HISTORICAL REVIEW OF CLINICAL TRIALS AT THE OASIS OF HOPE HOSPITAL

Since 1963, one hundred thousand patients have been treated at the
Oasis of Hope Hospital founded by Dr. Ernesto Contreras, Sr.. Patients
have come here from every part of the world seeking cancer therapies
and treatment approaches pioneered by the Contreras doctors,
specifically the Metabolic Therapy . Dr. Contreras called his cancer
therapy "metabolic" because it enhances normal function of organs
while provoking an adverse environment for malignant cells. This is
accomplished through a treatment program that provides detoxification,
natural anti-tumor agents such as laetrile, whole foods and juices,
emotional and spiritual support, and immune stimulation from vitamins,
minerals, phytochemicals and enzymes.

In 1981, we conducted a retrospective study to document the five-year
survival rates of our cancer patients. It is important to note that 95
percent of these patients came to us with stage IV cancers after
conventional therapy had failed to help them. They had been sent home
to die. We treated them with our metabolic therapy and the results
were encouraging. Our overall five-year survival rate for all types of
cancer was 30 percent. We also noted that 86 percent of our patients
outlived their prognosis and reported an improvement in their quality
of life.

Malignancies in the lung, breast, colon and prostate are the most
prevalent in our experience. For this reason, we designed a
prospective study on the efficacy of metabolic therapy focused on
these advanced stage IV cancers. In the table below, we compare our
results against those from clinical trials with conventional
therapies.


Type of cancer / Distant1 Number of patients / 5 yr. survival rate
(%)
Lung Cancer 200 .....................................Oasis:
30% / Conventional: 2%
Breast Cancer 130 .....................................Oasis:
39% / Conventional: 21%
Colon Cancer 150 .....................................Oasis:
30% / Conventional: 8%
Prostate Cancer 600 .....................................Oasis:
86% / Conventional: 33%

1. Distant: A malignant cancer that has spread to parts of the body
remote from the primary tumor either by direct extension or by
discontinuous metastasis to distant organs, tissues, or via the
lymphatic system to distant lymph nodes.

2. Source: American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures 2001

The Oasis statistics when compared to the Conventional statistics are
dramatically better. What makes these results astounding to me is the
difference between the Oasis group and the Conventional group. The
Oasis patients had already undergone surgery, radiation or
chemotherapy. They had endured the hair loss, nausea, burns and
devastation of their energy levels and immune systems. Those in the
Conventional group had no previous treatment to damage their general
condition. They had a fresh start. We can only speculate on the better
results we could achieve with patients that would avoid conventional
therapy before they arrive to the Oasis of Hope.

In spite of the impressive results, our studies were rejected by all
peer reviewed medical journals. The only studies that these groups
recognize are single drug double blind clinical trials. Our study just
didn't meet those criteria. In fact, our results depend on a
combination of therapies. This makes it difficult to single out one
active agent, and this is the objective of cancer research. Scientists
want to identify the means and we have focused completely on the end
result.

Our results in lung cancer were so dramatic however that one group of
oncological authorities did invite us to make a presentation at the
World Congress on Cancer in Buenos Aires. Unfortunately, the Congress
coordinators canceled our participation at the last minute due to
opposition from some outspoken doctors. Once again, those who insisted
that the results were secondary and that our study did not adhere to
their guidelines were able to silence us.

In the past, financial restraints and negativity from the oncological
community have hindered us from conducting standard double blind
clinical trials. But the legal and medical environment is changing as
more and more people demand access to alternative medicine. The
governments in the USA and Mexico have already established offices of
alternative medicine in their health departments. The Ministry of
Health in Mexico has approved our application for a clinical research
organization (CRO) and we are now positioning ourselves for research
grants. We intend to conduct the necessary trials to publish the
results in an effort to make valid therapies available to people in
any part of the world.

We have never been on a crusade to prove the value of alternative
therapies. In fact, we have often been criticized for our use of
conventional medicine. We keep focused on our ultimate goal, the total
well being of our patients. We try not to limit our patients to either
alternative or orthodox therapies. We offer them what are the most
effective and least harmful options. Our approach compliments
conventional medicine with natural elements and mind/spirit support.
To our critics who wage that we do not utilize pure science, we would
like to remind them. Medicine is much more than science, it is a
healing art.

