Dangerous Philosophy of Treatment in Medical Science

Beldeu Singh
February, 2006

Would medical science prescribe a cancer causing drug to cancer patients? Last March, the federal government issued an unusually detailed alert to the nation’s 5.5 million health care workers: The powerful drugs used in chemotherapy can themselves cause cancer and pose a risk to nurses, pharmacists and others who handle them (The Washington Post, Tuesday, February 15, 2005; Page HE01, Jim Morris). Chemotherapy drugs in human and animal studies have shown they have the potential to cause cancer or reproductive problems, said Thomas Connor, a research biologist with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).

Chemo-drugs, like radiation generate huge amounts of the highly reactive hydroxyl radical that damages cell membranes and disrupts the electron transport system in cells and protein synthesis. The natural enzyme and micronutrient levels drop rapidly and that accelerates cell death. Such a new surge of free radicals generated by chemo-drugs are cytotoxic to cancer cells as well as normal cells and many young normal cells die due to the treatment. Most of the known carcinogens, including benzene and at least 40 other toxic chemicals in cigarette smoke and chemicals in pesticides generate free radicals that create oxidative stress in cells and on their aerobic respiration or damaging DNA and mDNA, turning them into cancer cells. It is the very same toxicity that is common to carcinogens and chemo-drugs. Hence the NOISH alert comes as no surprise, really.

What is surprising is that medical science attempts to cure a condition caused by or associated with excess free radicals by putting more toxic drugs into the body that actually generate huge amounts of free radicals in the body. Consider the micronutrient depletion capacity of chemo-drugs in conjunction with studies that indicate micronutrient deficiencies as one of the causes of cancer. Micronutrient deficiencies can shut down the electron transport system and block protein synthesis as well as the ATP energy cycle. Some energy deprived cells then transform into cancer cells by switching to the alcohol or anaerobic respiration.

Now lets take a look at the treatment philosophy in the case of AIDS patients. The AZT package insert reads – “AZT use “MAY BE ASSOCIATED WITH HEMATOLOGIC TOXICITY INCLUDING GRANULOCYTOPENIA AND SEVERE ANEMIA” (destruction of white and red blood cells respectively), and “PROLONGED USE OF RETROVIR HAS BEEN ASSOCIATED WITH SYMPTOMATIC MYOPATHY (gross atrophy of muscle tissue) SIMILAR TO THAT PRODUCED BY HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS”. In other words it clearly implies that AIDS can be caused by prescribing AZT – the very “medicine” “intended” to cure people with AIDS. And when you consider the extreme toxicity of this poison and its documented effects on how it ravages the immune system and depletes mDNA, one begins to wonder on the obsession of modern medicine, not only its perverse direction but also how safe is the allopathic system of medicine to healthy cellular biochemistry.

The drug based system requires serious scrutiny through education simply because it cannot be carried out nor controlled by regulatory authorities and governments. The industry is powerfully rich. Through this drug based system, millions of kilograms of toxic drugs enter human bodies every month and the legitimate health systems are the conduit for toxic drugs. You get a medical degree on this system. Practically every allopathic drug is toxic and generates free radicals in the body which show up as side effects and as complications of the drugs. Some drugs generate more free radicals than others and are more toxic.

The Physician’s Desk Reference officially advocates AZT therapy but indicated only for “AIDS” or “ARC”patients who either had “a history of cytologically confirmed Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia (PCP) or an absolute CD4 (T4 helper/inducer) lymphocyte count of less than 200/mm3 in the peripheral blood before therapy is begun.” Tragically this changed dramatically in August, when a series of press releases were issued by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and other branches of the Public Health Service (PHS), claiming that AZT was beneficial for “HIV-infected” persons with “mild symptoms of immune system damage” and also for “HIV- infected persons who have not yet developed symptoms” (see;AZT and Cancer, New York Native, 1987 October 19th, John Lauritsen).

AZT was now being promoted as “beneficial”, almost placing it near to supplements made from fruits and edible plants (or in the GRAS category) while in some countries doctors are not allowed to prescribe supplements. This represents a watershed and we have crossed the Rubicon, having made the shift from restoring health to treatment by drugs, even if that means to tango with death as in the case of AZT and some of the chemo-drugs.

You can now have an interesting movie plot based on AZT. This is how it goes. The FBI has evidence of mafia activity and murders that point to a mafia boss but the evidence will not stand up in court as it also involves illegal wiretapping by some well meaning good guys. While they are certain of the involvement of the mafia boss there is nothing much that they can do legally. Frustrated, but intent on justice, one of them suggests that the family physician of the mafia boss be called in to play his dutiful role to society in getting rid of evil. In the mean time, the mafia boss makes a trip to Brazil where he contracts malaria and quickly flies back to get further treatment in the US. So, a blood test is done and as in all malaria patients or those recovering from malaria, it tests positive for “HIV” – a virus that does not exists. AZT therapy begins which rapidly depletes mDNA and chronic fatigue sets in followed by muscle wasting and accompanied by destruction of white blood cells and red blood cells. The blood antioxidant levels drop rapidly after a several months. In eighteen months, the goose is cooked and the mafia boss is laid to rest from the ravaging effects of AZT. A legitimate death with the help of a “good” doctor has helped the FBI in doing justice.

