Coley’s Dramatic Cancer Cure, Part 7: New Work from United Arab Emirates (and Reprint of Parts 1-6)

by Mary W Maxwell

The Daily Mail UK presented an article yesterday about a method, like that of William Coley’s toxins, as a cancer sure. I will reprint that Daily Mail article here.

It which refers to new studies in the United Arab Emirates and says scientists are claiming that

“Controversial injections of bacteria such as salmonella and listeria could fight cancer by ‘rallying up’ tumour-fighting cells.”

As you may recall, Gumshoe ran a six-part series on Coley’s “dramatic cancer cures.”  So as a matter of convenience these will be brought together in one 13,000-word rehash now. They will appear with the Daily Mail offering which I am calling “Part 7.”

(Note:  There is no way to make Comments today at the end of  Part 7, as the Part 1-6 reprint had to be inserted as part of this article.)

The Daily Mail, September 18, 2019:

By ALEXANDRA THOMPSON SENIOR HEALTH REPORTER FOR MAILONLINE

Bacteria injections could help the immune system fight several types of cancer, research suggests.  Scientists in the United Arab Emirates reviewed multiple studies of the treatment, which was first trialled a century ago.

Results showed injecting cancer-stricken mice with different strains of bacteria, including salmonella and listeria, can help kill tumours.

It is thought the pathogens accumulate in the tumours, causing immune cells to ‘rally’ around the malignant mass.

The scientists believe the unusual approach stops cancers growing and spreading, while also prolonging a diseased animals’ survival.

But Cancer Research UK is not convinced by so-called ‘Coley’s toxins’, named after bone surgeon William Coley who first tested it in the 1890s.

The charity argues there is ‘no solid evidence’ it reliably treats cancer or works better than conventional treatments – despite the latest claim.

But Cancer Research UK is not convinced by so-called ‘Coley’s toxins’, named after bone surgeon William Coley who first tested it in the 1890s.

One in two people born after 1960 in the UK will develop cancer at some point in their lives, Cancer Research UK statistics show.

Tumours thrive by convincing certain immune cells to suppress other immune cells, the scientists at the United Arab Emirates University claimed.   Adding bacteria to the mix can rally these cells to attack tumours through ‘ancient lines of chemical communication with our immune system’.

In the late 1800s, surgery was pretty much the only option available to treat cancer sufferers.    Dr Coley, who practiced in New York, noticed those who caught an infection after going under the knife were more likely to survive.

This led him to believe infections stimulate the immune system to fight cancer. In 1891, the medic deliberately infected a man, named Zola, with bacteria.

Zola had many advanced tumours, including one in his throat, which prevented him eating. Much to the amazement of other doctors, the man survived.

The surgeon then created ‘Coley’s toxins’, a mixture of Streptococcus pyogenes and Seretia marcescenes, which he treated with heat.   This concoction successfully treated patients with sarcoma, carcinoma, lymphoma, melanoma, and myeloma, the scientists wrote.

Despite the success stories, the introduction of chemo and radiotherapy meant this form of immunotherapy was ‘largely dismissed during Dr Coley’s lifetime’. [Emphasis added]

Immunotherapy involves boosting the immune system to fight cancer cells, the team wrote in the journal Frontiers in Oncology.

After reviewing mouse studies into the treatments’ efficacy, the UAE team hope to see ‘Coley’s toxins’ brought back.

As it stands, the treatment is not ‘available as standard’ in the UK. But it is offered in some clinics in the US, Germany and China, according to Cancer Research UK.

It is unclear whether these clinics use Dr Coley’s original formula or new strains of bacteria.

To investigate the treatment’s potential, the United Arab Emirates scientists reviewed a series of mouse studies. They concluded that injecting tumours with bacteria ‘reprogrammes the immune response to cancer’ in rodents.

WHAT ARE COLEY’S TOXINS?

Coley’s toxins were developed by the bone surgeon William Coley in New York in the late 1890s.  He noticed cancer patients who caught infections after surgery ‘did better’.

This led him to believe the infection stimulated their immune system to fight the tumours.  Dr Coley first injected live bacteria into cancer tumours, however, could have caused serious illness or even death. He therefore began using bacteria that had been ‘killed’.

Cancer Research UK claims ‘scientific evidence doesn’t support claims Coley’s toxins can treat or prevent cancer’. [Emphasis added]

This is thought to occur through innate immunity, which is activated as soon as the immune system recognises an invading pathogen.

Innate immunity, the body’s evolutionary first line of defense, works through myleoid cells. These trigger inflammation, and even ‘engulf and digest’ foreign substances.

Tumours are thought to produce signals that cause myeloid cells to suppress the immune response. These signals also ‘feed’ cancer by stimulating new blood vessels.

But injecting tumours with bacteria ‘draws’ myeloid cells to the mass, which they then engulf and digest, the scientists wrote. ‘Detective immune cells’ are then thought to ‘send a chemical call-to-arms’ to lymphoid cells.

