The Treatment of Cancer with Phenergan and Calcium
By Robert Jones MA PhD, August 2009
CISS promotes alternative cancer therapies that have proven evidence for survival benefits as shown in results from randomised controlled clinical trials. We also mention self-help therapies that do no harm and have a good basis in scientific research. One of the therapies in this second group follows from the unique work conducted by Dr. Robert Jones (a London based Bio-Chemist) on the Treatment of Cancer with Low Dose Phenothiazines. The particular drug used is promethazine which has a striking selectivity of action and with a safety which contrasts vividly with the disappointing success rates and serious iatrogenic effects of almost all current forms of mainstream cancer treatments. This is the latest version of the research paper by Dr Jones which has been published before in our newsletter and appears on our website (www.ciss.org.au).People with cancer interested in following the promethazine protocol are encouraged to read the papers online and consult with the CISS if necessary. It is also essential to have the help and support of your medical practitioner. Keeping your oncologist fully informed is absolutely essential when undertaking any supplementary or alternative treatment pathways. Accurate reports of progress need to be kept and are necessary to determine a successful outcome. CISS members who use the therapy are welcome to report their progress to Dr Jones who is happy to answer any of their questions.
The two outstanding problems in cancer treatment are first, the achievement of selectivity, and second, the total eradication of secondary tumour spread (metastasis). With many malignancies therapy with the phenothiazine Phenergan (promethazine) solves both at a stroke. Provided sensitivity is initially present, some measure of success in terms of improved quality of life, prolonged survival, or perhaps even remission, can be expected. Phenergan therapy offers an attractive alternative in countries where medical services are difficult to access or expensive.
The basic therapy is the result of a long investigation standing fully in the tradition of academic research. It has been known for centuries that on rare occasions Nature herself can destroy malignant growths; for example, during an attack of erysipelas. Precisely the same principle of destruction, namely, the selective disruption of energy metabolism, is exploited here. On the other hand most conventional treatments seek to impose an artificial form of death upon tumours. Because cancerous cells obstinately refuse to die in the preconceived manner laid down for them, the failure rate is unacceptably high. There may also be horrendous side effects and sharply increased risks.
Unlike many standard treatments the procedures are highly selective. The active principle triggers a cytotoxic mechanism (necrosis) within the malignant cell; energy metabolism provides the chemotherapeutic target. The schedules set out here aim to destroy both primary and secondary growths in two stages; first, by bringing about extensive tumour destruction over a period of a few hours, and then by a process of attrition. These are early pioneering days; not all cancers have been found to be sensitive.
Very reasonably, patients want to know if their particular form of disease is likely to respond to the procedures described here. Forms of the disease which have displayed sensitivity to Procedure I include non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, lung cancer and a chordoma; instances of breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and cancer of the oesophagus, all with secondary spread, also responded. Less experience has been gained with Procedure II, but no differences are anticipated. Malignancies found to be insensitive are listed in  below.
Individuals struck down with the disease understandably respond with resentment, sometimes anger, at the injustice of their dreadful predicaments. As if the initial diagnosis is not bad enough, to be told, perhaps abruptly, that a treatment has been unsuccessful is a worse experience that may be lurking in store. Cancer patients deserve respect and dignity; the intentions are to spare further anguish, to extend survival, to improve quality of life, and to provide a chance of physical healing.
There may be a positive response; there may not. No guarantee of a successful outcome can be given. Sincere apology is made to patients whose conditions fail to respond. On several occasions relapse has followed tumour regression. Patients should be alert to this scenario and be prepared for the worst. In these instances only a single cancer cell needs to have undergone transformation (genetic mutation) into a drug resistant state. Such an event can happen at any time (see  below). The tumour will then consist of both sensitive and insensitive cells; after the therapy has killed the sensitive cells off, the insensitive cells gain the upper hand. The best hope then is surgery, but if resistant cells have already spread the outlook is poor.
