to 98% tumor-shrinkage – virtual cure – after only 5 hours of gentle electrotherapy over 5 days. Again, the follow up studies were never done, this time due to denial of funding.

This treatment is likely to end sufferings and deaths of millions of cancer patients around the world. But it will also cause unprecedented upheaval for people and organizations engaged in cancer-related fields. Hence the immense resistance! More people make a living from cancer than die from it. As Upton Sinclair said, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

With this background, it should be easy to see why all the arguments given against Cancer Cure Conspiracy Theories would fall apart. Here are the main ones, with detailed rebuttals:

REBUTTALS of Arguments against Cancer Cure Conspiracy Theories

  1. Many cancer institutions are Non-profit. Why would they be against an inexpensive and effective cancer treatment?

REBUTTAL: Even non-profit institutions have many – doctors, nurses and support staff – employed in the fields of chemo and radiation therapy. If this GEIPE cancer treatment is established, those toxic treatments may become obsolete, causing many layoffs — and downsizing of these institutions. For the well-paid executives and doctors of non-profits, such major disruption is not a welcome scenario.

  1. Most researchers would value world-wide recognition and fame over money and thus why will they not bring out an effective cancer treatment, even if does not make much money?

REBUTTAL: The idea of non-toxic and effective GEIPE cancer treatment – which has potential to be a cure – has come from an independent scientist, who never had a career as a cancer researcher. Thus no cancer institution or professional cancer researcher would have claim to primary recognition. They will get secondary fame for helping to establish this treatment, but none of them – all major, and many minor, cancer institutions around the world have been contacted – have shown any interest. The status-quo is quite comfortable, if not lucrative, to them.

  1. Why would countries with socialized medicine, like those in Europe, who could dramatically cut their healthcare costs, not be interested in establishing this treatment?

REBUTTAL: The top ten cancer institutions in UK, a country with socialized medicine, have been contacted (by postal mail). So have a few institutions in Germany and Russia (via email). Those who responded claimed not to have proper facilities to conduct studies to establish this cancer treatment. When I wrote back, with additional evidence of healing of human patients, and suggestion that cost of setting up such a facility will be less than what a single cancer patient normally spends on his/her treatment, none of them bothered to reply. This lack of response is understandable in terms of ‘self-preservation’ of cancer hospitals in these countries; it this treatment is established, those hospitals would need to downsize considerably, as chemo- and radio- therapies would become obsolete.

  1. Why would insurance companies continue paying for expensive yet inefficacious treatments when a cheap and effective cure is available?

REBUTTAL: The insurance companies cannot make cancer institutions explore and establish any cancer treatment. These institutions have scientists/doctors who can come up with myriad excuses to wiggle out of such a commitment. About the GEIPE treatment, oncologists sometimes ask: Where are results of clinical trials to show efficacy of this treatment? Of course, such evidence does not exist because no cancer center would even undertake animal studies of this treatment, let alone human trials. Thus we are in a Catch-22 situation where oncologists demand something which only they can provide.

Just as importantly, insurance companies don’t pay the big bills of cancer treatments from their pockets. The money ultimately comes from premiums of customers/patients. When medical bills are high, the insurance premiums are high, and so are that profits of insurance companies which are percentage of this money-stream.

  1. Cancer Companies are already choosing prevention over profit.

REBUTTAL: Cancer institutions certainly are in favor of prevention of the disease. High taxes on tobacco-products and ban on their use from public places are perhaps the best examples of this. However such preventive measures hardly make any dent on the profitability of cancer centers. The number of people getting cancer is more of less same, and cost of treatments only goes up.

  1. Cancer is not one disease, and so how can a single cure be possible or hidden?

REBUTTAL: On the biochemical level, cancer is, in fact, a single disease! (Remember, for the most part, cancer is caused by chemicals, so biochemical pathways must play a critical role in spread of the disease.) All cells must go thru certain biochemical steps to multiply, no matter what organ or tissue. One of these essential steps is synthesis of DNA. The GEIPE treatment aims to arrest the uncontrolled cell growth by disrupting the supply of building blocks of DNA, and thus would apply to all cancers.

  1. Medical researchers and their families are just as susceptible to cancer as anyone else. What would they not bring a cancer cure in the open?

REBUTTAL: This is perhaps the strongest arguments against cancer cure conspiracy theorist. However, any proposed cancer treatment has to go thru many stages, many studies, before its effectiveness is proven. The GEIPE treatment has been languishing for more than two decades because cancer institutions are simply not interested in investigating such a low-cost treatment. And when there is no confirmed effective cancer treatment, no cancer researcher would have to think about this option for his loved ones suffering from cancer. (Luckily, theoretical underpinnings of GEIPE treatment are very solid and it is so effective that only a few animal and human studies have shown its great promise.)

At least 99% of cancer researchers don’t even know about this treatment since only the heads of the cancer institution or the decision-makers are contacted. Per chance, if a director of cancer center has some loved one suffering from cancer and I contact him/her at the right time, he/she might consider exploring it, but it has not happened so far. (That head will also think about the future financial health of the institution making his/her decision difficult.) Please note that despite extremely promising results of two animal studies – published in esteemed journals Science and Cancer Research – they were never followed up, as if cancer researchers don’t want to face the prospect of such a non-patentable and inexpensive treatment.

Finally, establishment of this effective and low-cost cancer treatment will certainly cause some temporary economical upheaval, but this disruption would have been much less in 1985 or 1994. And it will be much worse if we wait, since money being spent on cancer goes up every year.