These recognise infected cancer cells as being foreign and give out toxins that force the tumours to self destruct.  Lymphoid cells also ‘remember’ tumours, preventing them from recurring, the researchers wrote.

They believe bacterial immunotherapy is a ‘hugely exciting prospect for human cancer treatment’.

Bacteria have to first be modified so they do not cause disease, however, this often makes them less effective, they added. Additional research should therefore look at the properties of different bacteria that help to boost the immune system against cancer.

This will help in the development of safe strains that still destroy tumours, the team added.

Cancer Research UK points out only some of the patients treated by Dr Coley saw their tumours shrink. Later studies testing the treatment also show not everyone benefits and those that do may just be down to chance, the charity adds.

‘At the moment there’s no solid evidence from modern clinical trials to show Coley’s toxins can reliably treat cancer or work better than other types of treatment,’ Cancer Research says.

— End of Daily Mail Article.  Now for Gumshoe’s series, which was entitled Coley’s Dramatic Cancer Cures.Here are the six articles by Mary W Maxwell:

Part 1: A 16-Year-Old Boy with Abdominal Cancer

September 12, 2018

William Coley, MD, was one of many discoverers of cures for cancer before the year 1950. After that you were not “allowed” to cure cancer.  In fact, doctors today are forbidden to use the verb “cure” in connection with that particular disease.

There is a book called “A Review of the Influence on Bacterial Infection and of Bacterial Products (Coley’s Toxins) on Malignant Tumors in Man,” by Helen Coley Nauts, George A A Fowler, MD, and Frances Bogatko, MD, F.A.C.S. It is 103 pages. I make the guess that no one in America would “dare” publish it.

William Coley lived from 1862 to 1936.  Years after his death his daughter, Helen Coley Nauts, came to realize what he achieved and she worked hard for years to collect the relevant information. She hoped to make it available so many more people could be cured using her father’s “toxins.”

The book mentioned above was published in 1953 in Stockholm.  According to Worldcat.org, there are four copies in libraries – two in Switzerland and two in Denmark.  Ah, but there is at least a fifth copy in the world and I am holding it in my hand.

I bought it in 2012 when preparing my book “Consider the Lilies: A Review of 18 Cures for Cancer and Their Legal Status.” That mention of “legal status” was a polite way of indicating the ridiculous fact that doctors using good cancer cures may find themselves in prison.

In this series I shan’t emphasize the politics of cancer.  I will get right down to presenting cases. For this first one, I will take the words exactly from the Helen Nauts Coley book. You will see that eminent doctors participated in verifying all aspect of the case.

The rest of this article is from the book, with no comment by me (MM):

COMPLETE CASE HISTORIES

Note: This patient was the first case of any type of cancer to be treated by Coley’ s mixed toxins. The cultures of erysipelas and bacillus prodigiosus were grown separately, passed through a Kitasato filter (without heating), and mixed at the time of use.

They were prepared by Dr Alexander Lambert at the Laboratory of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York. Coley stated that the streptococcus culture used was obtained from a fatal case of erysipelas and was exceptionally potent. The second case also received this product.

CASE I: Inoperable spindle cell sarcoma of the abdominal wall and pelvis, involving the bladder, confirmed by microscopic examination by Dr Harlow T. Brooks, pathologist.

Previous History and Treatrnent Other than Toxin: J. F. F., male, age I6, born in Germany, living in New York City. The family history was negative for malignancy. There was no history of syphilis. Onset, about three months prior to admission to Memorial Hospital, pain developed in the abdomen.

About two months afterward a hard lump was felt in the lower abdomen. This increased slowly but steadily in size. Occasionally the pain in the tumor was very severe, being intermittent in character. There was no loss of weight. Examination on admission showed a hard tumor measuring about 6.5 inches across by 5.25 inches and apparently being 5 inches thick. There was no fluctuation.

The growth involved the entire thickness of the abdominal wall, was attached to the pelvis and judging from the symptoms and position evidently involved the bladder. (The patient was unable to retain urine when admitted.) The general condition was poor, the patient being confined to bed most of the time.

An exploratory laparotomy was performed by Dr L. Bolton Bangs, Professor of Genito-urinary Surgery at New York Postgraduate Hospital and Medical School. The condition was found to be inoperable and the patient was referred to Dr William B. Coley.

Toxin Therapy: (Type IV). Injections were begun by Coley on January 24, I893, and were given directly into the tumor mass. They were continued in slightly increasing doses until May 13, 1893, or a little less than four months. The Memorial Hospital Records state:

“These injections produced within eight hours a rise in temperature from 0.5 ° to 6°, the pulse running from 100 to 106. The chill and tremblings were extreme. For the severe headaches following the chill, Phenacetine was given. Aseptic precautions being successful, no pus was produced, in spite of the many needle punctures.

The tumor gradually diminished in size, at times for a few days after injection it would be enlarged, but the final diminution was indisputable. (72). The dosage used varied between 0·5 and 1·5 cc. of erysipelas, and 0.25 and 0.5 of prodigiosus.