Although certain drugs not classified as anti-cancer agents can cause limited injury to tumours by interfering with energy production, only very few are suitable for cancer treatment. Some belong to the group known as phenothiazines, a number of which have been in use for over sixty years. Their diverse uses include the treatment of psychoses, nausea, allergy, the enhancement of analgesia and as muscle relaxants. Phenergan, the active principle in this form of cancer therapy, is currently used as a paediatric sedative, as an anti-histaminic, and to quell travel sickness. The agent has also been used as an anti-emetic in patients undergoing conventional chemotherapy, but, unlike chlorpromazine (Largactil) whose effectiveness in cancer patients has been described, it is not used for chronic administration. The fact that its anti-cancer potential has managed to escape detection in hospitals and clinics is attributed to two factors. First, any tumour injury caused by brief adventitious medication with the phenothiazine will naturally be ascribed to the drugs given simultaneously with the intention of combatting the disease. Second, resistance develops when Phenergan is given on an intermittent basis (see also Duration of Treatment and Outcome, below). The effects on the central nervous system are less marked than those of most other phenothiazines, which is considered an advantage.
The first doctor to administer Phenergan to cancer patients was an Egyptian diabetologist, the late Dr Riad Mahmud. He gave Phenergan, calcium and papaverine in sequence by intravenous injection with the intention of relieving pain. The procedures described here rely heavily on his experience. Cancer is a serious disease, and its treatment needs to be considered in earnest. The apparently innocuous nature of the agents used should not encourage a flippant attitude to the therapy. Rigid adherence to the advice is essential. The selectivity of the procedure allows a patient to go about his or her business almost entirely as normal while sustaining the full force of the therapy. Almost; patients need to adapt to the new situation. Mental strain and over-exertion should be avoided.
The original self-medication protocol (Procedure I) was posted on the web in February 1996. It is included in the book How We Controlled our Cancers (Wesprint Holdings. Subiaco, 2001) which the author, Jill Royce, made available in every lending library in Australasia. Details are also to be found in Conventional Cancer Cures: What’s the Alternative? (ed. Chris Woollams. Health Issues Ltd, Bath Press, Bath, 2005). Over the years several organisations interested in providing patients with sensible non-orthodox help began to include the methodology on their websites. Few patients trouble to report back with their experiences. It follows that no estimate of the number of beneficiaries can be made.
Procedure I has been modified (Procedure II) with a view to increasing cell kill and shortening the period of treatment. The latter is recommended as the option of choice. The advice should be read through several times before commencing, and read again frequently so as to avoid mistakes. Both protocols may be regarded as simple prototypes in the same light as the earliest primitive cameras, motor cars or aeroplanes. There is a need to be realistic and not to allow hopes to rise too high. Patients are expected to meet the modest costs (currently about £4 a week in the UK) of their treatment. There are no hidden expenses.
Caution: To date the question of safety has not been an issue, but Phenergan treatment with calcium can cause slight tumour enlargement which may initially cause problems, especially if the disease has reached an advanced stage. For example, in a patient with obstructive carcinoma of the oesophagus swallowing became more difficult on the next day, but gradually returned to normal over the next few weeks. Patients need to decide which procedure to adopt. In instances where growths obstruct natural functions difficulty may be encountered. In these circumstances Procedure I would be preferable.
The list below is as comprehensive as possible. Cancer patients are unlikely to benefit if:
 Steroids are being administered in high doses. This form of interference with anti-cancer activity is unstable. Therapy with Phenergan can be commenced three days after cessation of steroid medication.
 Analgesics classified as non-steroid anti-inflammatory drugs (aspirin, ibuprofen, diclofenac, etc) are being taken. Here the advice is to wait for a week before commencing. Serious pain calls for professional attention. Paracetamol, temporarily and in moderation, is suitable; so are opiates (for example, morphine given on prescription). A TENS (transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation) device can provide limited measures of relief.
 The patient is deficient in essential fatty acids. This is an uncommon condition of which scaly skin, especially on the backs of the hands, can be an indicator. Polyunsaturated fatty acids are micro-nutrients; they are required for normal health and participate in the process of tumour destruction.
 There is dietary supplementation with vitamin E. The question of vitamin E calls for special mention. Most diets already contain amounts adequate for a healthy life style. For individuals free from cancer dietary supplementation (50-100iu daily) is beneficial, offering protection against coronary heart disease. Unfortunately the same beneficial properties are exploited by cancerous growths, which accumulate vitamin E as protection against pharmacological attack.
Some dietary schedules drawn up for cancer patients include substantial amounts of vitamin E. The wisdom of these recommendations is questioned. While it is known that vitamin E protects against the development of cancer, there is nothing to suggest benefit is to be gained once malignant disease is established. Indeed, several patients receiving supplements (400-1200iu daily) failed to respond to Phenergan. Current advice is therefore to stop supplementation immediately and to wait for ten days. Likewise, selenium supplementation above the recommended dietary allowance (RDA) is not recommended.
