“It is extremely effective and rather inexpensive. Those who are willing to faithfully and tediously follow it will be successful. Those who follow it in part or haphazardly will be completely unsuccessful”.
Publisher’s NOTE: What follows was probably written soon after Kelley’s death in 2005, however there are hints that portions of the body may in fact have been written in the mid to late 1980’s but there is no certainty – just a couple of hints that I would recognize. If the former, then indications are that the original author may in fact have updated the original writing.
Although I have searched incessantly – I am unable to find the original source of this post, ie – no author’s name, no on-line links – NOTHING! If the original author should come out of the darkness, or a reader is able to guide us accordingly, we will be more than happy to correct this error. It is never our intent to take credit for something that we have not written.
What you are about to read, allows us to fit more pieces of the Kelley puzzle into position. I was privileged to share this commentary with my audience on my broadcast of ‘To Health With You‘ on October 25, 2017.
Editor and Publisher of the works of William D. Kelley, D.D.S., M.S.
In the 1960s, William Donald Kelley, an orthodontist by training, developed and publicized a nutritional program for cancer patients based on dietary guidelines, vitamin and enzyme supplements, and computerized metabolic typing. The Kelley regimen became one of the most widely known unconventional cancer treatments. Although Kelley is now deceased, the regimen has been continued in a variety of forms by his followers. There are three distinct phases or interpretations of the Kelley program: the first, which Kelley described in his book One Answer to Cancer; the second, Fred Rohè’s expansion and reinterpretation as published in his book Metabolic Ecology; and the third, Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez’s metabolic typology based on Kelley’s ideas, which is currently being offered by Gonzalez in New York.
NOTE: In addition to Dr. Kelley, the two other individuals who are referenced in this post, are Fred Rohè and Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez – both of whom are also deceased – each having played an integral part in this ongoing saga of one of the modern pioneers in this field. ~ (Ed)
Background and Rationale
In 1964, Kelley was told he had metastatic pancreatic cancer, although he reported that the diagnosis was never confirmed by biopsy. Applying one of his own “biochemical tests” (one of which he called the “Protein Metabolism Evaluation Index,” a test intended to diagnose cancer before it was clinically apparent), he concluded that he had had cancer for several months, if not years, and that his wife and two of his three children also had cancer. Kelley claims that his doctor told him he had two months to live and advised surgery, which Kelley refused. Based on his own experience, he felt that the wrong foods caused tumors to grow, while proper foods allowed the body to fight off the tumor. By trial and error, he regulated self-administered doses of various enzymes, vitamins, and minerals to achieve his recovery. He proceeded to apply his dietary program to his family and others, and eventually published his recommendations and the beliefs underlying them in a 1969 book entitled One Answer to Cancer, which achieved a wide distribution.
In his book, Kelley wrote that cancer represented “nothing more than a type of placenta growing at the wrong place and time in the body.” He characterized cancer as a deficiency disease – a deficiency of active pancreatic enzymes, in particular. He believed that an indication of inadequate protein metabolism signified early stages of cancer and that cancer could be controlled by supplying adequate doses of pancreatic enzymes, a key component of his “ecological” treatment. He claimed that this treatment could halt the growth of tumors from within 3 hours to 12 days of initiation. The difficult part, he concluded, was clearing the body of accumulated toxins and the toxic poisons that are released as the tumors are dissolved and excreted.
NOTE: Throughout this post, you will see numerous references to Dr. Kelley’s original treatise on the dis-ease, titled ‘One Answer to Cancer.’ The title has been changed twice; once by Dr. Kelley in 2001 (CANCER: Curing the Incurable) and again in 2015 (Victory Over Cancer: Without Surgery, Chemotherapy or Radiation). The 2001 book was sadly missing some key elements of the Kelley protocols, yet is still being illegally printed (in violation of US Copyright Laws) by unscrupulous individuals with greed in their hearts. The 2015 release has been edited, corrected and published by Kettle Moraine, Ltd. – at the behest of the Kelley family and Estate. ~ J.B.
Development and Use of the Treatment
Kelley described his treatment as ecological since “the total person and his total environment must be considered in order to give proper treatment.” The program consisted of five components: taking sufficient nutritional supplements (vitamins, enzymes, minerals, etc.); detoxifying the body (purging, fasting, coffee enemas, colonic irrigations, cleansing the kidneys, the lungs, and the skin, and exercising); maintaining an adequate diet; providing proper neurological stimulation (e.g., osteopathic manipulation, chiropractic adjustments, “mandibular equilibration to reshape the skull,” or physiotherapy); and taking a positive spiritual attitude (“purifying the emotions and spirits”).