Coley stated that the chill usually occurred within the first half hour after injection, though occasionally it was delayed an hour. Sometimes local redness and swelling accompanied the reaction. Usually both local and constitutional symptoms had subsided at the end of 24 hours.

Clinical Course: The patient was discharged on May 13, 1893, at which time the tumor was a fifth the size it had been on admission. No further treatment was given. At examination two weeks later the tumor was no longer visible.

Palpation revealed a small movable mass, two inches in diameter at the site of the former growth. (When the toxins were begun the mass measured 5.25  by 6.5  inches.) The enlarged glands in the right inguinal region still persisted. The patient had gained ten pounds in weight in the previous four weeks.

By August I, the remains of the growth had almost disappeared, save for a small mass palpable in the right iliac fossa. The inguinal glands were still enlarged. The patient was kept under constant observation. He was able to resume his regular work and received no further treatment.

He was presented before the New York Academy of Medicine, November 15, 1894. Six years later he developed a primary lesion of syphilis, which ran the usual course and was finally cured by mixed treatment.

He was presented by Coley before the New York Surgical Society in 1900 and again on February 13, 1907, in perfect health (29, Case 57). He remained in very good health and free from recurrence until his sudden death on February 26, 1919, over 26 years after toxin therapy.

Death occurred in the subway station at 42nd Street, (Grand Central Station), New York. The death was investigated by the Chief Medical Examiner and the cause listed as chronic myocarditis, a contributary cause being “fatty degeneration of the heart” (102, No. 8370).

References: 9, II, 21, 22, 29, 4 1, 73, 102.

Note 72 is “from Massachusetts General Hospital case records.”

— end of Case 1 from the book published in Sweden

COMMENTS

Tony Ryan September 12, 2018 at 11: 51am.

The scandal of the 21st century will be the finally established refusal by the medical mafia to recognise proven cancer cures… dozens of them! I speculate upon the reprisals exacted on doctors when parents of children who died unnecessarily from cancer discover the truth. Some of these doctors will die badly. Some dads can be pretty homicidal.

Just underscoring the Coley story, at this moment I am observing the gradual clearing of skin on my arm where, two months ago, several skin cancers were forming. As I did on 15 previous occasions, I treated the cancers with Cansema (2000 year old traditional Black Salve, but improved with the additional component of DMSO), all of which were permanently cured.

On an earlier occasion, when I asked the local public hospital to provide an analgesic other than codeine forte (which makes me ill) the doctor demanded to know the cause of the pain. When I said cancer she phoned my daughter in NSW and told her I was delusional and suffering from dementia.

Had she asked some of the nurses present she would have known I am currently learning two Aboriginal languages and produce a constant stream of papers and articles on topics requiring research and complex data retention, none of which are facilitated by dementia. The point of this anecdote is the irrational reaction of most doctors to any suggestion that contemporary official cancer treatments or vaccinations are not supported by very extant evidence.

We are going to have to ram the evidence down their throats, and even then they will be in violent denial.

Mary Maxwell September 12, 2018 at 2:34 pm

It could be that at the very beginning of their medical school they are told certain things under hypnosis. Seriously.

 

Part 2: The Veterinarian Who Wouldn’t Quit

September 13, 2018 

Don’t miss this case; it is thrilling. The patient was smarter than the doctors.

It appears as Case 7 in the book by Helen Coley Nauts et al. During my journey through the literature of marvellous cancer cures (which are forbidden to the public) I copied out some perfect cures by Virginia Livingston, MD, Emanuel Revivci, MD, Robert Lincoln, MD, and others.

Those were mainly provided by the “offending” doctor. A skeptic may doubt them as self-serving. One accusation that was made was that the patient really didn’t have cancer in the first place, “the diagnosis was faulty.”

But Coley was a big-wig. He had big-wig colleagues, including the famous William H. Welch, MD, of Johns Hopkins.  In regard to the case below, where the patient was a veterinarian, Dr William Coley said, in 1902:

“This case is so extraordinary that it is most important that the should be placed beyond question. The mass removed on May 9 was examined by Dr J. L. Rothrock, of St. Paul and pronounced sarcoma. This was confirmed by Dr Schadle. Microscopical examination was also made by Dr George D. Haggard, of Minneapolis, after removing another section, August 11, and pronounced spindle cell sarcoma. All agreed that it was clinically sarcoma and absolutely inoperable.

Sections were also examined by Drs B. N. Buxton and James Ewing, Professor of Pathology at the Cornell Medical School, New York, and finally by Dr William H. Welch, of Johns Hopkins. 

I now present the case without abridgement , and with bolding added by me – MM.

Previous History and Treatment Other than Toxin

A.Y., male, age 40, born in Sweden. The patient, a veterinary surgeon, with good family history, and in excellent health, was struck over the right superior maxilla by the horn of a bull early in February 1901. [There is no later explanation as to how the blow caused the cancer.]

Two or three weeks later he had severe pain over the site of injury, and to relieve this the canine tooth was pulled. Pain continued, and the patient went to St. Paul in the middle of April and consulted Dr J. E. Schadle, who made a diagnosis of sarcoma.