 There has been brief or intermittent exposure after the onset of disease to phenothiazines or to certain chemically-related drugs possessing similar anti-cancer properties. In contrast with the situations in -, this form of resistance is relatively stable.
 Multi-drug resistance can arise either spontaneously, or from treatment with certain cytotoxic drugs, or from radiotherapy. It is not generally recognised that a mutation in a cancerous cell may result in partial or complete disablement of the cytotoxic mechanism. Clones of these mutant cells are generally insensitive to therapy. Preliminary data suggest that patients who have not been exposed to radiotherapy have a better chance both of responding positively and also of avoiding relapse.
 The disease is prostatic cancer, melanoma or mesothelioma. At the present time it is not known if these early findings reflect the presence of an intrinsic resistance mechanism. The question is discussed below (Scientific Basis).
 Patients with certain brain tumours (astrocytomas) have enjoyed longer survival as a result of Phenergan treatment, but the chances of full recovery would appear to be remote. Anafranil (clomipramine) may be a more suitable drug in such instances, but is available only on prescription. Patients are advised to search the web for advice (Google; enter the words: brain cancer clomipramine).
The safety record of Phenergan is phenomenal. Introduced in 1947, the phenothiazine has found worldwide application. An assiduous search of the literature has failed to fi nd a single report of a fatality caused by its use. The situation in orthodox cancer treatment is dramatically different. For example, the National Confidential Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death (November 2008) on the role of permitted drugs in the causation of death revealed that in 25% of patients who received anti-cancer medication during the last 30 days of life, mortality was ascribed not to the course of disease but to the toxicity of the drug regime. The importance of these findings is not to be underestimated.
Self-Medication Procedures Pre-Treatment
These supportive recommendations are intended to optimise the outcome. If the disease is already at an advanced stage, failure to obtain any supplement should not stand in the way of implementing the advice at the earliest opportunity.
1. Before commencing, patients should preferably consume at least 3g of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids daily together with the recommended supplements for at least three days. Flax oil may also be taken. The intake can be cut back if bowel looseness is experienced. Should it be noticed during the course of treatment that bleeding from a cut or other injury lasts for longer than usual, the supplement may need to be stopped for a few days and the amount reduced on resumption. Medical assistance should be sought.
2. Patients are advised to take 250mg each of inositol and choline daily. These naturally-occurring substances are available from health stores. Inositol hexaphosphate (also known as IP6), which contains only 23% inositol and has the disadvantage of forming insoluble precipitates with calcium within the bowel, is not recommended.
3. Certain trace elements are recommended with the intention of protecting the white cells of the blood against rare side-effects (dyscrasias). A multi-vitamin/mineral preparation containing the RDAs of copper (2.5mg), manganese (4mg), zinc (15mg) and selenium (50mcg, or 0.05mg) is advised. Minor deviations from these amounts, which should be taken daily, are unimportant. Vitamin supplements in excess of RDA values, especially vitamin C (RDA 60mg) and vitamin E (RDA 10-15 international units), must be avoided as far as possible. Because the intention is selectively to induce peroxidation within cancerous cells, anti-oxidant preparations, especially those of Chinese origin, should also be avoided. The supplements need to be continued for the entire duration of the therapy.
Where circumstances are pressing there may be no time for pretreatment, and Phenergan therapy together with the supplements should be inaugurated immediately.
Procedure I. Phenergan alone (original protocol) Treatment is initiated by taking Phenergan as a 50mg dose one evening at retiring. On the next day a total of 3x25mg needs to be taken every eight hours in divided doses of 25mg (7am, 3pm, 11pm are suitable times) and thereafter for as long as necessary (see Continuity of Action, below).
Surprisingly perhaps, only a minority of patients feel sleepy during the day. If sedation persists after a week, the regime may be altered to 10mg at 7am, 10mg at 3pm, and 25mg at 11pm.
Procedure II. Phenergan with Calcium The first day of therapy should be designated free of activity. Most of the side effects will be experienced on this day; two further days of rest should be planned. Patients cannot be expected to obey the instructions by themselves. When Phenergan is combined with calcium, subjects begin to feel very drowsy after an hour or so and usually fall asleep. For this reason it is essential to have a partner or close friend present throughout the first day to ensure the instructions are closely followed.