The Kelley nutritional program gained popularity in the 1970s, when Kelley gave many interviews and made unequivocal claims that his program was regularly able to cure a wide range of cancers: “It is extremely effective and rather inexpensive. Those who are willing to faithfully and tediously follow it will be successful. Those who follow it in part or haphazardly will be completely unsuccessful.” He also developed a mail-order approach to nutritional-metabolic treatment in which he was able to use “technicians” who assisted patients in getting on and following his program. Specific recommendations for patients were generated by his computer system. In addition, Kelley developed his own supply houses for the supplements, water filtration systems, and even the coffee (“Kelley Koffee”). An updated and expanded version of his treatment was published in 1983 by Fred Rohè with Kelley’s input. Kelley endorsed Rohè’s book, stating that it represented his most up-to-date findings and recommendations.
In this second phase, Kelley’s spiritual philosophy had taken on a strong “New Age” tone. He wrote:
. . . there has to be some purpose to human life on this planet. That purpose seems to me to be the development of understanding and inner growth. I define inner growth as the expansion of our whole being, particularly our spirit, as we interact with each other and with the environment…This new positive foundation supports a new paradigm for the field of health care, allowing for the influx of great new streams of intelligence, experiences, and creativity. Millions of people who come along in future generations will be able to build and react upon this new paradigm. It is an ultra-holistic model with a completely realistic and scientific framework. We are moving from a left-brain dominant system to a left/right balanced brain system, with plenty of heart mixed in. I don’t know if I understand it all — I don’t think anybody can completely grasp such a comprehensive process of change. But it’s a beautiful thing to watch.
According to Rohè, Kelley had noticed that not everyone he treated responded the same way, and modified his original idea of “one answer to cancer.” He came to believe that there was no single, perfect diet for all patients. To account for each individual’s unique metabolic makeup, Kelley devised a system of metabolic typing or classifying each individual and coordinating a unique set of recommendations for each.
One of the elements of the Kelley program that evolved substantially from the first phase was his use of diagnostic tools. The “Kelley Enzyme Test,” one of the many tests used in the program, was designed to provide a very early diagnosis – one month to several years before clinical signs of cancer. The test consisted of taking ten “Ultra-zyme” tablets over a four-week period. The presence or absence of cancer was indicated by the person’s observation of whether they felt better, worse, or no different during this period. Feeling either better or worse indicated the presence of cancer, whereas feeling no different meant that the person was probably free of cancer (but in this case Kelley recommended that the test be repeated with a double dose of the enzyme tablets to be sure.) The test was not intended to indicate the location of cancer in the body or the type of tumor.
According to Rohè, Kelley believed that environmental pollutants were being incorporated into our bodies and becoming internal toxins, and that exhaustion of the fertility of the nation’s farmlands was depleting our foods of nutritive value. All of this led, he reasoned, to pancreatic and immune system breakdowns, leading ultimately to cancer.
The diet recommended by Kelley as stated in the Rohè book outlines the following guidelines: restrict intake of meat (except liver); consume no protein after lunchtime; no refined foods, pasteurized milk, peanuts, tea (except herbal), coffee (except in enemas), soft drinks, tobacco, liquor, white rice, or fluoridated water. He recommended that patients eat fresh, raw salads, vegetable juices, whole grain cereals, raw liver (liver must be taken raw to preserve the “enzymes, amino acids, and other intrinsic factors science has not yet identified–which are destroyed when the liver is cooked”), nuts and seeds, cultured milk products, eggs (preferably soft boiled or raw, except for certain types of cancers), beans, etc. In summary, the diet consisted of increasing one’s consumption of raw foods, decreasing protein intake, and eliminating refined foods and additives.
The only classification system used by Kelley at the time of the Rohè book was a breakdown between “soft” and “hard” tumors. “Hard” tumors included all except leukemia, lymphomas, melanomas, and multiple myeloma, which were classified as “soft.”
The nutritional supplementation recommended by Kelley consisted of 25 supplements (enzymes, vitamins, glands, minerals, hydrogen peroxide, aloe vera, bile salts, freeze- dried liver, etc.) that were to be taken for a two-year period. In the standard protocols, patients were classified as “hard tumor” and “soft tumor” patients and were recommended the same list of supplements, although “soft tumor” patients were advised to take a few extra foods. Some patients were given specific recommendations tailored to them and in these, patients often were advised to take additional supplements beyond the 25 listed in the standard protocol. Patients were referred to Kelley’s Nutritional Counseling Service in Texas for additional information.