The first bicuspid tooth was pulled and the antrum explored without any evidence of an abscess being found. Excision of the upper jaw was proposed and performed on May 9 by Dr C. K. Wheaton of St. Paul, assisted by Drs Rogers and Dennis. A letter from Rogers to Coley describing the operation, states:

“There was found a large tumor involving the antrum and almost the entire upper jaw. Ferguson’s incision was made but an attempt to remove the entire growth proved unsuccessful. Thorough curetting and cauterizing of the remaining portions was done. There was also a mass the size of a hen’s egg underneath the ear on the opposite side. This was completely removed. The patient having partially recovered from the effects of the operation, returned to his home, LakePark, Minnesota on May 18, partially relieved of the pain.” 

After a few days the sarcomatous growth again began to increase in size, invading the nose and extending along the palate into the pharynx, and also involving the parotid region. On June 25 he returned to St. Paul and consulted Schadle, under whose care he remained until July 18.

Only palliative measures were used, however, at this time, and Schadle wrote Winberg on July 13 that he felt the prognosis was very unfavorable. He added: “The disease is undoubtedly sarcoma and will eventually destroy him“. Before returning home the patient consulted Haggard of Minneapolis, remaining under his care from August I to I r. Haggard stated that the patient had difficulty in retaining food and also in obtaining action of the bowels. He advised a trial of the Coley toxins, although others had strongly discouraged their use, considering the case altogether hopeless. Haggard further noted:

“From August 1 to 11 [1901],  weakness was progressive. Having been able to walk daily from one to two miles, he now became barely able to walk from the door to the carriage. Pulse 130. Jaundice, at first slight, became more pronounced. Dullness and tenderness appeared in the hepatic region. Nausea and vomiting increased. Stools constipated and claycolored, urine dark with bile.”

[Haggard] added: “From these conditions we decided metastasis had occurred in the liver.” 

At this time the right nasal cavity was occluded, the soft palate retracted and thickened by a tumor mass in its substance. This was ulcerated in the center, the ulcerated cavity being 1 x 1.5 inches in size. The tumor extended from the right malar eminence to the bridge of the nose, with which it was even in height, and downwards to the edge of the maxilla.

From the higher portion of the tumor at the side of the nose Haggard removed a section (part of this tissue was later sent to Welch). The patient returned to Lake Park on August 12; Winberg found that the disease had progressed rapidly; jaundice had become more profound, and the liver was enlarged. Pulse 140 to ISO, irregular and intermittent. At this time speech was difficult to understand and the odor from the disintegrating portion of the tumor was repulsive. 

Winberg  stated: “His condition was such that I hesitated to use the toxins, but the patient still kept up his courage and muttered: ‘The practice of medicine is like fishing. Sometimes a sucker bites and sometimes he does not. Let us try the toxins’.” 

Toxin Therapy: (Parke Davis IX). Winberg, who administered the toxins, reported:

“The first injection of 1/2 minim was made into the tumor on August 12, 1901. August 13, 1 minim was injected. Patient’s condition grew worse, and there was no apparent effect from the toxins. On the 15th the patient’s condition was so desperate that no treatment was given. It was thought best to abandonfurther use of the toxins. 

“The patient threatened to get another physician if I would not continue. August 16, 1.5 minims were given. The urine became very scant. Patient had severe pain in the stomach and his general condition was even more alarming. On the 17th, 2 minims of a fresh bottle of Coley’s toxins, obtained from Parke Davis & Go., were injected. Patient’s eyesight began to fail; he had suppression of urine, and no nourishment of any kind could be swallowed. The teeth had become so tightly closed that it was impossible to cleanse the mouth.

“The swelling underneath the left jaw had become the size of an English walnut, and the original tumor of the right superior maxilla had reached the size of a man’s fist. August 18: pulse I55 to 165, weak and irregular; temperature roo.8° F. Patient unable to see and rarely able to make himself understood. Jaundice greatly intensified. Large doses of nitroglycerin, gr. 1 to 50, digitalin, gr. 1 to 50, strychnia, gr. 1 to 25, were given every four hours as symptoms of heart failure had appeared. At this time he was in a stupor….

“That night he was able to swallow a little champagne … August 19 he voided 4 oz. of urine, and he passed some more in the afternoon. An injection of 2 minims of the toxins was given into the abdominal wall. On the 20th, 3 minims were given also into the abdominal wall.

“Patient seemed slightly improved. Daily doses were given, always, except the first three injections, into abdominal wall, the amount being slowly increased. The improvement, which at first had been very slight, became more and more marked. The jaundice gradually disappeared and was entirely gone at the end of three weeks, at which time the tumor in the left submaxillary region had also disappeared, and there was marked decrease in size in the primary tumor of the right superior maxilla. “Improvement in general health was rapid and continuous. Toxins were kept up in large doses up to January 4, 1902; in all 102 injections were given; 12 in August, 20 in September, 21 in October, 22 in November, 24 in December, and 4 in January. The toxins were always diluted with 15 cc. of water (and were given every day for six days and then none for two days), the dose was increased as rapidly as the patient could possibly bear it”.