The first day of treatment is unique. Meals should be light and carbohydrate-free. Omelettes, vegetables, bran preparations, fruit, and any foodstuffs low in sugar are all suitable. Apart from alcohol there are no fluid restrictions; drinking is to be encouraged. Tea, coffee and fruit juices should be sugar-free. For convenience treatment may be commenced at 9am. The schedule is as follows:
0hr: 50mg Phenergan.
1hr: 800-1200mg soluble calcium in 100-150ml (4-6fl.oz.) water.
2hr: 400-600mg soluble calcium in 100-150ml water. 4hr, 7hr and 10hr: as for 2hr.
12-14hr (the exact time is not important): 25mg Phenergan. (See Warning section below).
Soluble calcium is generally available as tablets in a variety of preparations, many of which are pleasantly effervescent; for example, 250mg, 400mg (UK; Sandocal), 600mg (Caltrate), 1000mg (Sandocal) or 1200mg (Calsource). Tablets of 1000-1200mg require to be snapped in two. To ensure solution, water (100-150ml) should be added 15-20 minutes beforehand. The total amount of calcium is 2.4-3.6g over a period of 9hr. The precise amount is not considered to be critical.
During the first day it is anticipated that products of tumour destruction will be excreted in the urine. Patients with close hospital connections might be able to commission analyses of urinary metabolite excretion, especially of nitrogenous components.
On the next day it is absolutely essential to continue thereafter as in Procedure I, with 25mg every eight hours. In addition calcium, 200-300mg, may also be taken daily 30 min. after the last dose of Phenergan.
Patients are advised to keep detailed and accurate records of their progress. The information should include dates of consultations, diagnosis, commencement of treatment and scans. Body weight, medications (drug identities and doses, frequency of medication), sessions of radiotherapy and chemotherapy, measurements of scans and relevant blood components, sleeping pattern, general outlook and observations of well-being, and anything else relevant to alterations in condition should also be noted.
Effects on the disease can be monitored by any means available. Even a dressmaker’s tape measure and a little native wit can provide useful information. The results from marker levels and scans should be interpreted with care. If therapy is commenced between measurements, it should be borne in mind that shrinkage due to Phenergan may be offset by tumour growth prior to commencement of therapy. A similar argument applies to tumour markers, where a decrease may be partly cancelled out by a previous increase. The temptation to delay in order to make comparisons between the effects of different treatments may appear attractive but should be resisted.
Continuity of Action
Success depends on sustaining destructive pharmacological pressure against the cancer over an appropriate period of time. It is vital, therefore, that every effort be made to keep closely to the timings. An hour or so either way is not critical, but if a dose happens to have been missed, it should be taken immediately. The protocols need to be continued beyond the apparent elimination of disease. At present this period is arbitrarily put at six months, but should be extended if any doubt exists. The reasons are discussed below (Duration of Treatment and Outcome). Even if the treatment fails to halt the progress of disease, Phenergan can enhance quality of life and extend survival (see Introduction). In other words, the therapy places the patient in a no-lose situation. As a general point, although this treatment is not advanced as a substitute for surgical debulking, Phenergan reaches those parts which the scalpel cannot.
In most countries Phenergan can be freely purchased in the form of 10mg and 25mg tablets; other phenothiazines are available only on prescription. Formulations in which the drug is provided in conjunction with other drugs should be avoided.
The availability of Phenergan varies from country to country; for example, in Canada the product has been withdrawn. Patients should be extremely cautious and make absolutely sure it is promethazine they are receiving. The use of adulterated or counterfeit products obtained from the internet will lead to failure. In view of the serious consequences of premature discontinuation, if a marked improvement is maintained after a few weeks patients would be well advised to purchase sufficient Phenergan to last for two or three months in case procurement becomes difficult.
Some patients inadvisably take matters into their own hands and modify the procedures. This has occasionally led to disaster. For example, an elderly patient with cervical cancer decided to reduce the Phenergan dose to 10mg every evening, with catastrophic effect. The advice provided rests both on rational concepts and on input from a number of patients. For those who have become free of cancer but who decide on an occasional anti-cancer scavenge by following through Day 1 of Procedure II, the second (final) dose of Phenergan (25mg) should be omitted.
