I am one of the few individuals on earth who regularly attends the annual meetings of both the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the Cancer Control Society (CCS). Both are venerable institutions—ASCO now in its 40th year, CCS in its 32nd. Both events attract numerous participants to major venues—ASCO 2004 had a record 28,000 attendees in New Orelans while the much smaller CCS 2004 had 1,200 at the Universal Sheraton over Labor Day weekend. ASCO’s meeting extends over five days; CCS lasts for four. Each meeting also features numerous presentations on the latest developments in cancer prevention and treatment, with informative displays from companies involved in the field. But there the similarities end.

In fact, the two events are so divergent that, like Klingons and Kardassians, they seem to hail from different quadrants of the Galaxy.

CCS 2004 featured about 50 lectures on various topics of immediate interest to patients, including the use of vitamins, minerals, antioxidants and herbs against cancer. The strong and consistent emphasis was on non-toxic approaches. There were also quite a few presentations concerning environmental hazards such as electromagnetic radiation. In contrast to accepted wisdom concerning the dangers of sunlight, a number of lecturers pointed to the health-promoting effects of natural light. Dr. Doris Rapp gave an impassioned (and well documented) plea for environmental sanity and Burton Goldberg, founder of Alternative Medicine magazine, tied this into the current election, which prompted some partisan applause.

Some of the participants at CCS 2004

A few of the presentations could conceivably have bridged the two worlds. Patrick Quillen, PhD, always an entertaining speaker, gave an enlightening presentation on nutritional support during conventional cancer treatments. As usual, he referenced standard medical data. Lance Morris, NMD, spoke about hyaluronic acid, vitamin C and cancer, a subject that was also addressed at the 2003 ASCO meeting by a Spanish doctor, who spoke on the use of hyaluronic acid for preventing radiation cystitis (Abstract #3023). Thus at least some of the presentations at CCS reflected the structure and discipline of accepted mainstream science. But there were also talks on concepts that would most likely be unknown to most ASCO participants —"prolotherapy," "diabesity," "vitamin L," etc. By and large, the topics discussed at the two meetings rarely overlap, and neither, typically, does the investigative methodology.

ASCO is relentlessly professional in its orientation and seems to have difficulty attracting and holding the interest of patients and the general public. The language spoken at ASCO is the jargon of oncology. The CCS meeting, by contrast, although attended by many professionals, is essentially a lay organization. It was founded by a layperson and its top officers are all laypeople. None of the speakers was a board-certified oncologist, and only one introduced herself to me from the audience.

South of the Border

For patients, the most useful portion of the CCS meeting was probably the insights it provided into the cancer clinics south of the border. There were speeches by clinic directors or their representatives, booths manned by clinic personnel, and (a few days later) a bus tour of the most prominent clinics, hosted by CCS vice-president Frank Coustineau. I happened to be visiting one Mexican clinic when the CCS bus arrived. Seventy-five individuals dutifully filed out and seated themselves for a lecture on a non-conventional dietary program. You had to be impressed by the seriousness with which these people (mostly patients and their families) were performing their "due diligence" on the Mexican clinics.

On each of the days of the CCS meeting there were about two dozen presentations. The clinic spokespersons included Charlotte Gerson, founder of the Gerson Institute, who spoke about the work of Baja Nutricare; Bill Fry and Geronimo Rubio, MD, presenting the protocols of the American Metabolic Institute; Francisco Contreras, MD, who reminisced about 41 years of metabolic therapy at the Oasis of Hope Hospital (yes, it’s older than ASCO!); Kurt Donsbach, DC, who spoke about his work at the Santa Monica Hospital south of the border; Gilberto Alvarez, MD of the Stella Maris facility in Tijuana, speaking on laetrile therapy for breast, brain and other cancers—and that was all on the first day!

On the second day Mike Culbert and Rodrigo Rodriquez, MD, spoke about complementary therapies at International BioCare and on Monday, Ferre Akbarpour, MD, spoke about her work at the Orange County Immune Institute in Huntington Beach, Calif., one of the few U.S. clinics represented. Les Breitman, MD spoke about Insulin Potentiation Therapy (IPT), a treatment that is also given at Dr. Donato’s outpatient facility in Tijuana. The oldest-established Mexican clinic, the Bio-Medical Center, was not represented this time, but there were a number of presentations on the Hoxsey herbal method practiced there.

Unfortunately there was no representation from the European clinics nor from most of the clinics or practitioners who deal with cancer in an innovative way in the US. However, for anyone who is seriously interested in learning more about the Tijuana clinic phenomenon there is no better way to do so than by attending the CCS annual meeting and then taking the clinic bus tour.

New Ideas

Laetrile - still the bête noir of ASCO-oriented oncologists- was favorably covered, as it has been at earlier CCS meetings. But there were also presentations on a number of other interesting topics, for example the intersection of Chinese with Western medicine. Tsu-Tsair Chi, NMD, spoke on the use of Chinese herbs for cancer. There was also a speech on the Tien Hsien herbal liquid and displays on electroacupuncture as well as Chinese pulse diagnosis.

An unexpected presentation was by Paul Ling Tai, a doctor of podiatry, who spoke on the molecular therapy of Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, MD and William Koch, MD. This was surprising to me since, as some readers may know, I wrote the authorized biography of Dr. Szent-Gyorgyi ("Free Radical") and was his friend and frequent visitor during the last decade of his life. Yet, to my knowledge, he had abandoned his earlier efforts to find a control for cancer through the use of a compound called methylglyoxal. The compound has since made a resurgence and, were he living, I am sure "Prof" would be as surprised as I was to see his treatment concepts resurrected in this way.

Perhaps the most controversial presentations on this year’s agenda were those dealing with the compound Poly-MVA, several of which cast the palladium-containing compound as a seemingly miraculous treatment for cancer. Tony Martinez, MD, of the Hope4Cancer clinic gave an impassioned talk on his work with Poly-MVA. He showed slides of a huge melanoma of the foot of one of his current patients. A few days later, in Tijuana, I had the pleasure of meeting the individual attached to that foot. In his home town he had been presented with radical amputation as his sole treatment choice—but opted instead for unorthodox medical treatment in Mexico. According to both patient and doctor, the tumor had already diminished in size since the patient began treatment just a week earlier. It will be interesting to follow this gentleman’s case.

Pictured above, Poly-MVA

There is an almost religious fervor around "Poly" which resembles the early days of the Laetrile movement. At a private breakfast meeting the next day about 75 attendees (mostly patients) turned out for a presentation on the "wonders" of Poly-MVA. There were impassioned testimonials. But I remain a skeptic. I do not think that the evidence is solid enough for anyone to make a recommendation about this compound. And although the price has come down considerably, "Poly" is still expensive and almost completely untested. A sensible person would demand more proof than a few undocumented anecdotes.

For my previous articles on Poly-MVA, click or go to:

http://www.cancerdecisions.com/101803_page.html

http://www.cancerdecisions.com/102403_page.html

Shortage of Good Ideas

On the whole, it is a pity that more people who are seriously interested in the treatment of cancer do not attend both the ASCO and CCS meetings. Each group has something to offer the other. The orthodox ASCO is very strong in its methodology for testing new treatments. Working in concert with the mainstream medical establishment, ASCO has refined a way of determining whether or not a particular approach is really effective (i.e., a series of standardized tests culminating in a randomized controlled trial).

Yet what is missing at ASCO is an openness to new ways of fighting cancer. There is an over-emphasis on finding patentable and profitable pharmaceuticals, rather than encouraging a free play of ideas and following wherever the data itself leads. Given this increasingly narrow view, it is no wonder that a leader of the field, Bruce Johnson, MD, of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, recently told a reporter, "We have a shortage of good ideas" (Leaf 2004). A savvy Wall Street Journal observer wrote recently that the so-called targeted therapies, the current jewel in conventional oncology’s crown, have not lived up to their promise. "For the majority of patients, targeted therapies have been a disappointment," Leonard Saltz, MD, of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York told her. "The word ‘breakthrough’ just doesn’t fit" (Begley 2004).

CCS is very strong in the New Ideas department. Many of these ideas originated in conventional medicine but were then dropped because they were in the public domain. There are enough interesting therapeutic ideas at CCS to fuel scientific studies for many years. What CCS doesn’t have is any agreed-upon methodology to judge the validity of the concepts that are presented at its meetings. While naive trust in anecdotal evidence was rightly banished from conventional medicine more than 50 years ago, many in the alternative medicine community still seem willing to accept undocumented anecdotes as proof of the safety and effectiveness of new treatments. This can lead to some absurd situations.

The low point of this year’s meeting was an individual straight out of Central Casting, who was aggressively promoting a home-made escharotic salve to treat tumors. He actually bragged about his lack of formal education, an exhibition of anti-intellectualism which he justified by saying that "Wilbur Wright did not have a pilot’s license." The salve in question was made from the herb bloodroot as well as other ingredients, along the lines of the original formula developed by Harry Hoxsey.

According to this man’s website, which now appears to be defunct, he has "perfected and continues to discover, rediscover, and promote these almost unbelievable results from a so-called ‘alternative’ cancer protocol that works!" He wraps himself in patriotic quotations which deflect attention from his fundamental lack of scientific data. This speaker showed slides of some alleged tumor regressions. Most of these slides were uninterpretable. What struck me, and other observers, was that the tumors in question were being measured with a Stanley retractable ruler—the kind most of us have in our home toolkit. This juxtaposition of a life-threatening tumor with an ordinary shop ruler caused embarrassed laughter in the audience. Who are the unlucky patients who were treated in this manner? One Mexican doctor later told me how shamed he felt by the association of his medical clinic with this do-it-yourself approach to cancer. Because of this, a long-time participant called the meeting "the good, the bad and the ugly" approaches to cancer.

Fortunately, another speaker at the meeting, Mr. Kurt Greenberg, tried to warn the audience of the danger inherent in such self-treatment. Speaking from first-hand experience. Kurt described how his use of an escharotic paste for his own cancer was "the biggest mistake of my life." "I was terrified," he wrote in his book, The Skin Cancer Breakthrough Program, "as my ear appeared to be ‘eaten up’ [by the escharotic salve, ed.]....It took about ten days to heal but left my ear scarred and numb and my chest was left with a pretty nasty scar as well." He was eventually cured through Mohs’ microsurgery (see below). A friend of complementary medicine, he nonetheless is trying to warn others that some self-described ‘alternatives’ are potentially dangerous.

Pictured above, Kurt Greenberg

Freedom of Choice

ASCO leaders often downplay the important role that patient initiative and freedom of choice have had in successfully fighting cancer. It is the patient who should be the primary decision maker; the doctor is simply there to help. Yet doctors often get that fundamental definition of roles backwards. Earlier this year I wrote about an oncologist at ASCO 2004 who characterized patients who wanted to receive CAM treatments as suffering from a "psychopathology." No one challenged him. Of course freedom of choice is not a psychopathology, but a fundamental medico-legal principle. The fact that some oncologists deeply resent this principle puts them at odds with the best interests of their patients and frequently leads to acrimonious conflicts.

CCS, on the other hand, is unwavering in its support of freedom of choice. But sometimes this can become a shibboleth which obscures the lack of scientific justification for various treatments. It can even spill over into bizarre displays of jingoism. One CCS speaker regularly appears in a towering Uncle Sam hat. Another speaker, after the Pledge of Allegience, insisted that audience members stand and join him in singing ‘God Bless America,’ complete with a war whoop at the end. One longs for more documentation and fewer demonstrations of political rectitude. As they say around the National Institutes of Health, "In God we trust. All others show data."

Patriotism in action at CCS

Derogatory Comments

Not surprisingly, at ASCO one frequently hears derogatory comments about alternative treatments in general. But such comments are very often seriously ill-informed. Few oncologists realize, for instance, that Frederick Mohs, pioneer of the microsurgical technique that bears his name, at one time used an external paste in conjunction with his microsurgical technique that was similar to the escharotic paste used by the ‘quack’ Hoxsey. There is frequently a defensive knee-jerk reaction to the topic of CAM among oncologists, preventing any nuanced discussion.

Similarly, one hesitates to even whisper a kind word about conventional therapy at CCS, where orthodox medicine’s approach is branded "cut, burn and poison." I was certainly honored to receive CCS’s Humanitarian Award. But I decided to use part of my acceptance speech to say a few favorable things about conventional treatment. This is a message not often heard from the podium at CCS meetings. For instance, I warned patients in no uncertain terms about the life-threatening danger of delaying curative conventional treatments in favor of untested alternatives. I also spoke about the real (albeit often exaggerated) menace posed by frauds in the CAM field. Judging by the applause, I think this message was appreciated by most in the audience.

Conversely, if I am ever invited to speak at ASCO I will try to explain the benefits to be derived from a serious and open-minded consideration of alternative approaches to cancer, including many of those presented at the CCS meeting.

A lot of people talk glibly these days about "integrative oncology." But it remains more a dream than a reality. What is needed is a true integration of the two sides of the field, rather than what we have now, a stand-off of galactic proportions. So who knows? Maybe Klingons and Kardassians will one day lay down their deadly knives and battle axes and make peace. And maybe ASCO and CCS will realize that instead of fighting each other they should unite in fighting their common enemy, cancer.

NEXT WEEK: A VISIT TO SOME SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AND MEXICAN CANCER CLINICS

The program of the 32nd Annual Cancer Convention is available at:
http://www.cancercontrolsociety.com/program2004.htm

The CCS speeches (including my own) are available in VHS videotape for $15 apiece from

Chuck Wintner/ Malibu Video
2899 Agoura Rd. #152
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Phone: (818) 775-3923
Fax: (818) 706-3360
E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
The entire set of speeches is $595.

There were two changes to the program as listed at the CCS website:
http://cancercontrolsociety.com/program2004.htm

On Sunday, 9 am, Dr. Tony Jimenez replaced Dr. Jeffrey
Mueller in speaking about PolyMVA.

On Monday, 5:30 pm, William Philpott, MD was replaced
by Don Jansen who spoke on ocean grown wheatgrass.

--Ralph W. Moss, Ph.D.

References:

Begley, Sharon. Why targeted drugs to battle cancer fall short of promise. Wall St. Journal, Sept. 10, 2004, p. B1.

Greenberg, Kurt. The Skin Cancer Breakthrough Program: Complementary Strategies for Prevention and Treatment. Creative Breakthrough Publications, 2004. Available from:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0972448209/qid=1095792439/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-4014280-4734330?v=glance&s=books&n=507846