These supplements were intended to stimulate the release of “wastes and debris” from the body. Ridding the body of these wastes through detoxification was advised as essential to the program’s success. Kelley recommended that patients take at least one strong coffee enema each day, to clean out the liver and gallbladder and to rid the body of toxins produced during tumor digestion. In addition to coffee enemas, Kelley recommended regular purging, fasting, and colonic irrigation (high enemas, between 18 and 30 inches into the body). He also advised cleansing the kidneys, nostrils, lungs, and skin.
As in Kelley’s original description, other components of the program as described by Rohè were neurological stimulation and spiritual growth. Kelley advised patients to “reactivate nerve function through structural alignment”: osteopathic manipulation, chiropractic adjustments, cranial osteopathy, mandibular equilibration (to reshape the skull and take stresses from the brain), and reflexology. Kelley considered matters of the spirit an integral part of his program:
“Just as the body must be purged and cleansed, so must the emotions and mental attitudes be purified.” He advised removing “all false teachings, false doctrines, fruitless activities, fears, and misunderstandings. Your spirit and very being hunger for truth – the truth that can be found only in the proper understanding of the Word of God.”
To support his program and make his teachings more widely known, Kelley created the International Health Institute in Dallas, consisting of a group of doctors, dentists, chiropractors, naturopaths, metabolic technicians (nutritional counselors certified by the institute), and attorneys. Under the umbrella of this institute, Kelley’s Nutritional Counseling Service was developed, whereby patients attended workshops to find out about the Kelley program and then answer the 3,200-question Metabolic Evaluation Survey (which reportedly took about eight hours to complete). This questionnaire, analyzed entirely by computer, formed the basis for the Kelley nutritional prescription, a program designed according to each patient’s individual nutritional needs. Questions were answered on computer cards and sent to Kelley’s headquarters. Kelley claimed that the cards gave him a detailed picture of the patient’s metabolic type and of the efficiency of 50 physiological functions. In response to the questionnaire, patients received a lengthy, detailed computer printout of their metabolic status along with step-by-step instructions for following their particular version of the Kelley regimen – covering foods, supplements (in the range of 100-200 pills per day), detoxification techniques, psychological approaches, and lifestyle changes. With the cooperation of physicians unaffiliated with Kelley’s institute, cancer patients were advised by Kelley to submit the questionnaire every 6 months until, according to Kelley, their nutrient levels reach normal ranges, and after that, about once a year.
NOTE: Today, the questionnaire, now titled, Dr. Kelley’s Self Test for the Different Metabolic Types, while not reduced in importance, has been reduced in scope and takes the average person 4-5 hours to complete. As with the previously mentioned book, Victory Over Cancer… Kettle Moraine, Ltd. is the official publisher of the Self-Test book.
For most early localized cancer, Kelley advised frequent oral doses of pancreatic enzymes taken between meals; the enzymes were said to destroy cancerous and other defective cells. Kelley maintained that patients with metastatic disease require prolonged therapy (1 to 2 years at least). In patients with very advanced malignancies involving many organs, Kelley did not claim that the tumors could necessarily be eliminated, only that the enzymes often shrink much of the tumor mass and could prevent the cancer from spreading further.
Kelley designed a mail-order form for an intensive nutritional-metabolic program for cancer that reached many patients who may not have had access to other unconventional treatments. The idea that cancer could occur as a result of inappropriate nutrition and could be treated with intensive nutritional supplementation and detoxification, as articulated in his book One Answer to Cancer, brought Kelley a great deal of attention from the public, the medical profession, and state medical examiners. In 1971, Kelley was issued a restraining order forbidding him from treating non-dental disease and was prohibited from distributing copies of his book. Gonzalez reported that following this restraining order, Kelley became more cautious in his claims and practice; he required all patients to sign a form acknowledging that he was a dentist, not a medical doctor and that his nutritional programs were intended for nutritional support, not as therapies for any disease.
. . .
Current Applications of the Kelley Regimen
In recent years, Nicholas Gonzalez, MD, has examined the Kelley regimen and has provided an additional analysis of Kelley’s individual metabolic profiles. Since Kelley’s ideas and results are known only from his 1969 book and the 1983 book by Rohè, it is not known whether Gonzalez’s descriptions match Kelley’s most recent interpretations of his program. However, Gonzalez is practicing this regimen in New York and Kelley is apparently not, so Kelley’s metabolic typology as interpreted by Gonzalez is presented here in summary.