After the first day these are confined almost entirely to a drowsiness which usually wears off within a week. Driving a car or using machinery or sharp tools are not recommended, at least for a fortnight. Sensations of nausea are uncommon, and can be suppressed by (non alcoholic) drinking. Restlessness of arms and legs, described by one patient as ‘twitching’, on the first day is interpreted as a response to destruction of malignant tissue. Identical symptoms are seen in brain tumour patients undergoing treatment with clomipramine (Pilkington, personal communication). Fatigue and soreness can occur and may persist for a day or two, but on the whole patients do not find the experience unpleasant.
By way of contrast the response of a subject who was free from cancer was quite different; only a mild transient sleepiness was experienced at 8-10hr, and there was no twitching. Similarly, no significant response was observed in a terminally-ill patient who died two weeks later. The initial phase of drowsiness is tentatively interpreted as indicating tumour destruction. No instances of pain resulting from the therapy have been reported, but paracetamol would be a suitable analgesic.
Hardly any patients experience difficulty with Phenergan therapy, but there has been an instance of dry mouth. Chronic treatment is well tolerated. One patient maintained herself on the full schedule for over four years; another, who kept on for nine years (1998-2007), experienced a modest gain in weight. The only patient who found the therapy insupportable responded to every medication in the same manner. The very small chances that jaundice may develop within a few days, or that the white cell count may fall (leucopenia or agranulocytosis) after 4-6 weeks, cannot be ruled out. The former can be recognised by a yellowing of the features, the latter by sore throat. Thrombocytopenia (fall in platelet count) is again highly unlikely, and may be indicated when minor cuts bleed for longer than usual, or by bruising. Alternatively the condition may be caused by an excessive intake of polyunsaturated fatty acids, as mentioned above. To date none of these conditions has been encountered.
Logically, the next step would be to put the therapy through a clinical trial. Only small numbers would be required on account of the effectiveness of the regimes. Following success informed research could quickly bring about improvements such as shortening the period of treatment and extending the range of sensitive tumours. Despite the impressive weight of supportive scientific evidence (eg, see Notes on the Treatment of Cancer with Low-Dose Phenothiazines with Special Reference to Promethazine on the website of the Cancer Support Association of Western Australia. Research section: www. cancersupportwa.org.au/research2.php Username; robert1: password; australia) and numerous personal appeals over a number of years, quite apart from the evident urgency of the situation, no cancer charity, research council or pharmaceutical company has agreed to act. Patent cover for Phenergan has long since run out. When an approach was made to the manufacturer, the reply was that the costs of development were too great and the returns too small to justify action.
Response to Therapy
A general improvement in terms of weight gain, improved sleep, restored appetite and general well-being should be noticeable at least by the end of the first week. Lessening of pain is an encouraging sign, but where there is involvement of bone several weeks may pass before relief is noticed. The advice on offer is gentle and humane; for those with experience of the fiercer forms of chemotherapy and radiotherapy the difference will come as a welcome surprise. Patients suffering from radiation-induced injury may find that Phenergan provides some measure of relief. Peripheral neuritis in a single case of post-mastectomy radiation cleared up after several months.
Chemical energy is produced within cells by subcellular organelles known as mitochondria. In normal cells these structures produce some 95% of the energy required for cellular maintenance, but in cancer cells they exist in a continual state of partial disablement. This weakness, the Achilles heel of the malignant growth, is characteristic of all tumours investigated to date, and is thought to account for the wide range of sensitivity to Phenergan. A proportion of the energy produced is dissipated as heat, which explains why many tumours are hot to the touch.
In theory, then, all cancers should be amenable to this form of therapy, but in fact a small proportion (see  above) is not. The tentative reason is thought to be an unusually high glucose content. Glucose facilitates recovery from injury; prolonged exposure to calcium is anticipated to deplete the sugar in the tumour mass, thereby further endangering tumour viability. Unpublished experimental findings indicated that pharmacological attempts to lower the blood glucose may not necessarily augment cellular damage, and that insulin promotes recovery of malignant cells from injury.
The disruption of energy metabolism within malignant cells caused by Phenergan is believed to weaken defences sufficiently to allow calcium to enter the cells and wreak serious damage. Documentation can be found in Notes on the Treatment of Cancer… On the first day of Procedure II the major burden of tumour destruction falls on calcium. Calcium has the same overall effect as Phenergan, but with these differences; the damaging action is both more direct and more effective.