The prescription of AZT highlights a grave issue in modern medicine and there are strong currents that are underway to promote allopathic drugs and to suggest the use of such drugs for prevention of certain conditions although evolutionary biology and cell biochemistry prove that for optimal cellular function in healthy individuals, cells in plants and animals do not incorporate allopathic drugs in their Krebs cycle or the electron transport system or in protein synthesis or in the production of antibodies or hormones or any other metabolic activity in healthy cells. Yet, the allopathic system of medicine advocates and promotes the use of toxic drugs to treat disease conditions in humans and it being the established system, all other systems are alternatives.

AZT, like the chemo-drugs may also have a deleterious effect on the electron transport system in healthy cells and that may explain the incidence of cancers in patients who are administered the poison on a long term basis.

As part of the establishment, the allopathic fraternity may succeed in ushering out a health science syllabus for schools and colleges that advocates natural antioxidants, an active lifestyle spiced with exercise, variations in a healthy diet and other micronutrients in a bioavailable form to use of drugs in the prevention of certain conditions!

The claim that AZT was beneficial for “HIV-infected” persons with “mild symptoms of immune system damage” and also for “HIV- infected persons who have not yet developed symptoms” is aimed at spreading the use of a known poison. And, of course that means more big bucks and revenue from a wider use.

Such a strategy is not an isolated event confined to AZT. It is an established strategy employed to generate more revenue by expanding the use of allopathic drugs either to a wider audience or to encourage their long term use, as if these were health supplements.

One good example is found in the June issue of the Archives of Ophthalmology. The article states – “The long term use of statins to control hypercholesterolemia – one of the leading cause of blindness among people older than 63. This information was reproduced in “MEDICAL BRIEFS” (Medical Tribune 15-30 June 2004, p 3). Medical Briefs summed up the analysis of the researchers by saying “The use of statins for 24 months or more was associated with a significant reduction in risk for glaucoma. The use of nonstatin cholesterol-lowering medications was also associated with a significantly reduced risk for glaucoma.” The article further promoted the long term use of statins by stating “the results indicate the intriguing possibility that long term oral statins may reduce risk of open-angle glaucoma, particularly among those with with cardiovascular and lipid diseases.”

Is this twisted science or just a fallacy or something based on half truths? Lets examine the issue closely. In the Medical Briefs, there is no caution on the long term use of statins or other cholesterol-lowering drugs or if they also lower the natural coenzyme Q10 production in the body that could precipitate a health problem or disruption in glycolysis. We know that the more LDL-cholesterol in the blood, the greater is the risk of heart disease. The link between high LDL and glaucoma are not explained in the Medical Brief. The cause of glaucoma is not known, but many doctors believe it is related to poor blood flow to the optic nerve. Glaucoma is more common in those who have a history of vascular disease.

Glaucoma actually represents many different diseases, affecting all age groups from newborns to the elderly. It can be very painful, or can progress without any symptoms. Glaucoma is a major cause of irreversible blindness. Glaucoma is often associated with high pressure in the eyes, however a high percentage of people with glaucoma have normal or even low pressure. Ultimately, the final cause of vision loss in each type of glaucoma is an inability to get the needed nutrients to the cells of the retina and optic nerve, as well as to remove metabolic wastes and any other toxins that may be present in these tissues of the central nervous system and drug treatment for hypertension can increase glaucoma damage (http://www.wizardofeyez.com/glaucoma.html). So, what is the link between glaucoma, cardiovascular disease and drugs used to treat cardiovascular disease?

The answer may lie in the fact that macula degeneration, cataract, glaucoma and cardiovascular disease are caused by excess free radicals or associated with the lowering of the blood antioxidant levels with increasing age. Obese people and people with diabetes have relatively more free radicals in their bodies. Free radicals cause protein damage. If proteins in the lens of the eye are damaged by free radicals, the damaged proteins form cross links that reduce the amount of light entering the eye and vision is also affected if proteins found in the capillaries of the eye is damaged by free radicals, they may react with sugars in the blood and may get attached to the capillary walls and reduce blood flow. Similarly, oxidized LDL may get deposited in the capillaries of the eye and reduce blood flow. Reduced blood flow will only aid the degenerative process in the affected areas of the eye. Most allopathic drugs generate free radicals and the drugs used to treat cardiovascular disease add to the excess free radical population in the body of people with cardiovascular disease and help in the progression of glaucoma (and other conditions).

