|
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
THIS WEEK'S QUESTIONQ. Could you comment on the Washington Post front-page story about Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez?
A. On January 18, 2000, the Washington Post ran a front-page story by Ms. Susan Okie on Nicholas Gonzalez, M.D., a New York doctor who specializes in the treatment of advanced cancer. Dr. Gonzalez has published positive results with his method in a peer-reviewed journal and there is currently a clinical trial of his dietary treatment for pancreatic cancer at Columbia University, supported by the National Institutes of Health. This lengthy article was a vicious hatchet job. It quotes approvingly from inveterate opponents of alternative medicine, such as Victor Herbert, M.D., but ignores those who could have eloquently defended Dr. Gonzalez. Ms. Okie refused Gonzalez's invitation to come to his office and review his cases in person. Instead, she mainly relied on hearsay, innuendo and slander. The article claims that Gonzalez "does not use standard tests to monitor the treatment's effectiveness." This is untrue. While he does request some unusual tests, a look at his files would have shown that his patients routinely have CT scans and the usual tests that other cancer patients receive. Okie reports that Gonzalez was disciplined some years ago by the New York State Medical Board and required to undergo "retraining." She does not report that the official report of that evaluation states, "This is an exceptionally bright individual who wishes to make a contribution to the medical field and seems quite motivated to do so...Dr. Gonzalez's Phase I evaluation shows no apparent deficiencies at this time." This sort of harrassment of alternative doctors was subsequently forbidden by law in New York State. EXPERTS WITH A GRUDGEOkie is carefully selective in her facts. Dr. Robert Mayer, a critic, is reported to be a former president of the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and an associate editor of the New England Journal of Medicine. But when she discusses Karen Antman, M.D., a supporter of Gonzalez's research, Okie fails to mention that Antman is also a past president of ASCO and currently serves on the Editorial Board of the New England Journal. Nor does Okie reveal that the late Ernst Wynder, M.D., founder/president of the American Health Foundation, John P. Jones, Ph.D., vice president for Research of Procter and Gamble, Michael Friedman, M.D., former Acting Commissioner of the F.D.A., and many other scientists support Gonzalez's research. Okie disparages Gonzalez's training but fails to reveal that he graduated from three Ivy League universities and did his intership under Robert A. Good, M.D., Ph.D., the former president of Sloan-Kettering Institute in New York. Okie ridicules the idea that orally ingested pancreatic enzymes can be absorbed into the bloodstream. She is obviously unfamiliar with the considerable research proving just this. (For example, M.L.G. Gardner and K.-J. Steffens, eds., Absorption of Orally Administered Enzymes, Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1995.) She also implies that the patients in Gonzalez's groundbreaking study on pancreatic cancer did not really have cancer. But Gonzalez had nothing to do with the diagnosis of these patients. They all came from established medical centers with the usual thick files of biopsies and radiographic studies. There was appropriate outside review of all patients. It is only when patients respond to alternative medicine that their diagnoses are called into question. This Washington Post article was the worst reporting on a non-conventional cancer treatment that I have seen in many years. Its front-page position and precise timing lead me to believe that there is a political purpose to this atack: to derail the clinical trial at Columbia University. Believe it or not, there are people in our society who are desperately afraid of actually testing any alternative treatments for cancer, especially the dietary sort. This is because of the possibility that such treatments may prove beneficial and upset the status quo in cancer therapy. We hope that the officials at Columbia University and at the National Institutes of Health will stand firm and proceed with the clinical trial as planned. Not to do so will be an abandonment of the hopes of millions of people. We have a Moss Report on the topic of pancreatic cancer. Please see my book The Cancer Industry for a detailed discussion of how and why so many promising alternative cancer treatments have been suppressed.
ABOUT OUR Q & A SERVICE: Each week we answer a new question from a visitor to our website. Questions posted at this site are chosen based on their general relevance and become the property of Equinox Press. They may be edited for reasons of space. Moss Reports clients can ask followup questions by us at mail@ralphmoss.com If you have questions about purchasing a Moss Report for a particular kind of cancer, you can call our office at 718-636-4433 or you can order your Moss Report BY CLICKING HERE via our secure order form, and ask your question in the box provided.
home |
ralph's bio |
moss reports list |
order a report |
phone consultations
|