(c) 2005 Oasis of Hope Hospital, All Right Reserved

http://www.oasisofhope.com/clinical_results.html

On 7 Feb 2007 13:13:19 -0800, "PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

And was this nifty litle piece of self promotion actually published
anywhere other than in-house?

jack

"PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170882799.134842.42490@m58g2000cwm.googlegro ups.com...
Excuses after excuses! And bullshit after bullshit! (that only single drug
double blinded studies will be looked at - Gonzales did a study of eleven
patients and there is now a 1.3 million dollar trial of his treatment)

This shows an alternative cancer clinic's typical breathtaking disdain for
cancer sufferers and their right to have reliable information!

Have they failed to notice that --

"Altern Ther Health Med" published a five year survival study of melanoma
patients from the Gerson clinic ,

"J Altern Complement Med" published five years survival data for the
Livingstone-Wheeler clinc and the Hoxsey clinic

"J. Naturopathic Med" actually published some follow-up data on 31 patients
from the Contreras clinic itself in 1983-4 (they were terrible)

"Nutrition and Cancer" published Gonzales study on the treatment of
pancreatic cancer via the Kelley method.

*So it is not at all difficult to get such material published*. The
problem is that they know that if they try to publish their results, even
alternative medical journals will expect more detailed information. They
will want to know how many patients were lost to follow-up and were all
patients accurately staged and typically it is found that those elements of
alternative cancer clinic practice are crap* (see
http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmo...ve_studies.htm ).

Hell, doctors may even want to come to the clinic and look at some of the
records to ensure that everything is as stated. Others might seriously
doubt that a clinic has been able to produce 60 five year survivors with
metastatic lung cancer without that being noticed by anyone else, and they
might especially want to see those patients records.

Proving that point, incidentally, doesn't require "single agent
double-blinded controlled trials". Their mere use of that allegation shows
that they are ignorant of the first principles of primary cancer research.


Peter Moran

www.cancerwatcher.com

http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmo...it_works_1.htm

What's so hard About showing That a cancer cure works?

A manual for those who Think they've got one! (Part 1)

Let's assume that there are "alternative" cancer cures out there that work
as claimed, and you've got one of them. How to get it recognized?

One matter needs clearing up from the start. It is quite true that those
providing "alternative" cancer treatments don't usually have the resources
to test them out in randomized controlled trials (RCTs - studies where
patients are randomly allotted to differently managed groups and the results
compared. The control group acts rather like the "blank" in a test tube
experiment). It is also true that such trials are the only reliable way
showing activity for many kinds of medical treatment, for example pain
relievers or antidepressants.

Is this why so many cancer cures are being ignored by the medical
profession? Their discoverers simply cannot produce "the kind of evidence
the doctors want?"

Well, despite this fairly standard complaint from many promoters of dubious
cancer treatments, RCTs are definitely NOT the only possible next step up
from usually third-rate testimonial!!.

The truth is that RCTs are not even used in conventional oncology when
initially assessing cancer treatments. This comes as a surprise even to
some skeptics! New cancer treatments are always initially tested for their
ability to produce regression of cancer in patients with measurable cancer
in very simple uncontrolled studies ( Phase 1 and :Phase 11 studies), just
as similar patients might walk into an "alternative" cancer practice
An example of a simple Phase 1/11 study, one that strongly suggests a useful
treatment effect for a dendritic cell vaccine in advanced melanoma,
follows. There are other examples among the references below [7-11]. Are
similar studies too much to ask of the promoters of "alternative" methods?

"Dr Joseph Fay, from the Baylor Institute for Immunology Research in Dallas,
outlined the results of a dendritic cell vaccine in patients with
elanoma. ----------- Five of the 18 patients in this study had a complete
response (CR) to vaccine treatment alone. Two additional patients achieved a
CR after additional vaccinations and surgery. Seven patients are alive at a
median of 39 months from the start of the study. Interestingly, responses
were seen in patients with liver and brain metastasis." (Fay J, Palucka K,
and Banchereau J, Dendritic Cells and Induction of Immunity Against Cancer.
Conference on the Development of Therapeutic Cancer Vaccines, Los Angeles CA
April 27-29, 2008.)