According to Gonzalez, Kelley believed that human beings can be divided into three genetically based categories – “sympathetic dominants,” “parasympathetic dominants,” and “balanced types.” “Sympathetic dominants” will have highly efficient and developed sympathetic nervous systems. “In addition, the tissues, organs and glands normally stimulated by the sympathetic nerves – the heart for example – will be well developed. However, in this group the parasympathetic nervous system will be relatively inefficient, and all the tissues and organs normally activated by this system will be physiologically sluggish.” In “parasympathetic dominants,” the opposite is the case, and in “balanced types,” both branches of the nervous systems and corresponding tissues, organs, and glands are equally developed.
Sympathetic dominants are hypothesized to have evolved in tropical and subtropical ecosystems on plant-based diets. Parasympathetic dominants evolved in colder regions on meat- based diets. The balanced types evolved in intermediate regions on mixed diets. While modern migrations have extensively mixed the three types, Kelley believes people tend to belong definitively to one of the three categories. Kelley thus evolved a diet for each type based on its hypothesized historical origins. And he traced a characteristic path of “metabolic decline” for each group when they consume the wrong diet. He associates “hard tumors” with severely compromised sympathetic dominants, and “soft tumors” – cancers of the white blood cells and lymph system – with severely compromised parasympathetic dominants. Gonzalez dispenses with the neurological stimulation and spiritual components of the original Kelley regimen, and now divides the Kelley therapy into several components.
Gonzalez’s regimen consists of:
• an individualized diet, “as determined by an experimental blood test,” that ranges in content from entirely vegetarian to entirely meat, with about 90 variations in between. Gonzalez stated in a recent interview that he has “patients who will not get well unless they eat fatty red meat three or four times a day” (356).
• large doses of nutritional supplements, as many as 150 pills a day (356), including vitamins, digestive enzymes (e.g., pancreatic enzymes, pepsin, hydrochloric acid, bile), and concentrates in pill-form of beef organs and glands.
• coffee enemas.
Attempts at Evaluating the Kelley Regimen
In his 1987 manuscript One Man Alone: An Investigation of Nutrition, Cancer, and William Donald Kelley, Gonzalez presents case histories of 50 patients he selected from Kelley’s files. This case series has been singled out by proponents as one of the most convincing in support of an unconventional treatment. As a means of finding out whether the evidence presented in these cases would be convincing to the medical community, OTA asked six physicians who are members of the Advisory Panel for this OTA study to each review a portion of Gonzalez’s case histories. Three of the physicians were supportive of some unconventional treatments (though none was associated particularly with Kelley or Gonzalez), and three were mainstream oncologists. (For convenience, these physicians are referred to, in this section, as “unconventional” and “mainstream.”) The three unconventional practitioners are not oncologists, though each treats some cancer patients. Each of the 50 cases was assigned to one “unconventional” and one “mainstream” physician for review. Assignments were made randomly within each group of three physicians, so all possible pairings of reviewers could occur. The reviewers were asked to assume that Gonzalez’s reports were accurate, and then comment on whether the course of the disease described for each patient was beyond reasonable expectation, and whether attribution of benefit to the Kelley program appeared justified.
The cases include a variety of cancers: seven lymphome (various types); six pancreatic; five prostate; four breast; four melanoma; three Hodgkins disease; three leukemia; two each of colon, lung, ovary, rectosigmoid, and testicular; and one each of bile duct, brain, cervix, metastatic liver (primary unknown), myeloma, kidney, stomach, and uterine.
Each case history consists of a narrative by Gonzalez and copies of some supporting medical records. The criteria for including cases were: they had to have been evaluated by “competent specialists” so that the diagnosis would not be in doubt; patients should have been given a prognosis of “poor” or “terminal;” and there had to be evidence of regression of disease or “long-term survival that might logically be attributed to the Kelley program.” The patients were chosen from more than 1,000 selected patient records that Gonzalez determined were “potentially suitable.” He contacted 455 of them, and 160 seemed to satisfy the stated criteria. For each of these, Gonzalez reports that he “obtained complete medical records,” and the 50 cases were then selected. Gonzalez refers to these cases as “representative” of Kelley’s patients, rather than his “most ‘impressive’ cases.”