Winberg added that the patient weighed but 113 pounds when the injections were begun, and that he gained 11pounds during the first three weeks’ treatment, gain of 30 pounds in five months. and had a voracious appetite. On September 12 he rode 30 miles [on horseback] on a professional call, and since that time attended to a very large veterinary practice, which often called him away both night and day. On January 4 he weighed 143 pounds, a gain of 30 pounds in 5 months.

Clinical Course

On January 12, 1902, the patient made a trip to New York in order to show Coley the result obtained with the toxins, and on January 13 Coley presented him before the Surgical Section of the N ew York Academy of Medicine. At this time no trace of the tumors could be found either in the neck or face or jaw, and abdominal examination showed nothing abnormal. For photographs see (112) or (24), Figs. 8-9. [I do not have the photogaphs.] The patient remained in good health and free from recurrence until 1907, six years after treatment, when he died of acute nephritis following alcoholic excess (24).

Note: [I assume the notes were made by the editor, Helen Coley Nauts or George AA Fowler or Frances Bogatko]: This case is of especial significance, because it is reported in such complete detail, and also because it may have done much to persuade Coleythat systemic injections could be relied upon to produce successful results. Thisis indicated by his remarks at the end of Winberg’s report. Apparently, he did not noticethat the first three injections were made into the tumor itself for he states: “Aside from the extraordinary recovery of a patient so near death from inoperable sarcoma, the case is remarkable from the fact that the cure was obtained by injections remote from the tumor.

Therefore, the effect upon the tumor was entirely due to systemic rather than local action. Although I have personally had a few successful cases of inoperable sarcoma in which the injections were made remote from the tumor, in nearly all the successful cases the injections have been local, directly into the tumor itself.

[I don’t know who the “I” is in this section.– MM]

I have always maintained, however, that the curative action of the toxins is systemic as well as local. This case fully demonstrates the correctness of this view and disproves the position taken by a number of writers that the action of the toxins is merely local in character, in the nature of an escharotic” (112).

(A study of over 1,200 cases of various types of neoplasms treated with the toxins indicates that the site of injection apparently is of importance in determining the success or failure of the treatment. Undoubtedly, the toxins do exert a favorable effect on tumors through intramuscular or intravenous injections remote from the growth, but these alone take longer to accomplish the complete destruction of the neoplasm and, in the interim, the patient or the tumor may become immune to the toxins before the disease has been destroyed.)

References: 24, 29, 43, 112.

COMMENTS

Tony Ryan

Suggesting timorously, from a point of near ignorance… I wonder if the key to cure is combined systemic and direct injection of the toxin. It would make sense.

Supporting this hypothesis, use of Cansema for cancer demonstrates that the cure can also be used as a diagnostic tool, and precipitates inflammation of other cancers elsewhere on the body.

Just wonderin’.

 

Part 3: Obituary of Helen Coley Nauts

September 16, 2018

So far this series presented two dramatic cures by the use of Coley’s toxins. One was in 1893 and the other in 1901. Many more will be presented, and one unsuccessful attempt by Coley..

Let me say where this series is headed. In one sense, it’s not headed anywhere – the case histories have value on their own – and they may open the possibility to a revival of that particular treatment.

In keeping with many of my themes at GumshoeNews, however, this series is also headed toward a claim that Coley’s cure was suppressed, in order that more people would die of cancer. Indeed I think millions have died needlessly of cancer.

In my review of 18 cures for cancer, in Consider the Lilies (2013), I named two successful curers who I think knowingly participated in the suppression of their excellent work. One was Dr Thomas Glover whose cure was a serum; the other was Dr William Coley (1862-1936) whose cure came from bacteria’s production of toxins.

Coley and Glover may have been sent on a mission to find their cures by yet an earlier scientist whose name we do not know. That is to say, I do not necessarily accept the legend as to how Coley happened upon his cure. It may be true or apocryphal.

The legend is that he had a patient, Besse Dasheil, a young woman with bone cancer who died, despite amputation of the arm. She was the girlfriend of the philanthropist John Rockefeller Jr (1839-1937). The death distressed Coley, so he scoured the records in his hospital for others who had that type of bone cancer. He found 15, of which 14 had died of cancer.

The sole survivor was a man who, by chance, had contracted erysipelas while in hospital. It led to a fever and immediately he overcame his cancer. The take-away from that could be that high fever does the job, or that the erysipelas does the job. I am not a doctor and will not be weighing in on that, although this series will later contain quotes from various doctors as to the way in which Coley’s cure worked.

Grounds for Skepticism

Both Glover and Coley had terrific success, yet neither published a comprehensive report. Granted, they entered some of their findings into the journals of the day. For example, in 1911 Coley published in Surgery, Gynacology and Obstetrics, an article entitled “A report of recent cases of inoperable sarcoma treated with mixed toxins of erysipelas and bacillus prodigiosus.”