RCTs are of vital importance to oncology but they come into play at a later
stage, when treatments with known activity against cancer are compared to
find out which works best.

Simple forms of evidence such as the above can carry considerable weight in
cancer treatment for one simple reason: cancer is, in general, very
predictable. In the absence of effective treatment it is nearly always a
progressive condition. Thus, so long as the initial state of cancer is
accurately known and the treatment effect is obvious, each patient can act
as their own "control" (comparison case). This does NOT apply with
subjective symptoms such as pain or depression or even with the symptoms
that cancers can cause. They can fluctuate markedly in severity over a
matter of hours. They can also appear to be responsive to sham treatment
(placebo), for complex reasons related to non-specific patient reactions to
medical care and biases in the reporting and observing of complaints.

On Feb 8, 3:14 pm, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@bordernet.com.au> wrote:
Apparently everything, judging by the studies you provided on
chemotherapy earlier. If your defense of the drug makers was
meaningful, these studies would have asked the hard questions,
performed meaningful RCTs, made patient outcomes, rather than tumor
reduction, the premise for its claims, and reported the numbers.
That, Dr. Doolittle, has never happened.

"PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170969596.175619.223080@h3g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...
Tumour reduction is an essential feature of any active cancer treatment.
Even boosting the immune system should results in tumour reduction.
Inducing apoptosis should result in tumour reduction.

When it comes to patient outcomes, are you talking about chemotherapy with
curative intent or palliative intent or as an adjuvant ot other measures?
The patient outcomes sought will be different in each case. And regarding
the use of which chemotherapy for which cancers do you say there is no
meaningful evidence? I have previously supplied what evidence is
available in relation to some, supplying ":numbers" as to the various
paramenters measured, and when compared with "best supportive care". Did
you not understand those abstracts? I agree they are difficult for the
average person.

P M . .

"PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1170969596.175619.223080@h3g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...
WHy tumour reduction is important if you want credibility for your cancer
"cure". --

Also from
http://members.bordernet.com.au/~pmo...it_works_1.htm ---
It is vital to demonstrate the remission of previously progressive cancer.

This may seem obvious to many readers, but defenders of CAM sometimes decry
the emphasis that conventional medicine places on remission (i.e. cancer
shrinking or disappearing completely ) as a measure of treatment success
with cancer. They are quite right that lesser benefits such as symptom
relief or slowing of cancer progression would be of real value to some
patients. It must also be admitted that the remissions produced by some
conventional treatments (usually in desperate cases) can be few,
transient, and bought at the risk of serious side effects.

Nevertheless, there are compelling reasons for demanding examples of
well-documented cancer remission from anyone claiming to have a major cancer
treatment.

1.. The heaviest consumers of "alternative" methods are patients with
advanced cancer who have unquestionably been led to believe there is some
possibility of major remission. Are such expectations being fraudulently
aroused?

2.. All methods having proven impact upon cancer, whether physical,
chemotherapeutic, hormonal or immunological , have been able to induce major
remissions with some cancers even if having lesser or no effect upon
others.

3.. Complete remission is essential to any claim to have cured cancer.
Cure = complete remission plus normal life expectancy (see here for fuller
discussion).

4. Lesser claims, such as that patients live longer with their cancers, or
experience symptom relief, or tolerate chemotherapy better, involve outcomes
that are far too variable from patient to patient even with the same general
kind of cancer for the anecdotal experience of the practitioner to carry
much weight. Even experienced oncologists working under much more
favourable conditions than the average alternative practitioner would not be
trusted to make such judgments purely from day-to-day experience and
fallible recall. Here, RCTs ARE definitely needed.. And, I note again,
"alternative" claims are rarely so modest.