So, the observation of researchers in the article in the Archives of Opthalmology is based on the fact that reduced LDL levels means a lower risk of oxidized LDL being deposited in the capillaries of the eyes. That means a proper scientific conclusion ought to be stated in terms of the benefits of a high HDL/LDL ratio with a low LDL level and promoting a diet rich in antioxidants. The reduced risk of glaucoma is therefore due to a lower risk of oxidized LDL (by lowering it) and it should not be said that “the long term use of statins may reduce the risk of glaucoma”.

Scientific temper must attempt to unravel the truth for the actual benefit of humanity and human health. Science must never be twisted to promote the revenues of corporations that sell drugs such that their bottom line improves at the expense of human health. Hence, medical literature must be continually scrutinized.

The bulk of degenerative diseases are age related and related to excess free radicals in the body. Antiaging is achieved by scavenging free radicals effectively by antioxidants and thereby to improve cellular function and reverse the degenerative change or slow down the progress of the degenerative condition. While many physicians will rely on clinical nutrition, the allopathic system of medicine has opted for synthetic antioxidants rather than natural antioxidants primarily because of business reasons associated with registering patents. Subsequent research may prove that the spent synthetic antioxidant molecule, not being part of healthy cellular biochemistry as evolutionary biology did not select it and incorporate it into normal cellular biochemistry, may actually be dangerous and able to produce side effects by generating free radicals in the body.

Another approach taken to promote the use of multiple drugs and is aimed to get more doctors to use more aggressive therapy earlier and this entails combination therapies using two or three drugs leaving out the nutritional needs required to improve cellular function. To those who know the free radical generating capacity of drugs, this only means more complications especially in long term use but a new “hypothesis that (high insulin) may play a role in the (development of colon cancer) even in a relatively lean population” (NST Jan 19, 2006 p 35) is clearly a creative piece of medical literature. While many studies in many parts of the world show a correlation or an association between diabetes and cancers, it can hardly be concluded that “high insulin levels” play a role in the development of cancers. Insulin is a normal biochemical produced by the pancreas to regulate glucose levels in the blood and provide energy to cells. It is ludicrous to suggest that high insulin causes cancer or even that it plays a role in the development of cancers.

Increased oxidative stress leads to higher levels of oxidized LDL which is a risk factor in cardiovascular disease. In the diabetic population, where increased oxidative stress is a typical finding, studies have shown that the increased oxidative damage to LDL cholesterol found in diabetics can be significantly lowered by increasing free radical scavenging activity. One of the best-studied groups is the diabetic population, where increased oxidative stress is a typical finding. This is not, however, irreversible – studies have shown that the increased oxidative damage to LDL cholesterol found in diabetics can be significantly improved via antioxidant supplementation.

ROS can also attack nitric oxide (NO) and convert it into the NO radical. The NO radical interacts with superoxide anion to form the peroxynitrite anion (ONOO–), an aggressive radical that is capable of attacking many biologically important molecules including proteins, hormones and insulin. The destructured insulin cannot bind to its receptor sites and consequently glucose cannot pass across the cell wall from the bloodstream. The cell becomes energy deficient while the blood sugar level begins to rise. Free radical damaged circulating biomolecules and excess peroxynitrite radicals can initiate free radical chain reactions that may cause oxidative stress and disease states at other sites producing conditions such as arthritis, cardiovascular disease, ED etc or cause oxidative stress in the brain resulting in depression or psychiatric disorders, Parkinson’s disease or Alzheimer’s due to excessive lipid peroxidation and neuronal degeneration in the brain. This explains why supplementation by natural antioxidants and minerals in bioavailable form can reduce oxidative damage in diabetics.

The link between diabetes and increased risk of cancers can found firstly in the fact that diabetics have relatively more free radicals in their bodies. Secondly, this contributes to a higher possibility of free radical damage to insulin that cannot bind to its receptor sites on the cell and hence glucose cannot pass into the cell. Thirdly, there is the higher risk of oxidative stress on the receptor sites for insulin. Again this prevents glucose from entering the cell and it becomes energy deficient. Prolonged energy deprivation causes the cell to switch from aerobic respiration to anaerobic respiration at which point it becomes a cancer cell. That explains the link between diabetes and the higher incidence of cancers in diabetics.

Certainly, the hypothesis that high insulin levels play a role in cancer development is wrong and it only serves to promote allopathic drugs to lower insulin, which drugs do not remove oxidative stress to prevent free radical damage to insulin nor do they remove oxidative stress on insulin receptor sites to promote the movement of glucose from the bloodstream into cells where it is used to produce energy. Again, the answer for better management of the diabetic condition and reducing the risk of cancer development in diabetics lies in the use of natural antioxidants.