And some persons did further research on Coley’s toxins. For example, in 1909, L Noon published in Lancet, “The influence of site of the inoculation on the immunity produced.”

But you would think that the two major figures quoted in Part 2 – William J Welch and James Ewing – who approved of the toxins, would have jumped up and down about this answer to the great scourge of cancer. But they did not. Welch, by the way, was a member of the Order of Skull and Bones.

My own skeptism is a matter of prejudice. I have seen some fabulous cancer scholars maligned (Emanuel Revici, MD), jailed (William Reich, MD), put out of business (Virginia Livingston, MD), or ignored (Alan Cantwell, MD). Typically they get labelled quacks. I know for sure that Someone Somewhere orders all such glimmerings of hope to be trounced.

Thus it may be that I leap too readily to the idea that Coley’s cure was suppressed. I might mention that he and Glover never got the smearing that others got. I attribute this to their having been agents of government in the first place.

Similarly, Dr George Criley (1864-1943) whom I all but adore, seems to me to have voluntarily dropped his great work on electric medicine, in a deal with The Powers That Be. Or, to put it more kindly, I think the US government explained to him that electric theory was going to become an important basis of weaponry and he should keep silent out of patriotic motives.

The Devoted Daughter

Probably none of us would know anything today about Coley’s cure if his daughter Helen had not insisted on publishing it. In the photo above, Nauts is pictured with Dr Lloyd Old, the head of Sloan Kettering (the later name for Memorial Hospital). You will hear in the video below, by Ralph Moss, that Old was a resource for Helen, but I don’t think so.

She was not appreciated. I quote Matthew Tontonoz form an April 1, 2015 article at cancerresearch.org:

“Nauts also pursued the option of obtaining a job at Memorial, where, in addition to Rhoads [God help us!], she also had a contact in the form of a family friend, a doctor named Henry Pratt. Nauts apparently asked Pratt if the hospital might … sponsor her to receive a grant. Pratt was dismissive, writing on May 5, 1947: ‘I am sorry to say that the general feeling is that this would not be legitimate in that your activities would be in a field requiring extensive knowledge of medical problems and your lack of training in this field hardly qualifies you’.

Note in the obituary below, that Nauts is not nearly given the credit she deserves and indeed the New York Times makes it sound like she was a bad mother. But the many a New York Times obituary gives a distorted impression of the decedent.

New York Times Obituary of Helen Coley Nauts

Written by Eric Nagourney, published January 9, 2001. Bolding added:

Helen Coley Nauts, who devoted her life to championing the once-neglected cancer-treatment discoveries of her father and founded a cancer institute, died at home last Tuesday in Manhattan. She was 93.

Mrs. Nauts was the daughter of Dr. William B. Coley, a surgeon and cancer specialist who, trying to help seriously ill patients for whom he had been able to do nothing, hit on the idea of injecting them with a mixture of live bacteria. The goal was to goad the body into producing its own defenses against cancer.

Dr. Coley, who practiced at what became the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, recorded many cures with bacteria injection, but his successes were not easily replicated and could not be explained. The method came to be dismissed by much of the medical establishment as unproven, even quackery, and was eventually overshadowed by radiation and chemotherapy.

After her father died in 1936, Mrs. Nauts, who was at home raising two daughters, decided to go through his papers to write his biography. As she did, she came across many records of seriously ill cancer patients who, after being injected with what are still referred to as ”Coley’s toxins,” appeared to have recovered.

Convinced that medicine was overlooking a powerful tool — and, perhaps more important, her associates say, incensed at the aspersions the medical establishment had cast on her father and his work — Mrs. Nauts embarked on a crusade.

In 1953, she established the Cancer Research Institute, which now has an annual budget of $14 million and provides support for scientists around the world. She eventually succeeded in returning her father’s work to the attention of oncologists.

”She was inflamed a gran,” said Dr. Lloyd J. Old, an immunotherapy expert at Sloan-Kettering and a longtime friend. ”She was absolutely inflamed by a grand idea.” [So am I.]

Dr. Coley is now often described as the founder of modern immunotherapy, a major cancer treatment. Although Coley’s toxins are rarely used, his discoveries of the late 19th century are credited with helping researchers develop more modern therapies. And Mrs. Nauts has received many awards for her work.

The theory that the body’s defenses can be brought to bear in the fight against disease was not new when William Coley began putting them into practice. The concept dates to antiquity. But Dr. Coley was one of the first to use bacteria to fight cancer systematically and, at least by the medical standards of his day, methodically.

He got the idea after learning of a cancer patient with a sometimes fatal skin infection, not uncommon among surgery patients then. The patient survived the infection but his cancer had fared less well; it seemed to have disappeared. After finding similar cases in the records, Dr. Coley set out to develop a cancer vaccine made from bacteria. [not vaccine n the sense of prevention]

Despite his successes and initially positive reactions from colleagues, Dr. Coley was never able to win broad support for his treatment and, according to a 1984 article in Science magazine, died a disappointed man. [Really?]