6. Nothing relieves the symptoms of cancer as efficiently as causing the
cancer to regress (shrink). Many, if not most, symptoms of cancer would not
be fully relieved by anything less. Difficulty in swallowing from cancer
of the esophagus, vomiting from cancer of the stomach, inability to pass
urine with cancer of the prostate are a few examples of symptoms that
require regression for satisfactory relief.

7. Finally, and most importantly of all for present purposes -- in order
to demonstrate cancer regressing there has to have been firm knowledge as
to the state of cancer to begin with. There has to have been tangible,
measurable cancer, as well a statement in a biopsy report.

PM

www.cancerwatcher.com

In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

:> What's so hard About showing That a cancer cure works?
:
: Apparently everything, judging by the studies you provided on
: chemotherapy earlier.

Have you figured out what Phase I and Phase II trials are yet?

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Compared with Man, we have to admit that the insect does not display what
we can describe as intelligence. But don't feel too proud about that, because
where there is no intelligence, there is also no stupidity."

In misc.health.alternative Peter Moran <pmoran@bordernet.com.au> wrote:

: Did you not understand those abstracts? I agree they are difficult for the
: average person.

"PeterB" is hardly the "average" person.

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"

On Feb 8, 8:27 pm, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@bordernet.com.au> wrote:
Unfortunately, you have provided no evidence that tumor reduction is
linked to treatment in the first place. Getting wet while doing a
rain dance does not make you a weatherman.

None of the above. I'm talking about survival times in treated and
untreated patients. Claiming it is somehow unethical to withhold
unproven treatments, while using the inevitable survival of some
patients to claim that treatment "works," is quackery. This is what
the public needs to know.

That's why we have studies, Dr. Doolittle. Unfortunately, the two you
cited don't prove anything.

The ones in the table I provided earlier (you know, the data you
conveniently ignored)

Yes, I responded to the evidence you were able to find, but you never
replied. Here is what I said:

I do not regard BSC studies as meaningful, for several reasons.
First, the heterogeneity of BSC terms means that comparing
chemotherapy to such effects is no different than using aggregated
data for chemo "responders" and "non-responders," particularly in the
absence of controls. More importantly, the methods and protocols used
to assess outcomes in patients in whom chemotherapy is deemed
inappropriate suggests their prognosis is poor to begin with. Very
ill patients are not an appropriate control for the study of
treatment, as would would derive differences in survival times even
without treatment. A study is only as good as its design.

I understand they are meaningless.

That must explain why you posted them.

On Feb 8, 2:54 am, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@bordernet.com.au> wrote:

Once there was a kick returner in a football game who doubled back
through the end zone before returning the kickoff for a touchdown.

When the player returned to the bench, his coach threw his hat down
and dressed the player down about all the mistakes he made.

After the coach got done inventing new swear words, the kick returner
smiled and asked, "Coach, how did you like the play for distance?"

Moral: Don't ask Moran to score any touchdowns for you, and definitely
don't ask him to save your life if you've got cancer. Sure he's got
plenty of swear words, but that's about it.

Moran is the type of guy who wouldn't be able to tell if the person in
front of him was vibrantly healthy or at death's door, unless he had a
chart in front of him with the answer written on it.

He's already admitted he wouldn't pick up the phone to find out how a
metastatic lung cancer patient became cancer free. Nope. He needs
paperwork to comb over to disprove that the person in front of him was
well.

Moran has Denial Disease. It's a condition where the obvious becomes
the impossible, and the deadly becomes praiseworthy.

The medical community hasn't noticed that 13,500 people are killed
each year by NSAID's.

"PeterB" <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171051357.021328.24000@s48g2000cws.googlegro ups.com...
???

?????

That was palliative chemotehrapy, in case you didn't know it. In many fo
those cases the chemotherapy would be given as much to relieve symptoms as
to prolong life, but there is evidence of life prolongation in most
contexts.


It seems I now have to explain what "randomised controlled trial" means.
None of this points are relevant to the studies I presented.

PM

On Feb 10, 2:41 pm, "Peter Moran" <pmo...@bordernet.com.au> wrote:
People living after chemotherapy does not prove they are living longer
*because* of chemotherapy. Claiming a survival benefit following such
unproven treatment is quackery.