Duration of Treatment and Outcome
The therapy takes time; just how long it will be necessary to keep taking Phenergan will depend, among other factors, on tumour type, the extent of disease at the commencement of treatment, and on the state of nutrition. As discussed above (Continuity of Action), treatment needs to be maintained for at least six months after the disappearance of the last traces of disease. With Procedure I it may be necessary to stay with Phenergan for two years or more, especially where there are secondary deposits in the bone.
The earlier the presentation, the better. Whether a favourable outcome ensues or not depends in part on the medical history of the patient. Other factors influencing the outcome have been discussed above. On the basis of current experience with a total of about sixty patients, the chances of remission are a little less than half; of improvement in the quality of life and extension of survival, about two-thirds. What is certain is that unless the therapy is started, there is no chance of success.
No matter how hopeless the situation may appear, some positive outcome from Phenergan is not necessarily out of the question. Phenergan treatment should not be prematurely discontinued without good reason. Poor compliance has been responsible for failure. Of those who decided to abandon the therapy prematurely, none survived. If treatment is interrupted before the growth is wholly eradicated, residual tumour cells acquire resistance and Phenergan will be found to have no anti-tumour effect second time round. No reason is known for this peculiar behaviour, and no reliable means of resensitisation is known at the present time. However, in one or two cases sensitivity has returned spontaneously, but only after a year or so and for no apparent reason. One fortunate patient believed sensitivity returned as a result of switching to a diet free from gluten and dairy products, but her experience awaits confirmation. If it is decided to try once more, it will be necessary to recommence one of the procedures as though starting from scratch. Advantage can only be taken if the disease is slow-growing; it is unusual for survival to last sufficiently long for resensitisation to take place. The maxim is: if in doubt, don’t drop out.
It might be added that it is not considered likely that there will ever be a `cure’ for cancer in a journalistic sense. What is sure is that until the principle of destroying cancer by disrupting energy metabolism within malignant cells is accepted by the medical and scientific establishments, the merciless toll will continue. Properly directed research is vitally necessary.
A leaflet is provided with the Phenergan packet; the instructions should be read and, apart from discontinuation, followed. Alcohol does not interfere with the anti-cancer action, but abstinence is advised by the manufacturer. Exposure to ultraviolet light and sunlight, especially sunbathing, are to be avoided as far as possible. The group of drugs known as monoamine oxidase inhibitors must not be taken in conjunction with Phenergan.
The following example illustrates the danger from viral infection. At the time of commencing therapy with Phenergan there were thirteen `hotspots’ in the bones of a patient with metastatic breast cancer. Two years later none was active. An attack of influenza was then followed by drug-resistant resurgence at new sites; the patient survived for seventeen months. This single case would suggest that contact with viruses should be strenuously avoided.
Relationship of the Patient with the Doctor and Cancer Specialist
The help and support of medical advisers is valuable and must at all costs be enlisted, retained, and respected. Being secretive is discourteous; keeping your oncologist fully informed is essential. Accurate reports of progress need to be requested. Tumour regression is always welcome, but even if the news is not good, abandoning the therapy should be considered most carefully.
A diagnosis of cancer calls for an unusual measure of bravery. Those who manage best are sufficiently courageous to face the future with equanimity. The prognosis with conventional treatment should be requested. Doctors are sometimes reluctant to spell out the gravity of a situation. In providing a false sense of optimism patients may be left with an option that disguises a poorer chance of survival.
If attempts are made to dissuade, it may be asked what the dangers of the treatment with Phenergan are perceived to be. Reassurance is likely to be given that the risks are small. Uniquely for an alternative treatment, this is a procedure with a firm scientific base. Reference can be made to “Successful Cancer Therapy with Promethazine: the Rationale,” published in Medical Hypotheses 46, 25-29 (1996). Further evidence and references to the literature can be found in Notes on the Treatment of Cancer with Low-Dose Phenothiazines… (see website above). The site also includes a list of the author’s publications on the theme of cancer destruction through interference with energy metabolism.
Orthodox Treatment and Self-Medication
In England doctors go to much trouble to sustain hopes of remission, and are the beneficiaries of measures of deep faith from their patients. Optimism is seen as a useful adjunct to recovery. An understandable reluctance exists to tell a patient that a condition is incurable, a shattering experience for which few are prepared. A dangerous sense of false security may be engendered by a favourable report of tumour shrinkage; difficulty is experienced in accepting the reality of subsequent relapse.