Helen Lancaster Coley, his daughter with his wife, the former Alice Lancaster, was born Sept. 2, 1907, in Sharon, Conn., and was raised in New York City. She attended the Brearley School in Manhattan and Miss Porter’s in Farmington, Conn., then studied landscape architecture for a time at Columbia.

But she came from a milieu and a time in which she was not expected to pursue a career. Her husband, William Boone Nauts, who died about a decade ago, was a banker, and Mrs. Nauts raised her children, did volunteer work and some landscape design.

All that changed after her father’s death, when she began poring over 15,000 letters and other records stored in a barn in Sharon. Dr. Coley had been a clinician, not a researcher, and the task of giving order to the papers was monumental.

About two years later, Mrs. Nauts went to the medical director of Dr. Coley’s hospital and said she thought that her father’s work deserved reappraisal. Her best course of action, she was told, was to put together 100 or so case histories; she eventually produced 1,000, along the way educating herself about cancer. She was so precise that cancer researchers today still examine the monographs she published for clues about the disease, Dr. Old said.

In an interview with Science, Mrs. Nauts described a meeting with a Mount Sinai Hospital bacteriologist, Dr. Gregory Shwartzman, with whom her father had corresponded.

”I had read Shwartzman’s book on the reaction of tumors to bacteria, and had prepared 13 pages of questions based on it,” Mrs. Nauts recalled. ”During the interview, I took 80 pages of notes. Shwartzman couldn’t believe anyone could be that thorough. But because I had no medical education, I had to be that way.”

In the years that followed, Mrs. Nauts wrote thousands of letters to doctors and patients who had used her husband’s methods, seeking specifics about their cases. Her efforts were not always welcomed by the medical establishment. [Right.]

”At times the response to her could be described as vitriolic,” said Dr. Alan M. Houghton, chairman of immunotherapy at Sloan-Kettering. But Mrs. Nauts was unyielding, and as the field of immunotherapy grew, researchers recognized the value of Dr. Coley’s once-ignored work.

Even some admirers say she may have lost perspective at times. [Bet she didn’t.] And family members — Mrs. Nauts is survived by two daughters, Phyllis Lancaster Nauts of Cornwall, Conn., and New York, and Nancy Nauts Dobbs of the British Virgin Islands and Bali, Indonesia — said her crusade could be hard on her family.

”We felt she spent much too much time,” Mrs. Dobbs said. ”I remember once saying to her, ‘Mommy, let’s play.’ And she said, ‘I can’t play, because people are dying when I’m not working.’ ” [Makes sense to me]

Ralph Moss and Laetrile

Ralph Moss came in favour of laetrile as a cancer cure at a time then it was forbidden. I happen to think he is the controlled opposition. In this brief interview he speaks of Dr Coley.

I add that I have not studied laetrile, however, a layperson whom I respect, Ed Griffin (best known for his research on the Federal Reserve Bank) worked on it intensively and came up with approval. See an introduction here..

— Mary W Maxwell is a law researcher with a swag of grand ideas. A swagwoman, so to speak. In fact a jolly swagwoman.

COMMENTS

Berry September 17, 2018 at 12:22 pm

A bad mother eh.

Any record of any great male medic being called a bad father on the basis of the hours spent on the job?

I’m no feminist but there’s no getting round the fact that the so-called medical profession is essentially misogynistic.

mary maxwell

Berry, You know the NYT phoned those daughters to hear them say something, and I am sure they praised mom to the skies. I’ll bet they even stated that complaint as a way of showing admiration.

Still I get your point.

mary maxwell 

Edgar Alan Poe. To Helen.

Helen, thy beauty is to me
Like those Nicéan barks of yore,
That gently, o’er a perfumed sea,
The weary, way-worn wanderer bore
To his own native shore.

On desperate seas long wont to roam,
Thy hyacinth hair, thy classic face,
Thy Naiad airs have brought me home
To the glory that was Greece,
And the grandeur that was Rome.

Lo! in yon brilliant window-niche
How statue-like I see thee stand,
The agate lamp within thy hand!
Ah, Psyche, from the regions which
Are Holy-Land!

Thar ya go, Mrs Nauts!

 

Part 4: A Failure and a Baby

September 19, 2018

This article reprints Cases 27 and 28 from “A Review of the Influence of Bacterial Infection…on Malignant Tumors in Man,” by Helen Coley Nauts, George A A Fowler, and Frances Begatko. Abridged and with bolding added.

Case 27: F.H.F male, age 46, structural iron worker of Somerville, Massachusetts.

Case 27: F.H.F male, age 46, structural iron worker of Somerville, Massachusetts. Onset, without known cause: a pigmented mole in the scapular region began to swell early in June 1911. Five weeks later, or on July 14, 1911, Homans excised the growth with a two inch margin of normal skin. The patient was seen every two weeks thereafter and no recurrence was noted until October 22, when a small lump was seen on the outer aspect of the scar. Three days later the patient was admitted to Massachusetts General Hospital, and Cobb excised the recurrence. The patient was first seen by Dr Torr W. Harmer two weeks after this operation, at which time he had another recurrence 2.5 by 0.5

inches in diameter in the second cicatrix, and a palpable mass in the axilla the size of a pigeon’s egg.