In addition to making general comments, five of the six reviewers responded with a narrative on each case; one categorized cases as “seem legitimate,” “suggestive but not definitive,” “somewhat suggestive,” and “definitely not convincing.” In all cases, however, documentation presented in the manuscript was inadequate to confirm critical details of the narrative, and in many cases, it appeared that critical pieces of information did not exist in the medical record at all (e.g., confirmation of metastatic disease), mainly because the patients had not been followed up with tests and scans to determine the status of their disease.
Fifteen cases were judged by the unconventional reviewer as definitely showing a positive effect of the Kelley program; the mainstream reviewer of each case found 13 of these unconvincing and 2 unusual. Nine cases were judged unusual or suggestive by the unconventional reviewer; the mainstream reviewer found these cases unconvincing. Fourteen cases were judged by the unconventional reviewer as having been helped by a combination of mainstream plus Kelley treatment; the mainstream reviewer found 12 of these cases unconvincing and 2 unusual. Twelve cases were considered unconvincing to both the unconventional and mainstream reviewers.
Specific criticisms of the case presentations included the lack of histologic diagnosis in several cases, the assumption that disease was metastatic without biopsy, discrepancies between the narrative and the medical records (e.g., in one case, the surgical pathology report states that the tumor arose “in the colonic mucosa infiltrating into the wall,” Gonzalez describes the tumor as “growing through the wall,” which would have a much poorer prognosis), discounting the effects of prior mainstream treatment (e.g., hormonal treatment, which, unlike cytotoxic chemotherapy, may take months to take full effect), and the general lack of reassessment of patients’ conditions once begun on the Kelley treatment. Three illustrative cases are discussed below.
Discussion of Three Cases
In one case history, a woman in her early 40s was diagnosed with a seven-centimeter “infiltrating adenocarcinoma of the colon, intermediate differentiation with full thickness involvement of bowel wall but no evidence of regional lymph node metastasis.” It was removed surgically. She did well, except for chronic fatigue, until about a year and a half later, at which time she had a car accident and then developed severe abdominal pain with significant weight loss.
Outpatient studies “revealed a large, restricting tumor in the remnant of her descending colon.” The narrative reports that the patient said her doctor told her that the cancer “had metastasized widely.” She refused recommended surgery. Shortly, she began the Kelley program, at a time when she appeared to be “critically ill.” Within a week, her bowel obstruction cleared and she improved gradually. “Eleven months after beginning her protocol, she reports passing a large globular mass of tissue which she and Dr. Kelley assume was the remnants of her tumor.” Seventeen years after diagnosis, she is alive and in “excellent health and apparently cured of her cancer.” (Commentary from the mid-1980’s – Ed.)
The medical records accompanying this narrative include the discharge summary from the original surgery and corresponding radiology, surgery, and pathology report.
The mainstream physician who reviewed this case judged that this patient’s localized tumor was probably cured by the initial surgery. No documentation of the reported recurrence is supplied, and the cause of her later medical problems could not be determined. He commented that the globular mass of tissue, which was apparently seen only by the patient, was a unique but uninterpretable feature of this case.
The unconventional physician who reviewed this case noted that the recurrence was not confirmed by pathology, but felt that the Kelley program probably was instrumental in her survival.
In a second case, a man in his late 30s had an early stage (Clark’s level II) malignant melanoma removed from his back. A “liver mass” was described in the hospital record as a “space occupying lesion inferior portion right lobe of liver,” but was not thought to represent metastatic disease. About three months later, he noticed a nodule under his left arm, which upon removal was found to be malignant. Sixteen lymph nodes were subsequently removed, of which five were positive for melanoma. Four months later, he had another nodule near the previous one, and had it removed; it also was positive for melanoma. No other treatment was recommended. According to the narrative, the patient developed fatigue and anorexia. After another six months, he noted another nodule on his forehead, and shortly thereafter began the Kelley program. He gained weight and the forehead nodule regressed, disappearing after six months. At his last follow-up two and a half years later, he had no evidence of cancer and was in “excellent health.”
Supporting records for this case include the biopsy report from the first recurrence in the left axilla, a letter that appears to be from the treating oncologist to the patient’s personal physician written about six months after the forehead nodule was noticed (letter on plain paper, no letterhead), and a letter written about six months later from the same oncologist to what appears to be the patient’s insurance group discussing his history.
The unconventional reviewer found this narrative “highly suggestive” of benefit from the Kelley program, but that the absence of continued followup weakened the case. The mainstream reviewer commented that a waxing and waning course for malignant melanoma is not unusual, and mentioned a patient of his own with a similar history, whom he has followed for 10 years. He also commented that the cause of the fatigue was unclear, but could have been related to depression. In addition, the letter to the patient’s personal physician notes in relation to the forehead nodule that had disappeared, “this was not thought to be metastatic melanoma when he was examined by my colleague…at that time.”
