Author: Jay Kulsh

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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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.