That's the whole point, you moron. It's "palliative" (supposedly)
because it isn't adding a single day of extra life to those patients.
What part of UNPROVEN do you not understand? Everything done for a
patient in a hospital is palliative if it doesn't cure the patient or
extend his life. I know you are the best defense the drug makers can
buy, but don't you get tired of demonstrating just how pathetic that
effort can be?

No, there isn't. The table I posted proves it and that covers the
majority of cancers. You have absolutely no data documenting a
survival benefit following chemotherapy, or data correlating treatment
to remission. If I'm wrong, provide a published work that reveals to
the world this astounding achievement, including all those cured
cancer patients alive today thanks to chemotherapy. I'll be waiting.

It's not surprising you are unable to prove a survival benefit without
untreated controls, or that comparing patients too ill to receive
chemotherapy in the first place against patients strong enough to
withstand the rigors of treatment fails to prove a correlation between
"treatment" and survival. If that is your definition of "evidence
based medicine," you and it are quite worthless. If you are capable
of explaining anything to me I don't already know, it would be
justifying your willful participation in this charade. Of course, my
comment that you might do that is rhetorical, since I know why you do
it, and you are in no position to explain it.

In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:

: People living after chemotherapy does not prove they are living longer
: *because* of chemotherapy. Claiming a survival benefit following such
: unproven treatment is quackery.

People living after laetrile therapy does not prove they are living longer
*because* of laetrile therapy. Claiming a survival benefit following such
unproven treatment is quackery.


-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
". . . for while he was not dumber than an ox, he was not any smarter."
-- James Thurber, _My Life and Hard Times_

Ahh! so Mr. Schultz's answer apparently, is, it is better to do nothing.
"Richard Schultz" <schultr@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
news:eqmc92$olq$2@news.iucc.ac.il...

In misc.health.alternative t <tools22@gmail.com> wrote:
: Ahh! so Mr. Schultz's answer apparently, is, it is better to do nothing.

My answer is that I will explain to you what I meant just as soon as you
learn how not to top post. Let's start with the simple things before we
move on to the logical fallacies of "PeterB's" arguments.

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."

On Feb 11, 1:14 am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
Natural medicine advocates are not using aggregated data to make such
claims, as you and your sponsors do. Oasis, in fact, states curiously
that laetrile is not the reason for their success. I would argue that
Dr. Contreras and others at the clinic thought otherwise, however the
lack of evidence for chemotherapy is profound by comparison. After
decades of widespread use, cancer remains a major killer in first
world nations, and is hardly on the decline.

Other than you on behalf of the drug makers, nobody is making that
claim.

In misc.health.alternative PeterB <pkm@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
: On Feb 11, 1:14 am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
:> In misc.health.alternative PeterB <p...@mytrashmail.com> wrote:
:>
:> : People living after chemotherapy does not prove they are living longer
:> : *because* of chemotherapy. Claiming a survival benefit following such
:> : unproven treatment is quackery.
:>
:> People living after laetrile therapy does not prove they are living longer
:> *because* of laetrile therapy.
:
: Natural medicine advocates are not using aggregated data to make such
: claims,

You have claimed that consuming laetrile confers a survival benefit to
people with cancer. By your own argument, even if that statement were true
(which you know very well it is not), your claim is "quackery."

: as you and your sponsors do

[remainder deleted, as *this* lie is beginning to get rather tiresome]

-----
Richard Schultz schultr@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"There are no fools as tiresome as those who have some wit." -- La Rochefoucald

"Richard Schultz" <schultr@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
news:er0rgk$nmh$6@news.iucc.ac.il...
Well if it were True then then how can it be quackery.

Facts are that there may well be more to consuming seeds of fruits which
contain B17. My brother in law was told by his Oncologist to eat more nuts
and seeds. Apple seeds are a good source of B17 as are nuts as well as
apricot seeds.

But you, who profess to know all, will not admit that B17 may actually help
people who are doomed to death by cancer and or its current treatment.

Why?

Rod