In some instances there may be less time for deceptive sympathy, and the message appears blunt and uncompromising. In Australia when, as often happens, patients are often told that there is no hope of recovery, the Phenergan option is accepted with alacrity. It is not generally understood that remissions from conventional treatment are not always permanent, nor that once secondary growths become established the chances of recovery with orthodox treatment are poor. On the other hand, if a cancerous cell sensitive to Phenergan migrates and establishes itself elsewhere in the body as a secondary growth, there is no reason why its genetically-determined properties should undergo change as a consequence of the move. Available experience supports the idea that when a primary growth is sensitive to Phenergan, its secondaries can be expected to respond.
Modern medicine is often miraculous. Antibiotics, transplants, open-heart surgery, joint replacements come to mind. Unhappily the conventional treatment of cancer has not kept pace with other advances in health care. The failure of orthodoxy opens the door to the glib operator or quack anxious dishonestly to line his or her pockets at the expense of the desperate. Critics of alternative treatments are right to point out that methodology is rarely divulged and that claims of success are never substantiated. Here the situation is totally different. Scientific evidence in support of the use of Phenergan in cancer is in the public domain (for references, see Relationship of the Patient…, above).
Some patients have expressed a wish to conduct different alternative treatments in tandem with Phenergan. This has on occasion led to disaster. Because their impact on the anti-cancer action of Phenergan is uncertain and unpredictable, other treatments classed as alternative should emphatically not be run simultaneously.
There is a belief that the treatment of cancer with phenothiazines amounts to alternative medicine, fringe medicine. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Sometimes one can sympathise with the opposition of doctors to complementary practices, especially when patients and their families are charged formidable sums for worthless advice and/or nostrums. The more expensive a treatment or preparation is, the greater is the need for scepticism. Some complementarists are honest enough to admit that all they can offer is palliation, but understandably patients and their families expect more and are often unwilling, unable even, to accept reality. Here the situation is totally different. Your doctor is unlikely to have heard of the therapy; cynicism can therefore be expected. In this situation the only question one can reasonably expect to have answered is whether or not harm is likely to ensue.
In this materialistic age there is a general feeling that everything must have its price. Unlike private clinics and a majority of purveyors of alternatives, no fee has ever been charged. Some have mistakenly concluded that advice for which no payment is asked must by definition be worthless. They have later found themselves to have taken an expensive stance.
A high priority in this project has been to attempt to publish details of experience with Phenergan in cancer treatment. Efforts have been hampered by consistent refusals by oncologists to provide information or to enter into correspondence. Patients’ memories tend to be inaccurate and unreliable. It has not been possible to present data in a format acceptable for publication. Peer review, that much vaunted criterion of excellence, has been repeatedly used by referees and editors of medical journals to block publication. A short note was published as an Appendix in the book In the Darker Shadow of Science (London: Cancer Research Press, 2007); a revised edition is currently in preparation.
The continuing failure of the cancer establishment to recognise and pursue this line of attack has been intensely disappointing. If a return to normal life does come about, patients are requested to pass the advice on to fellow sufferers by all manner of means: word of mouth, especially within support groups, letters to newspapers and medical correspondents, calls to radio and television stations. If you have been lucky, is there not an obligation to help others? And why not let me know too?
If, after reading the above, uncertainty persists, the question remains: is this a chance worth taking? With all moribund patients the situation becomes hopeless when a point of no return is reached. The virtue of therapy with Phenergan can lie in moving that point farther away into the future. This is particularly true where metastatic spread is well established. However, even if tumour growth is not stemmed, benefit is not necessarily out of the question. Now is the time to decide whether or not to go ahead, and if so, to make plans this very minute.
What is certain is that the sooner the treatment begins, or, put another way, the smaller the tumour burden, the quicker the patient may become cancer-free. Delay confers no advantage whatsoever. Patients unaware of the seriousness of their conditions commonly believe that time is on their side, and adopt a wait-and-see attitude. Nothing could be more mistaken. Time is never on the side of the cancer patient. The overriding aim must be, as a matter of pressing urgency, to begin to get well as soon as possible. Once more, then: what is there to lose? ✦