In a third case, a man in his mid-60s was diagnosed with well-differentiated infiltrating adenocarcinoma of the prostate during a routine physical. An abnormality of the right eighth rib was noted on a bone scan, which the narrative notes was “initially believed consistent with metastatic disease.” On x-ray, an infiltrate was noted in the lower region of the left lung, which the narrative states “appeared to be an additional area of metastases.” The patient refused further testing and treatment. During a hospitalization a little over a week later for removal of two superficial skin cancers, a chest x-ray showed some improvement in the lung infiltrate but the records stated that “the possibility of an underlying neoplasm could not be excluded.” He began the Kelley program shortly after that. Nine years later, the patient, when contacted, said that his prostate was found to be completely normal on a recent physical examination. The narrative concludes that this was a “most remarkable patient,” and that “it seems reasonable to attribute…prolonged survival to the Kelley program.”
Supporting records for this case include the discharge summary and biopsy report from his original hospitalization.
Neither the unconventional nor the mainstream reviewer found this a case inconsistent with the expected course. Both commented that there was no real evidence of metastatic disease. The mainstream reviewer added, “The survival of nine years with localized adenocarcinoma is not at all unusual, and such cases are identified fairly frequently in patients who seek medical attention for obstructive symptoms related to their associated benign prostatic hyperplasia“.
The mainstream reviewers had similar general comments about the cases. A general theme in their remarks was that, based on the material presented, it was not possible to relate the reported results to the Kelley treatments. Nearly all had mainstream treatment, which, along with the natural variability of the disease, might also have been sufficient to account for the observed outcome. Two reviewer comments include:
My impression of these cases overall is that most of them represent better than average survival from their respective diseases, and to persons who are not familiar with the breadth of individual disease survival spectra they might seem unusual. For the most part, however, they are not and they do not as a group represent any basis for further pursuit of the Kelley treatment per se.
Those of us who have worked over the years with cancer patients have come to respect the vagaries of human biology wherein there are cancer patients who for unclear reasons fare better than we would have expected.
In several instances, reviewers commented they had in their care patients whose courses are as exceptional, for reasons not immediately apparent, as the Kelley cases they reviewed. Another common criticism was that comparing an individual patient’s survival with average group statistics is misleading and an invalid use of the group data.
…it is an elementary statistical principal that retroactive or retrospective reviews of groups of patients such as that surveyed by Dr. Gonzalez of necessity are fraught with the bias imposed by the ways in which the patients selected themselves for referral to the Kelley program….These patients can hardly be considered representative of the entire spectrum of cancer patients. Secondly, in critiquing the cases, Dr. Gonzalez is highly selective in marshalling references and supporting assertions, which are limited and clearly chosen to support his point of view. His review of each case is not a neutral exercise, but is slanted to support his assertion that the Kelley program has had an impact on the outcomes of these patients.
General comments of the unconventional reviewers were significantly different:
As an overall assessment, I would judge that the patients under my review appear probably, but not certainly, to have presented for the most part an unusual course, that the outcome exceeded normal expectancies with current contemporary conventional management and that the effect of the Kelley treatment contributed significantly, although not necessarily exclusively, to the outcome.
I have…found 5 which seem legitimate; 5 suggestive but not definitive, 2 somewhat suggestive; 8 definitely not convincing. If we can extrapolate to the 50 cases there might be 12, which seem on the basis of the info presented, to represent genuine unexpected “cures” or remissions. Certainly, even 25% is striking. It obviously does not rule out expectancy and great motivation as the “cause” of the remission.
…in the cases I have marked legitimate, based upon the facts presented and beyond any reasonable medical doubt, it appears that totally unexpected remissions occurred. If there is such a thing as “best cases,” these appear to fulfill that definition. It would be unscientific to ignore such data.
Another comment had to do with the difficulty of assessing best cases attributable strictly to unconventional treatment, because patients so often use both mainstream and unconventional treatment.
The review of Gonzalez’s case histories indicates that physicians generally supportive of unconventional treatments find some of the cases supportive of benefit from the Kelley regimen, whereas mainstream physicians do not find such suggestion of benefit, for several reasons. Key reasons appear to be lack of adequate documentation of the course of disease and reliance in most cases on unusually long survival rather than documented tumor remission.
I wish you God-speed and hope that the truth will set you free –
and with glass lifted on high I say, “To Health With You!”
FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml“