Dr. Kelley/Dr. Gonzalez — Are all medical studies created equal?

This blog is the final chapter on my discussion on alternative cancer practitioner Dr. William Kelley. In my opinion, Dr. William Kelley is probably the greatest practitioner of cancer therapy in human history (Alternative or Orthodox). In my recent blogs I have discussed his cancer therapy at great length, and I have evaluated the credibility of his medical records. Unfortunately, to Dr. Kelley’s chagrin, his cancer therapy was never tested in clinical trials in an official study.

His anecdotal (testimonial) evidence from his medical records were exhaustively investigated by a young 2nd year medical student from Cornell University named Dr. Gonzalez under the supervision of world renown doctor from the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre, Dr. Good. Dr. Gonzalez was amazed at the success he found in Dr. Kelley’s protocol while examining over 10,000 medical records and interviewing over 1000 patients. After Dr. Gonzalez completed his final report on his findings, strangely no medical journals would publish even small parts of his report for a peer review process. Other than a minor investigation from the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), Dr. Kelley’s cancer protocol has never received proper scientific evaluation from the medical establishment and therefore has never been given proper credibility. This is an odd occurrence considering the success that Dr. Gonzalez found.

This task is now being pursued by Dr. Kelley’s one-time investigator and now padawan of his cancer protocol, Dr. Gonzalez. Instead of pursuing various opportunities in the medical world, Dr. Gonzalez decided to carry on Dr. Kelley’s “Enzyme Therapy” because of the success he found through his investigation. Dr. Gonzalez began to find similar success in his own practice which eventually qualified for a $1.4 million sponsored study from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM). This famous or infamous study (depending on how you look at it) is widely quoted throughout the internet as the final word on Dr. Gonzalez’s “Enzyme Cancer Therapy”. Here is some of what you find on the internet.

On the NCI website they give this summary of this study,

In this study, one group of patients followed the Gonzalez regimen while another group was given standard treatment (chemotherapy). Results in the two groups were compared to see if the Gonzalez regimen works better than the standard treatment and if it has bad side effects. Results of the study were reported in the peer-reviewed Journal of Clinical Oncology in April 2010. Patients treated with standard chemotherapy survived a median of 14 months and patients treated with the Gonzalez regimen survived a median of 4.3 months. Patients treated with chemotherapy reported a better quality of life than those treated with the Gonzalez regimen. Dr. Gonzalez published comments Exit Disclaimer on his Web site to express concerns about how the trial was conducted. One concern was how well patients in the Gonzalez regimen group actually followed the regimen.”

So according to the NCI, this study seems to have been “peer-reviewed” and clearly demonstrates that chemo produces results 3 times better than Dr. Gonzalez’s regimen. The NCI does note that Dr. Gonzalez had “concerns about how the trial was conducted”, but basically leaves it at that. Quackwatch sites attest that this study delivers a case-closed verdict. Dr. Steven Novella MD writes in his NeuroLogica Blog,

“That’s right – standard therapy mean survival was 14 months and on the Gonzalez treatment 4.3 months. That is a dramatic difference, and supports what critics have been saying for years.”

After a supposed thorough investigation of this study Dr. Novella finds little wrong with this study other than “there is only one weakness to the trial that I can detect – it was not randomized”. This is the only weakness he found in the study??? As we shall soon see, if this is the only thing he found upon investigation that was worrisome, he must have been smoking something pretty strong to come up with this conclusion. This type of conclusion by Dr. Novella explains why my faith in MD’s investigational practices has eroded over the past few months during my alternative cancer research.

My Evaluation of this Study

Dr. Gonzalez has provided an extensive overview of his opinion of how this study was conducted on his website http://www.dr-gonzalez.com/research.htm. I will try to summarize his concerns with the study as well as adding a few cents of my own take on the study.

The original goal of this study was to compare the effectiveness of Dr. Gonzalez’s Enzyme therapy against a standard chemotherapy drug called GTX on patients with pancreatic cancer, the most deadly of all cancers. Dr. Gonzalez was awarded $1.4 million of funding from the NCI and the NCCAM to conduct this study because of the success Dr. Gonzalez had with a smaller pilot study of 11 patients with pancreatic cancer. Here are the results of this pilot study that was published in the peer-reviewed journal Nutrition and Cancer 1999:

“As of 12 January 1999, of 11 patients entered into the study, 9 (81%) survived one year, 5 (45%) survived two years, and at this time, 4 have survived three years. Two patients are alive and doing well: one at three years and the other at four years. These results are far above the 25% survival at one year and 10% survival at two years for all stages of pancreatic adenocarcinoma reported in the National Cancer Data Base from 1995.”

As you can see Dr. Gonzalez’s pilot study continued to show similar results to that of his mentor Dr. Kelley and better than expected results as compared to standard therapies (ie. chemo). Based on these results Dr. Gonzalez was able to get approval from NCI director, Dr. Richard Klausner to pursue this $1.4 million clinical trial under the direction of a team from Columbia University.

Some Initial Points to keep in Mind

It must be understood here right off the bat that GTX chemotherapy and Dr. Gonzalez’s Nutritional Enzyme Therapy are completely different modalities and require significantly different levels of commitment to follow each respective therapy. For one to successfully follow GTX chemo, one only needs to show up at the doctor’s office to receive the drug intravenously and injest pills orally. Not much else is expected of the patient. Conversely, for one to properly follow Dr. Gonzalez’s therapy, the patient must exert a high level of discipline to follow the strict diet, supplements, and detoxification strategies. Anyone who has attempted any type of special diet can attest that strict adherence to the diet requires some “gumption” to keep at it. Here’s how Dr. Gonzalez describes his protocol,

“Patients must diligently follow a prescribed diet, and ingest some 150 or more supplements to be taken at precise times throughout the day ….. the regimen requires discipline and some determination, as does any lifestyle intervention; patients must be motivated, or else, as we learned long ago, they will not follow through with its day-to-day application.”

Thus, to fairly judge the effectiveness of GTX chemo versus Dr. Gonzalez’s (I will call him Dr. G, for brevity) therapy, patients selected to Dr. G’s therapy must be those who are disciplined enough, healthy enough, and be given the proper amount of support to follow through with the program. In short, the patient enrolled in Dr. G’s therapy must believe enough in the protocol to faithfully follow through with it. It is similar to someone joining a Weightwatchers diet program versus dieting by one’s self. Some may argue, “If following a chemo regimen is much easier to adhere to than Dr. G’s therapy, shouldn’t chemo be the better option then?” I agree that ability to adhere is a valid consideration, but my opinion would be that the therapy which produces the best results is the one that should be followed, no matter how difficult it is to adhere to. “No pain, no gain” as they say.

What are the problems with the study?

1) To start, one of the initial problems was the decision by the NCI-Columbia team to “randomize” the study. What is a randomized study? Basically, what happens is patients are not given a choice as to what therapy they want to use, instead they are randomly designated to one of the assigned therapies. Also the doctors performing the treatments are not allowed to pre-select patients in any way. Randomization, essentially is supposed to eliminate biased selection. From an academic standpoint this seems like a very logical method to avoid biased results.

The problem is, we are dealing with real life patients who are desperately trying to beat pancreatic cancer. As I already mentioned, it is critical for a cancer patient to believe in the therapy that they are doing. If not, there is very little chance they will follow through with it, especially Dr. G’s. Also if someone who wants to do Dr. G’s therapy is forced to do the GTX chemo therapy instead, that patient probably will not comply and an ideal candidate for Dr. G’s therapy will be lost. Contrarily, if someone is assigned to Dr. G’s therapy that has an anti-alternative bias and wanted the GTX chemo treatment, the odds of them following through with Dr. G’s treatment is close to nil. Compliance and informed consent are critical elements to developing a good study.

Initially 260 patients with pancreatic cancer contacted Columbia to join the trial, but after learning that the trial would be randomized, only a measly 3 patients agreed. Of these 3, two later quit when they were told they had to do chemo. What a waste of eager pancreatic cancer patients and many good potential candidates. Because of this, the Columbia team was forced to get their heads out of the intellectual sand, and eliminate the randomization parameter from the study. Too late though, as the damage was already done and many good potential candidates were gone.

2) Now, having eliminated the randomization component, it was important to develop an unbiased selection process. The person who was given charge of this selection process was Dr. John Chabot of Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center. What Dr. Gonzalez later found out is that Dr. Chabot was not an unbiased supervisor. Dr. Gonzalez stated,

” We have learned, for example, that according to the published medical literature, Dr. Chabot, who as Principal Investigator should have been a completely neutral manager with no ties to either treatment being evaluated, had worked closely with his Columbia colleague developing the very GTX chemotherapy regimen used against us in the study – an obvious conflict of interest that had never been declared to us. We suspect Dr. Chabot believed it was in his best interest to discredit our alternative therapy and instead prove the value of a treatment he helped develop.”

It bewilders me how the Columbia team who initially wanted to avoid bias by making the study randomized, then selects as principal investigator of the study, someone who clearly has a conflict of interest. Was this just an oversight? Did Dr. Chabot fail to declare this obvious conflict? Whatever the answer, it smells like monkey business to me. This alone should have thrown this study into the “wasted money on research” garbage pile. As we look further into the details of the study you will see this conflict of interests come to the surface.

3) Clearly Dr. Gonzalez had concerns about the selection process under the direction of Dr. Chabot. Dr. G requested that the Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP), a research watchdog, investigate Dr. Chabot’s selection process. Here’s what the OHRP found,

We note that Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC) found that for 40 of 62 subjects it appeared that informed consent was not documented with a signed written consent form prior to the initiation of research activities involving human subjects.”

As already mentioned, having “informed consent” is critical to the success of any study and is especially critical for someone entering Dr. G’s therapy. A patient must clearly know what there are getting into so as to determine whether or not they will be able to comply with the program. The OHRP states in their article,

“HHS regulations at 45 CFR 46.117(a) require that informed consent be documented by the use of a written consent form approved by the IRB and that is signed by the subject.”

Having informed consent is a clear regulation of the HHS (Department of Health & Human Services) that Dr. Chabot, as principal investigator, should have been aware of. So Dr. Chabot incorrectly selected 40 of 62 patients, over half of the patients!!! Yes, you can see the conflict of interests starting to show.

4) The initial grant of $1.4 million was awarded to Dr. Gonzalez because of his results from his pilot study. It is only fair then that he be involved in the selection process of the candidates. After all it is his therapy that is “on trial” here so he should be involved in the process. Dr. Gonzalez noted,

“Trouble began in earnest in July 2000 when at the insistence of the National Cancer Institute, Dr. Isaacs and I were removed from any involvement with the evaluation and admission of candidates into the nutritional arm of the trial, leaving the Principal Investigator, Dr. John Chabot, with absolute total dictatorial control over patient admission to both groups, with no appeal possible

The NCI justified this decision by saying that restricting Dr. G’s involvement eliminated bias. HUH!!! Eliminate bias?? Having Dr. Chabot, mister conflict of interest, in complete charge without some balanced input from Dr. Gonzalez clearly does not eliminate bias on the other side. Why do I continually have the aroma of monkey business passing by my notrils??

5) An important part of the selection process into Dr. G’s protocol requires that the patients be physically and mentally able to follow the program. For instance, the patient must be healthy enough to eat and be able to injest the large amount of supplements. The patient must also be mentally stable enough to be able to follow the details of the therapy. And again the patient must have the proper belief, motivation, and support to be able handle the rigors of this nutritional therapy.

One might argue that Dr. G’s requirements are much stricter than the requirements for the GTX therapy and is in a sense is “cherry picking” his patients. It is true that chemotherapy is an easier protocol to follow than Dr. G’s, but again I feel that ability to adhere is a secondary consideration as to the primary objective, overall therapy effectiveness. If we are going to judge one therapy to another, candidates selected must be able to follow either therapy in its entirety to fairly compare the two different therapies.

Here is what Dr. G found with the 39 patients that were assigned to his protocol,

We have identified 11 patients entered into the nutrition arm whose appetites were so poor they could never possibly have adhered to the prescribed regimen…..Dr. Chabot admitted three patients who, because of mental disability, we believe should have been disqualified, and one with no family or social support….We estimate that another 10 of the admitted patients lacked the drive, motivation, or faith in the treatment to stick with it for any length of time….Discounting overlap – several patients should have been disqualified for more than one reason – we estimate conservatively that 16 individual patients of the 39 admitted into the nutrition arm did not fulfill the written entry criteria.”

So almost half (16 of 39) of the candidates selected were simply not able to follow the protocol, yet they were included in the final statistical analysis which clearly skewed the results. If we are judging Dr. G’s protocol fairly, his patients must be able to do to therapy. It’s as simple as that.

6) It is one thing to not be able to follow the protocol. Another consideration is, for those who have ability to follow the rigors of the protocol, did they actually fully follow the therapy? From a statistical viewpoint, only those patients who sufficiently comply with Dr. G’s therapy or any therapy for that matter, should be included in the final statistical tally. If the therapy is being tested, then it must be sufficiently adhered to. Otherwise the results do not truly reflect the therapy.

Here’s what Dr. G found in this regard,

“For a number of reasons, including physical disability, psychiatric instability, lack of social support, poor motivation and physician harassment, we have calculated that 30 of the 39 patients ultimately entered into the nutrition arm followed the prescribed regimen not at all, for only brief periods of time, or incompletely.”

This amounts to a 77% non-compliance rate, yet all were included in the final statistical analysis!! It is quite irresponsible of Dr. Chabot to have included these individuals in the final tally. But if these individuals were excluded, there really wouldn’t be much of a sudy left, so Dr. Chabot couldn’t let that happen. After all, it is his GTX therapy on trial here too. Dr. Chabot clearly was not an unbiased director of this study.

You may notice that Dr. G mentioned “physician harassment” as one of the reasons for non-compliance with his therapy. It is important to note here that of the 39 patients enrolled in Dr. G’s therapy, only 3 of them actually lived in the New York area, and were able to see Dr. G for regular monthly assessments. The remaining 36 patients lived too far away and were forced to receive follow-up from a local doctor unfamiliar with Dr. G’s therapy and very often hostile to it. Dr. G notes,

“Repeatedly, we heard from our patients that during the required monthly meetings, the local physicians aggressively discouraged them from continuing their treatment with us, instead urging them to proceed with some standard approach – despite the fact that the conventional therapies for inoperable pancreatic cancer have proven largely worthless.”

In our culture, oncologists and doctors in general, receive an almost “god-like” status when they give medical advice. Though doctors have studied their trade for many years, the most honest of doctors will readily admit that there is still much in the treatment of disease that they do not know. Yet when frightened pancreatic cancer patients are pressured to give up on treatments like Dr. G’s, only a select few have enough gumption to stick with it. This is what makes clinical trials on alternative cancer therapies so difficult to properly assess, because most doctors have been anti-alternative indocrinated.

This supervision by local doctors instead of Dr. G himself brings up another area of concern for me. If Dr. G’s therapy is on trial here, should not all patients accorded to his final statistical tally, be patients who received regular treatment and assessment from Dr. G personally or someone certified by Dr. G. Oncologists who are unfamiliar or unsympathetic to Dr. G’s therapy cannot possibly employ the same level of adherance as Dr. G? If we are going to judge Dr. G’s therapy, then his statistics should be based on patients he actually treats, not doctors unfamiliar and untrained in the execution of his protocol. This is a clear weakness which would inevitably skew the results.

Conversely, those enrolled in the GTX “arm” of the study, all 23 of them, received direct and intensive care under the very determined, skilled, and well-respected Dr. Robert Fine. Patients in this arm were spared no expense and many times treated 2-3 times per week. Dr. G puts is like this,

Those under Dr. Fine’s charge could not ask for more intense or sophisticated care, from an enthusiastic, supportive staff at a major academic institution. Our patients, on the other hand, faced quite a different and often grim situation at the hands of local doctors at best indifferent and frequently hostile to our therapy

This may sound like sour grapes, but as mentioned earlier, support is critical if one is going to properly follow any type of cancer therapy. Clearly, patients did not receive equal levels of support, yet we are supposed to trust the results?

7) At the beginning of the study, the experts at Columbia determined that for the study to “achieve statistical legitimacy” the number of patients participating needed to be at least 72. At the conclusion of the study, only 58 patients had participated. Dr. Chabot and the other Columbia didn’t see this as a problem and felt the numbers were adequate enough, even though they never achieved their original determination of legitimacy. It seems like Dr. Chabot was willing to change any rules he felt necessary to prove his GTX chemotherapy.

In addition to the insufficient numbers enrolled in the study, of the 58 patients entered you would expect an even distribution of the patients. This did not occur. 39 patients were entered in Dr. G’s regimen, and only 23 were admitted to the GTX therapy. For unknown reasons 4 patients were disqualified from Dr. G’s therapy, which then gave a grand total of 58 participating patients. Again Dr. Chabot didn’t feel the discrepancy between the numbers enrolled in either therapy represented a problem. Rule bending appears to have been a regular thing for Dr. Chabot during this study.

8) Another very important consideration when comparing pancreatic cancer therapies, is that the health of the patients enrolled in either therapy should be a similar as possible to produce accurate results. In other words, one therapy should not be receiving sicker patients than the other. If we are comparing apples to apples, the stage of the cancer must be closely similar.

With pancreatic cancer there are 4 stages which measure how progressed and widespread the disease has become at the time of diagnosis. Stage I pancreatic cancer is the least virulent, whereas Stage IV would be the most dangerous. Most people (about 75%) diagnosed with pancreatic cancer are already at the very advanced Stage IV. So for any clinical trial, one would expect to find this type of percentage to be fairly similar.

According to Dr. G by 2004,

“38 patients had been admitted for nutrition treatment, and of these, approximately 76% by our accounting had been initially diagnosed with the most advanced (stage IV) disease, the other 24% with earlier stage II or III. This pattern approximated, as did our pilot study, the usual distribution of newly diagnosed pancreatic cancer patients as reported in the literature.”

Dr. G’s focus was on his own patients, not the ones from the GTX “arm” of the study. So it was until the study was almost finished that Dr. G was given charts from Dr. Chabot about the GTX “arm”. Here’s what Dr. G became aware of,

“First, I was surprised that he had tabulated the numbers incorrectly for our group, which he reported incorrectly consisted of 35% at stage II and III and 64.7% at stage IV. But I was even more surprised to learn that the chemotherapy arm of the study, created under the direction of the Columbia oncologists, consisted of only 14 patients, 61.5% with earlier stage II and III disease, with only some 38% as advanced stage IV – a near reversal of the distribution in the nutrition group, and a reversal of the usual breakdown reported among patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.”

So according to charts given by Dr. Chabot himself, Dr. G as a whole was treating much sicker patients than the ones assigned by Dr. Chabot to the GTX arm. What is even more troubling is that having 61.5% Stage II & III and only 38% Stage IV patients being enrolled in the GTX therapy, doesn’t correspond to the norm of approximately 75% of patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer are stage IV. This indicates “cherry-picking” by Dr. Chabot by having an abnormally high percentage of Stage II & III patients and abnormally low percentage of Stage IV patients enrolled in the GTX arm of the study. Can you say, conflict of interest? Yesiree!!

When Dr. G informed Dr. Chabot about his concerns with these numbers, he began to add, delete, and change patient numbers to make them more palatable for the final statiscal tally. This is otherwise know as number-fudging. I don’t know Dr. Novella, but I think this is a problem don’t you think?

9) Another discrepancy in the way patients were treated in each “arm” was the opportunity to modify the treatment when a patient was not responding to treatment or getting worse. Any good doctor, when diagnosing a problem with the treatment, will change it up by altering the dosage, change scheduling of the drugs or supplements, or changing many other variables in the treatment.

Dr. Fine was one of those doctors who would not give up on patients when they worsened during the GTX therapy. He would make alterations and do whatever he felt necessary to intensify the treatment. According to Dr. G, patients in his “arm” were not given the same flexibility,

“Yet as we came to learn, it seemed that Dr. Chabot believed our patients needed to be handled quite differently, as if two standards governed the trial – at the first sign of worsening, our nutrition patients were to be sent elsewhere for different treatment.”

At the first sign of trouble, those in Dr. G’s therapy were removed from the study and considered a failure in the final statistics. The local doctors clearly had no faith in Dr. G’s nutritional protocol for treating pancreatic cancer and would not go the extra mile and contact Dr. G for further advice on how to “ramp” up his therapy. Dr. G , in his regular practice, like Dr. Kelley would assess each patient regularly and if a patient was not responding to the therapy, he would alter the dose of enzymes, change the supplement scheduling, and/or change the diet.

It is clearly not fair for Dr. Fine to have full autonomy to alter his GTX treatments as needed, and Dr. G’s patient to have no adaptable support from their local doctors when they are not responding to therapy. Dr. G’s therapy requires regular assessment and alteration, so if this variable is not afforded to his patients by local doctors, his patients in effect are not doing his therapy and therefore should not be included in the statistics. Yet, Dr. Chabot included them all.

10) One more final consideration about this study is the length of time between diagnosis of the pancreatic cancer and the eventual initiation of the treatment. This is critically important with pancreatic cancer, as it is a very aggressive and deadly disease. So the sooner you can start the treatments the better. With regards to this study, for equal comparison the delay time between diagnosis and treatment should be the same for both therapies.

Dr. G became aware that this equal “delay time” was not equal after all. He found those enrolled in his therapy were experiencing great delays in their treatment after being diagnosed. Here’s what he found,

“Overall, we have calculated that 26 of the total of 39 patients admitted into the nutrition arm had been diagnosed by biopsy four or more weeks before meeting with us for their initial consultation, and 17 had been accepted six or more weeks from biopsy. We have calculated for all 39 nutrition patients an average delay between biopsy diagnosis and entry into the study of 36 days, or slightly more than five weeks – not insignificant for a disease as relentlessly aggressive as pancreatic adenocarcinoma.”

So the average delay between diagnosis and treatment for Dr. G’s therapy was about 5 weeks!! On top of the that, Dr. G’s therapy requires orders for supplements which take another week or so. With this delay, Dr. G noted that some patients then became too sick to comply with the therapy.

With regards to the GTX therapy, Dr. Chabot never gave Dr. G the details on delay time in this regimen, but Dr. G notes that with his extensive experience with cancer patients, chemotherapy is usually employed very soon after diagnosis (24-48 hours). Because pancreatic cancer is so deadly, most oncologists waste little time to begin treatment. I see no reason why Dr. Fine would be any different in his application of GTX chemotherapy.

So, this study is supposed to compare each therapy’s effectiveness on a level playing field, yet the delay time for treatment for Dr. G’s therapy was on average 5 weeks, and most likely the delay time for GTX was less than 48 hours. Time and time again we have seen that Dr. G’s regimen gets the short end of the stick. Dr. Chabot didn’t make this delay time a priority for Dr. G’s patients, and I venture to say that considering his conflict of interests from the very beginning, this delay had as Shakespeare said “method in his madness”. What makes this all the more distressing is that patients lives were in the balance here, and Dr. Chabot seemed to be playing them like pawns in a chess game. It’s actually disgraceful!!

Conclusion

So what can we conclude here. I have given 10 points which all represent significant flaws in how this study was carried out. I could have given more points, but I feel I have given sufficient evidence that this was a fatally flawed study from beginning to end. The director of the study, Dr. Chabot, had a clear conflict of interest having been a developer of the GTX chemotherapy. This conflict of interest became evident time and time again. To me the most significant problem was that 92% (36 of 39) of the patients assigned to Dr. G’s therapy were not actually treated by Dr. G or someone certified by him. Instead this was done by doctors unfamiliar with, untrained in, and often hostile to Dr. G’s therapy. Yet the lack of success of “his patients” was blamed on Dr. G!!! Clearly this study is not anywhere close to a true reflection of Dr. G’s enzyme therapy.

Dr. Engel, the official spokeswoman for NCCAM and this study, evaluated the concerns brought up by Dr. Gonzalez and came up with this conclusion,

“Given all of the challenges, the surprising outcomes, and the uncertainties about balance between the two arms, it is highly likely (if not certain) that reviewers of the data from this study will raise substantive and legitimate concerns about the comparability of the two populations. As a consequence, it is virtually certain that the controversy surrounding the study will not be settled by the data from it.”

” It was our impression that everyone in the room basically agreed that, despite best efforts, there is in fact, reason to be concerned about this issue, and that it clouds interpretation of the data.”

So “it is highly likely (if not certain)” that the data from the study basically cannot be trusted according to Dr. Engel. There are so many problems with the study that “it clouds interpretation of the data”. If the data cannot be trusted and the interpretation is clouded, why is it presented as a valid study on the NCI website? Why do quackwatch sites widely quote this study on the internet as the final word on Dr. Gonzalez’s & Dr. Kelley’s Enzyme Therapy? Why can’t doctors like Dr. Novella admit there are insurmountable problems with this study or even any problems at all?

Money, Anti-alternative indoctrination, pride, control, –you take your pick. It’s probably all of the above, but at the end of the day the core issue I believe is money. Billions of dollars are made and have been invested in chemotherapy drugs, radiation machine, surgeries, and cancer diagnostics. This became quite a shock to me when it first hit me several months ago, but it becomes truer each time I look under another cancer “rock”.

It is also very suspicious to me that Dr. Beard, Dr. Kelley, and Dr. Gonzalez have found great success with their practice of this enzyme therapy, yet the results of this study give a completely different and quite unique message. In figure skating, when a performance is judged, the top and bottom scores are not included in the final tally to avoid biased, hometown judging. Because this study is so off the baseline from what Dr. Beard, Dr. Kelley, Dr. Gonzalez, and others have found when using enzyme therapy, we must seriously question its validity. Dr. Beard was nominated for the Nobel Prize for his work. Dr. Gonzalez investigated Dr. Kelley and he became a believer. Dr. Gonzalez’s pilot study convinced Dr. Richard Klausner enough to award Dr. G with the $1.4 million to complete this study. Now strangely the results of the this study are completely at odds with the results of Dr. Beard, Dr. Kelley, and Dr. Gonzalez. So we have only 2 options

1) Dr. Beard, Dr. Kelley, Dr. Gonzalez and others have been fudging their numbers with enzyme therapy all these years

or

2) Dr. Chabot and the NCI fudged the numbers in this study to discredit enzyme therapy and therefore maintain the popularity of current money-making therapies chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery.

If you have been reading my blogs, including this one, it is no secret which option I would select. I believe there is clearly some monkey business going on behind the scenes and I’m not quite sure who or what is behind it all. All I know is that people are what is important, and people with cancer need to be told the truth and be given the therapies that produce the best results with the least collateral damage.

So Brent are you saying that we can’t trust medical studies anymore? No, but we do need to be much more vigilant in our evaluation of them. Brent, there is only so much time in the day, we can’t evaluate every medical study like what you have done in this blog. Eventually we have to show some trust don’t we? I guess we all have to activate our own “spidy senses”, check our gut feelings and then follow them up with research. Now, I would be extra skeptical about any study which denigrate an alternative cancer therapy that has a lot of successful anecdotal evidence behind it. Truth is not an easy road to follow, and I wish I was wrong on this, but the serious truth seeker in this day and age must be willing to go the extra mile and work much harder than the average person. At the end of the day though, truth-seeking is worth the extra effort.

;

Advertisements

Dr. William Kelley — Snake Oil Quack or Maligned Genius?

 

For those of you who haven’t read my last blog, this is actually a continuation of my research on alternative cancer practitioner Dr. William Kelley.  In my last my blog, I did my best to summarize his quite elaborate cancer protocol and the success he had with treating cancer.  Dr. Kelley claimed a 93% success rate for patients who came to him first (not after chemo, radiation, surgery).  He also claimed a fairly high success rate for those given 3 months to live at a slightly better than 50% chance.  For those with less than 3 months to live he claimed a 25-35% chance of survival.  In total, Dr. Kelley and his practitioners treated over a whopping 33,000 patients.  Dr. Kelley’s success with pancreatic cancer, the most deadly of all cancers, was especially striking (I will give details later).

The obvious question must be asked, “Why have most people never heard of Dr. William Kelley?”  Until about 4 months ago I had never heard of him.  Surely if his treatments are truly as successful as Dr. Kelley claimed, then all cancer centres in the world would have his treatment as an option at the very least.  Conversely one might also say, “Anyone can claim these type of success rates, it is quite another thing to have his medical records thoroughly investigated and have his treatments properly tested.”  This is a very valid statement, as our world has produced no shortage of “snake oil salesmen”.  Individuals who for whatever reason could not make a legitimate living and therefore resorted to fraud or number-fudging to sell their quacky supplements.

   

So, does Dr. Kelley bear the signs of a snake oil quack or maligned genius who has never been given his proper due?  I would like to challenge you, my reader, to reserve judgement on Dr. Kelley until you have heard a sufficient amount of information from all angles.  Do not rely on Wikipedia’s brief examination or a single study quoted from a quackwatch site.  As Oscar Wilde states,”the truth is rarely pure, and never simple“.   Truth, many times, is a hard thing to find, especially when powerful establishments in our medical community have monopolies setup which bring in billions of $$$$.  These establishments do not take kindly to anyone cutting into their bottom line.  I realize some may find this a bold accusation, but to me this is an inevitable conclusion to the serious student of alternative cancer practitioners, and alternative healthcare practitioners in general.  We would do well to heed the advice of American founding father Thomas Jefferson,

“If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take,
their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls who live under tyranny.” — Thomas Jefferson

As you may have gathered, my opinion on Dr. Kelley is no secret.  In this blog I will serve as a type of lawyer presenting his case to you, my jury.   In my last blog I explained his protocol, in this blog I will try to answer this question, is his protocol credible?  Again, I will remind you, that up until 4 months ago, I had never heard of Dr. Kelley, and I have nothing to gain in his promotion.  I am simply a man searching for truth in the fight against one of  humanity’s greatest enemies, cancer.  When I come across a truthbreakdown that is purposely being suppressed and at the same time leaves many lives in the balance, my blood starts to boil.   I will try to keep this boil under control as I write, but it may leak out from time to time.

 Does Dr. Kelley bear the earmarks of a Snake Oil Salesman?

The Lack of Success Test

One of the signs to look for in a quack is someone who has not been able to make it successfully in real life pursuits (education, business).  If someone can honestly and legally earn a pretty good “coin”, why would they resort to quackery?  Charlatans generally get desperate and therefore resort to deception.  Does this fit Dr. Kelley?   Dr. Kelley had a Masters in Science (M.S.) degree as well as a Doctor of Dental Surgery (D.D.S).  According to the American Dental Association the average salary for a Dental Specialist, which someone with a D.D.S. would be, in 2004 was about $315,000/year.  According to the U.S Bureau of Labor, the average salary of an othodontist in 2008 was $195,000 and an established practice can see a net income of at least $400,000-500,000/year I could not find any specifics about Dr. Kelley’s salary as a Dental Surgeon/Othodontist, but the reports say he had a thriving practice in Dallas.  However you slice it, it appears Dr. Kelley had no problem making an honest living and most likely a well-to-do one.  I see no reason from a financial perspective for him to resort to quackery.

It is true that Dr. Kelley had financial difficulties late in his life, but this was decades after his first cancer therapy treatments.  These difficulties were multi-causal.  In 1976 the dental board of Texas suspended his dental license for 5 years because he persisted on doing “non-dental” cancer therapy.  In addition to this, according to an article by Dr. Gonzalez in the Townsend letter,

“he had become burnt out by years of hard work with the very sick, and by the relentless harassment by regulatory agencies, the conventional medical world at large, and the media. To make matters worse, his practice had never really recovered from the attacks brought on by his involvement with McQueen, so financially he was in terrible shape.”

The medical elite were truly “relentless” in making sure Dr. Kelley’s work did not see the light of day.  They blamed Dr. Kelley for the death of Steve McQueen.  According to Dr. Kelley, Steve McQueen was murdered by someone posing as a physician who injected him with a blood clotting agent.  Whether this is true or not will probably never be known for sure, but even if Steve McQueen did die in Dr. Kelley’s care with advanced mesothelioma cancer, does Dr. Kelly deserve all the harassment he endured from the media and the medical elite?  Conventional oncologists have no cure for this type of cancer and McQueen was given no hope by his own oncologists.  If every oncologist received the harassment that Dr. Kelley endured for losing a terminal cancer patient, would there be any oncologists left?  It is clearly not a level playing field.

To get a feel for what Dr. Kelley endured, listen to what he wrote in his book “One Answer to Cancer”,

 “I was a most serious threat to their $100 Billion a year Industry. These lawless Establishment Devils went to work and:

  • Poisoned (food) me 3 times to the point of Grand Mall Seizures 3-4 times a week for 14 Months;
  • Tried to shoot me once during this time;
  • Sent the usual IRS agents to do me in;
  • Bought off and bribed my Lawyer and Accountant;
  • Set up a take over of the Kelley organization by employees and wife (standard Establishment procedure);
  • Offered Kelley $500,000.00 to kill a counselee;
  • Caused a vitamin manufacturer of supplements Kelley often used to take all active ingredients out of Kelley Program Supplements.”

You’re probably saying, come on Brent, Dr. Kelley is clearly a paranoid schitzo.  If this was simply an isolated incident, I may agree with you.  But having heard similar stories like this many times, it actually doesn’t surprise me.  Dr. Max Gerson, according to his daughter Chalotte, was poisoned with arsenic.  Dr. Gerson, verified this himself by testing his urine.  Here is a statement from Charlotte,

“Dr. Gerson had a somewhat low blood pressure and enjoyed one cup of coffee in the afternoon. He noted at one point that every evening, after having coffee served at his office, that he had violent cramps and diarrheas. He stopped taking this coffee but a subsequent 24-hour urine collection showed that he excreted arsenic! He did not die immediately; however this weakened him considerably and he subsequently contracted a viral lung infection that killed him.”

  You would expect a snake oil salesman to be profiting from his quackery.  Dr. Kelley’s practice of cancer therapy did the exact opposite.  He lost his once thriving Dental practice, his marriage fell apart, and basically had a mental breakdown late in life.  To me, this shows that Dr. Kelley was in the cancer game for the right reasons.  He successfully cured himself of the most deadly type of cancer, pancreatic, and he wanted to “pay it forward” regardless of the personal cost to himself.  If you really think about it, if Dr. Kelley was able to cure himself of pancreatic cancer, and he clearly had a strong educational background in science (M.S. and D.D.S. degree), does it make any logical sense for him to have received all this backlash?  If the medical elite are truly interested in the advancement of finding a cancer cure, should not there be some room for experimentation with someone like Dr. Kelley?  What is the medical elite so afraid of?  Is it really the health of cancer patients?  Let’s not be naive, the main reason why the medical elite gets so vociferously upset with alternative cancer practitioners like Dr. Kelley, is $$$$$$!!  Dr. Kelley paid a hefty price for his “against the grain” cancer therapy. 

 This reminds me of the movie “Flash of Genius” starring Greg Kinnear.  Kinnear, portraying David Kearns, took on the Detroit automakers to keep his rights to his invention of the intermittent windshield wiper.  He lost his marriage and endured many years of turmoil as a result of his fight with Big Auto.  Eventually Kearns won his battle, but he paid a heavy price for this.  Only time will tell whether Dr. Kelley will ever receive his proper due.

 As a whole, I feel Dr. Kelley passes the financial gain snake oil test.

The Hiding Out Test

You would expect someone peddling quackery would want to stay “under the radar”.  If you can get a good quack business going, you want to keep it going by not exposing it rigorous testing or evaluation.  If what you are peddling has no real value, you will be exposed, and say goodbye to your little venture.  Does this match Dr. Kelley?

After Dr. Kelley successfully beat his own pancreatic cancer (that alone should make every oncologist stand up and listen) he began treating others.  Once realizing his protocol was proving successful with others, Dr. Kelley wanted to investigate “mainstreaming” his protocol.  Dr Gonzalez notes from one of first meetings with Dr. Kelley,

“At this point in his life, Kelley said, he only wanted the chance to have his regimen appropriately and fairly evaluated in clinical trials.”

Dr. Gonzalez, as a 2nd year med student at Cornell University in New York in 1981, never knew Dr. Kelley or had any connection to him.  During this time, because of the McQueen incident, a friend of Dr. Gonzalez took an interest in Dr. Kelley.  Prior to entering medical school, Dr. Gonzalez had spent 7 years in journalism, and this friend encouraged Dr. Gonzalez to investigate this “alternative cancer practitioner” and possibly write a book about him.  Dr. Gonzalez  took on this challenge under the supervision of Dr. Robert A. Good M.D. PhD of the Sloan-Kettering Institute of Cancer Research.  Dr. Good was internationally known as the father of “modern immunology”, and according to Dr. Gonzalez he was “the most published author in the history of medicine.”  Dr. Good appeared on the cover of Time Magazine in 1973 because of his work in immunology, the thymus gland, and bone marrow transplants.  To me, having a young, energetic, and unbiased med student like Dr. Gonzalez take on this investigation of Dr. Kelley, under the direction of a world renown doctor like Dr. Good, sets a very credible foundation. 

Time Magazine: Dr. Robert A. Good Toward the Cure of Cancer

 

Dr. Good, even with all his conventional medical accolades, had an open mind to the possibilities in someone like Dr. Kelley.  Dr. Gonzalez remembers Dr. Good saying,

“as a scientist, one must always look beyond the tried and true for the next new advance.”

Dr. Kelley, himself, was very excited to have someone of Dr. Good’s stature consider investigating his protocols.   Dr. Kelley surmised that he would finally be given a fair shake.  Dr. Gonzalez felt that whatever the result of his investigation, it would be enlightening.  Dr. Good, himself, gave this advice to Dr. Gonzalez,

“even if Dr. Kelley turned out to be a total charlatan, I would learn a lot of medicine by going down to Dallas to sort out what was going on in his office. A student always learns best, he said, when pursuing a project of his own devising, rather than an assignment picked by someone else.”

As you may have gathered by now, Dr. Gonzalez not only found much promise in Dr. Kelley’s cancer protocol, but  he now is the foremost practitioner of  Dr. Kelley’s protocol today.  This reminds me of the story of the former atheist and editor of the Chicago Tribune, Lee Strobel, who began a search into the tenets of christianity to prove its fallacy.  After a thorough investigation, Lee reached the opposite conclusion.   Now Lee is one of the leading christian apologists in the world today.

If  Dr.Kelley was knowingly practicing a snake oil cancer therapy, would he really want a young whipper-snapper like Dr. Gonzalez under the direction of world renown doctor Dr. Good, taking a close look at his patient’s medical records?  Highly unlikely.  Dr. Kelley clearly felt his cancer therapy had sufficient merit to be willing to submit his records to this scrutiny.  Dr. Kelley actually was very excited to have this investigation take place.

This not what you would expect from a snake oil salesman, so I say Dr. Kelley passes the hiding out test.

The Medical Records Test

There are 2 aspects to this test.

First, you would not expect a charlatan to keep a good record of his practice for the possibility of a possible investigation.  As in the Watergate Scandal with president Richard Nixon, chief of staff  H. R. Haldeman was supposed to “burn the tapes” to erase the evidence.  For a snake oil salesman, the only real need for records to be kept would be for billing purposes, not for the proper medical evaluation of their patient’s progress. 

Second, you would not expect a snake oil therapy to be producing good results upon investigation.  Interviewing patients directly who were under Dr. Kelley’s care should have shown a clear lack of positive feedback.  As well, I think I have sufficiently shown that Dr. Gonzalez and Dr. Good had no special bias toward Dr. Kelley to fudge their investigation.  Dr. Good, especially, would not want his good name tarnished.  Dr. Gonzalez and Dr. Good had really nothing to gain and potentially lots to lose by investigating Dr. Kelley.   Proving Dr. Kelley to be a charlatan would have made a good book and would have definitely received accolades from the medical elite.

So what did Dr. Gonzalez uncover?

For about 5 years, from 1982 to 1986, Dr. Gonzalez was able to spend a considerable amount of time scouring over Dr. Kelley’s medical records and interviewing patients.  Eventually Dr. Gonzalez wrote a summary manuscript of his findings, which has now been published as a book called “One Man Alone”.  Dr. Gonzalez comments on his first initial findings,

” Kelley, as promised, opened his patient files to me without hesitation. I spent many hours each succeeding day poring over his records, and what I found I thought was quite remarkable: patient after patient with properly diagnosed advanced cancer, including pancreatic carcinoma, who had done well under Kelley’s care, either in terms of disease regression or significantly prolonged survival.”

Over the course of Dr. Gonzalez’s 5 year investigation (which was clearly not rushed), he reviewed over 10,000 patient records and interviewed over 1000 of Dr. Kelley’s patients with a special focus on a group of 455 of them who had done particularly well on his protocol.  He then summarized a detailed list of 50 case reports representing 26 different types of cancer.  Dr. Gonzalez was in continual consultation with Dr. Good to ensure proper execution of his investigation.  This was clearly a thorough, non-haphazard approach.  In a letter to Dr. Good, Dr. Gonzalez wrote,

“I found these results, particularly for pancreatic, quite intriguing. His overall survival rate for all cancer in this first group is 93% – and as I have found going through Dr. Kelley’s records, virtually all of his patients have advanced disease. Many have come to him because no further conventional treatment could be offered.”

So as you can see, the Dr. Kelley’s claim of a 93% success rate was also independently verified by Dr. Gonzalez.  As you can also see, Dr. Gonzalez was particularly intrigued with Dr. Kelley’s success with pancreatic cancer.  Dr. Kelley was able to reproduce similar results to his own personal success with pancreatic cancer.  Dr. Good was also keenly interested in any records that showed success with metastatic pancreatic carcinoma (pancreatic cancer).  Dr. Good told Dr. Gonzalez,

“if I could find even one patient diagnosed with the disease (pancreatic cancer) who had lived five years on this nutritional regimen, he would be impressed, since to his knowledge no one else in medicine anywhere had such a case.”

Even the late former CEO of Apple, Steve Jobs, with all his financial resources and high level intelligence could not beat pancreatic cancer with the most advanced present day therapies.  According to the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) the 5 year survival rate between 1950-1995 of someone with pancreatic cancer is a measly 3%. 

Dr. Gonzalez was able to identify 22 cases of Dr. Kelley’s patients with pancreatic cancer who had consulted Dr. Kelley between 1974-1982.  Of the 22 cases, 10 of them had not followed Dr. Kelley’s protocol for a single day.  All of these 10 were now deceased and had an average survival of 63 days.  They were encouraged by their doctors and family members to give up on this “unconventional approach”. 

 As an aside, were any of these doctors or family members held accountable for this advice?  I think you know the answer to that one.  The only ones ever held accountable for advice which leads to death are “alternative practitioners”.  On top of that, why would a doctor recommend a change in protocol if conventional medicine only has a 3% success rate or less with pancreatic cancer.  Of all the types of cancer, doctors should be the most open-minded toward pancreatic, but  it is clear that years of anti-alternative indoctrination becomes an almost  insurmountable wall to cross.

Dr. Gonzalez also identified a group of 7 pancreatic cancer patients who partially followed Dr. Kelley’s protocol.   With this group some had followed Dr. Kelley’s protocol anywhere from 4 weeks to 13 months.  Of these 7 patients, all were now deceased and the average survival increased to 302 days.  Dr. Gonzalez noted that this was longer than would be expected as the average life expectancy is anywhere from 3-6 months.  He also found that these individuals also received a lot of pressure from doctors and family members to give up on the protocol. 

The final group Dr. Gonzalez identified were 5 patients who had fully complied with Dr. Kelley’s protocol.  By the time Dr. Gonzalez had completed his study, all 5 of these patients were still alive and had an average mean survival of over 8 years!!  Dr. Kelley’s personal success with pancreatic cancer was remarkable enough, but then to have 5 of his patients beat it as well was truly astounding.  In actuality, this surmounted to a 100% success rate for those who fully followed Dr. Kelley’s protocol.  A sample of 5 patients may be too small to authoritatively announce to the world about 100% success rate with pancreatic cancer, but as Dr. Good originally stated, he would be impressed with even a single successful case report of a 5 year survival of pancreatic cancer. 

Now with Dr. Gonzalez having reviewed Dr. Kelley’s patient records very thoroughly, one would expect that his final manuscript would be applauded and well-circulated.  Dr. Gonzalez said that at the time of his manuscript completion,

“Dr. Good no longer had the financing, the resources, or the power base that would have allowed for further laboratory and clinical studies under his tutelage. “

Given this fact, Dr. Good recommended that Dr. Gonzalez’s next best option was to get his manuscript published in book form for an eventual peer-review process.  Dr. Gonzalez tried intently on doing precisely that, but he strangely didn’t get the response he was looking for.  He noted,

“over the next year, no publisher, either trade or scientific, agreed to back the book, nor would any medical journal consider excerpting portions, even a case report or two. Some editors just didn’t believe that the records could be real, that an unconventional nutritional therapy could reverse advanced cancer. Others accepted the data as legitimate, but thought that the book would generate so much controversy that it might jeopardize their careers .”

Dr. Gonzalez began to realize that “alternative cancer therapies”, not matter how successful they are, are not treated on a level playing field.  Dr. Good finally recommended a personal friend of his for whom he felt would give Dr. Gonzalez a fair analysis of his manuscript.  Ironically, even this personal friend of Dr. Good reacted quite vociferously to the manuscript.  He even accused Dr. Good of being “hoodwinked by a scam artist”.   This shocked Dr. Good quite deeply and had a clear detrimental impact to Dr. Good’s continued support of Dr. Kelley or Dr. Gonzalez. 

Just when Dr. Gonzalez began giving up any hope of getting his manuscript supported by mainstream medicine,  in 1987  the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) began an investigation into Dr. Gonzalez’s manuscript.  He and Dr. Kelley thought this was a promising development.   In the meantime, news of this manuscript began to popularize in alternative circles and even in Japanese conventional circles.  Dr. Atkins, the famous diet doctor, even interviewed Dr. Gonzalez on his radio show.  

When the OTA finally came out with its report in 1990, it was strangely condemning by focusing  on Dr. Kelley’s legal troubles rather than the data Dr. Gonzalez had collected.  It became a character assassination rather than a fair examination of the data.  I have seen a similar state of affairs in my research on the creation/evolution debate.  Instead of the arguments being based on the actual evidence, the evolutionary establishment resorts to name-calling and character demeanor.  “You’re stupid” is a common quote you hear which clearly denigrates the integrity of proper scientific investigation.  Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled” gives a good commentary on this controversial topic.

With all this negative feedback and continuous harassment, Dr. Kelley himself began to breakdown.  He began to even accuse Dr. Good and Dr. Gonzalez for colluding with the establishment against him.   In 1995, even the prolific Dr. Good began to separate himself from this assault by stating in an interview that the patients in Gonzalez’s study “didn’t have cancer”.   Dr. Gonzalez felt he was hung out to dry by Dr. Good.   After all, Dr. Good had earlier reviewed and approved all the cases in the manuscript.   This goes to show you how effective the establishment can be at pressuring even to the most prestigious of medical doctors who go against the grain.

Dr. Gonzalez, quite bewildered when looking back on the history of his 22-year-old manuscript states,

” It has been the subject of a misguided federal review, thrown across a Congressional hearing room, discussed at length in a Japanese book, litigated in a Pennsylvania courtroom, debated on national TV, and described in the pages of the erudite New Yorker. It has been lauded as a major breakthrough against cancer, dismissed as inconsequential, and despised as dangerous quackery.” 

Thrown across a Congressional hearing room?  For a manuscript that is simply a collection of data.  For whatever reason, alternative cancer therapies create a very odd emotional response that goes well beyond the realm of logic.  From my research of many other alternative cancer practitioners,  I have found that this is not an isolated incident limited to Dr. Kelley and Dr. Gonzalez.  After awhile it becomes almost predictable.  For those curious about this issue, I would encourage you to check out this webpage http://www.whale.to/a/persecuted_doc_h.html on persecuted doctors. 

So does Dr. Kelley pass the Medical records test of snake oil salesman?  

He clearly had no reservation whatsoever allowing Dr. Gonzalez and

Dr. Good to examine his patient records.  How many doctors can attest

to having a complete list of over 10,000 patient records?  It was clearly a priority to Dr. Kelley to maintain accurate medical records for a variety of reasons.  Dr. Gonzalez commented in a youtube video that no one cared more about his patients than Dr. Kelley.  It was his mission to see them get well.  Dr. Gonzalez from start to finish was very impressed with the sheer volume of Dr. Kelley’s patient files, not to mention the success he found upon reviewing them.  Dr. Gonzalez was able to interview patients and therefore confirm the efficacy of the actual records.  His investigation agreed with Dr. Kelley’s claims of a 93% success rate and the exceptional success Dr. Kelley had with pancreatic cancer patients. 

If you trust that Dr. Gonzalez and Dr. Good were capable of researching Dr. Kelley without bias, then I feel that it can be safely stated that Dr. Kelley passes the Medical Report test.  There is no record that I’ve found that Dr. Gonzalez or Dr. Good had anything to gain from Dr. Kelley’s promotion, in fact both of them received unfair accusations and condemnation for having studied Dr. Kelley. 

The Verdict is in

As a whole, I feel I have sufficiently proven, using 3 common tests of quackery, that Dr. Kelley simply does not fit the bill as a charlatan.  He clearly was not in the cancer game for financial gain as he was already a successful othodontist and his cancer practice actually ruined him financially and personally.  He never hid his therapy from investigation and he actually greatly desired his cancer protocol to be properly evaluated.  He kept meticulous patient records which were independently verified by Dr. Gonzalez and Dr. Good.  These same doctors also verified Dr. Kelley’s success rate claims.  Dr. Kelley passed and surpassed all tests directed at him.  It is actually quite shameful how the medical establishment, the media, and the government treated this great man who saved so many sick people.  Testimony after testimony after testimony.  It would be well worth reading some of those testimonies for yourself. 

The medical establishment terms testimonies as “anecdotal evidence” and basically gives some credence it.  At the same time anecdotal evidence is considered quite inferior to evidence based on “studies”.  Studies are generally multi-million dollar ventures which are controlled to test whether anecdotal evidence is reproducible in a controlled environment.  Unfortunately, Dr. Kelley’s dream was never fulfilled as he was never given the opportunity to complete clinical studies in a controlled study.  Finding funding and the medical will to complete this evaluation simply never happened, and I think that is strangely odd considering the success that Dr. Gonzalez uncovered. 

 I believe the success that Dr. Kelley achieved with his cancer therapy was not only due to his uncovering of Dr. Beard, Dr. Gerson, and Dr. Howell’s theories,  but also his superior intellect which allowed him to adjust to patients who needed more personal direction when the standard theories did not work for everyone.  His open-mindedness and flexibility allowed him to look outside the box and customize his treatments to the individual.  This may be one of reasons why his stats are difficult to reproduce even when following his protocol as most health professionals do not have Dr. Kelley’s intellectual adaptability.  For those 33,000 patients who were fortunate enough to receive treatments from Dr. Kelley, they witnessed a bright light that humanity has produced in a rare supply.  Hopefully, history will remember Dr. Kelley fondly by his cancer protocol becoming more widely recognized.  Dr. Gonzalez, even though his relationship soured with Dr. Kelley as Dr. Kelley had a mental breakdown later on in life, summarized the life of his mentor,

“In my estimation, Kelley, in his scientific thinking, was light years ahead of the rest of us, both orthodox and alternative. He deserves our respect for his accomplishments, for his trials and severe tribulations, and our forgiveness for his foibles. Someday, I believe his thoughts about the nature of cancer and human disease will become the foundation of a new medicine, not merely a fringe footnote, and the world will remember him at that time with well deserved appreciation. For now, let’s remember him kindly, with gratitude for what he did and what he tried to do.” 

 

For those of you who have done your own research on Dr. Kelley and Dr. Gonzalez, you have probably come across a study by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the National Center (NCCAM) which is widely quoted throughout the internet which supposedly settles that chemotherapy is 3 times more effective than Dr. Gonzalez’s nutritional enzyme treatment.   Because this study is actually based own Dr. Gonzalez’s own practice of cancer therapy and not directly of Dr. Kelley own practice, I will save a discussion of this for my next blog.  And trust me, this study requires some discussion as it is a prime example of how a conflict of interest can wildly skew the actual results and that not all studies are created equal.