Toxin Therapy: (Parke Davis XII). Injections were begun by Harmer on November I5, 1911. No details are given as to the site, dosage or frequency of injections during the early treatment, which did not prevent another mass the size of an English walnut from appearing in the same scar.

The two masses became confluent, but under continued toxin therapy they sloughed out entirely in one month, leaving a thin soft scar. Harmer stated: “During this time, however, a recurrence appeared in the upper scar, which became 3¹/2 x 3 x 1 inch in diameter. This whole mass was entirely sloughed out by January 13, 1912″.

A pigmented mass appeared in the right pectoral region early in January 1912. It ruptured in three weeks with local injections, but increased in size until it was 3 x 2 inches in diameter. There were several “erysipelatous” attacks when the whole pectoral region would be red, hot, tense and tender, Harmer stated.

A second gland appeared in the axilla and another in the neck The latter became the size of a cherry but disappeared in one month. The axillary masses became the size of a hen’s and pigeon’s egg during these erysipelatous attacks, but within a month decreased considerably and never became any larger until treatment was discontinued 11 months later. The entire breast tumor sloughed out with cutaneous appearance of dark pigment by August 1913 and never recurred.

Harmer stated that one bluish black mass about 1.5 inches in diameter regressed under local injections to an apparently fibrous mass of dull red color about 3/4 inch in diameter. of the former one. During this period another pigmented mass was developing within a few inches

The second mass attained the size of a pigeon’s egg during the time that the treated one was regressing. Both masses were then excised under ether anesthesia, with an elliptical area of skin, subcu-taneous tissue and fascia. Fourteen sections were made from these two tumors. In reporting this case in 1914 Harmer showed characteristic portions of the treated tumor.

By August 1913 the patient was in excellent condition with a good appetite and no evidence of internal metastases. The other masses had sloughed out, or been excised, as stated above. (Note: this case received both Tracy’s XI and Parke Davis XII, mostly the latter. No other case is known to have received as high dosage as this man was given.)

Clinical Course: The patient then disappeared on a “spree”, returning 15 days later, haggard and weak.

Further Toxin Therapy: Injections were resumed, but the patient never regained his former tolerance for the toxins. He had been taking 40 or 50 minims at a dose prior to this spree, but when he returned 4 to 5minims produced as severe reactions as he had formerly experienced only with the larger doses.

New masses began to appear on the abdomen, arms, breast and back. This second course of toxin therapy lasted only from October I, 1913 to January 26, 1914..

Clinical Course: The disease was not controlled. Death occurred on February 26, 1914, with metastases in the spinal cord and abdomen.

Note: This case indicates the danger of suspending treatment too soon after visible masses have regressed in cases of malignant melanoma with metastases. It is also apparent that any factor which lowers the patient’s general physical condition, such as large amounts of alcohol, or returning to hard physical labor too soon, or any other excessive activity, may throw the balance in favor of the neoplasm, making it difficult or impossible to regain control of the disease.

It appears that a larger quantity of toxins aggressively and persistently administered may be necessary in order to produce results in cases where several metastatic masses are present.

---

CASE 28: Inoperable angiosarcoma of the mediastinum, confirmed by microscopic examination by Dr F. S. Mandlebaum, Pathologist of Mount Sinai Hospital. Dr James Ewing also examined the sections and reported: “Malignant cellular tumor of embryonal type, composed of many blood sinuses lined by two or more rows of tumor cells. Very delicate stroma.” He regarded it as an extremely malignant form of tumor.

P. H., female, age 22months, of New York.

The child had been normal at birth, weighing 9 pounds. She was breast fed for 10 months and she walked at 16 months. She had gained slowly in weight although there had been frequent green diarrheal stools. At the age of 5 months the mother noticed that the child’s breathing was distinctly labored, but the family physician found nothing wrong with the lungs.

For two months there was respiratory disturbance without cyanosis or other sign of deficient aeration. The child was pale and heart action was often rapid. At the age of eight months the mother noticed a “lump on the right shoulder blade” while bathing the child.

She took her to the Babies Hospital, where a roentgenological examination was made. This was reported as showing “a large roughly quadrilateral, dense shadow in the lower part of the right chest, extending over the heart, also the left chest and down over the liver shadow. Right chest above this appears free from lung tissue. The right diaphragm appears free from lung tissue. The right chest is smaller than the left. The right bronchus is not seen. Probably congenital atelectasis.

The mother refused to leave the baby but took her to Lebanon Hospital, where fluoroscopic examination was made, April 30, 1923. This revealed “a dense shadow, homogeneous in character, sharply circumscribed, ascending apparently from the lower mediastinum…. The mass is the size of a small orange…. The appearance is either that of a cyst or a neoplasm ascending from the mediastinum.”

An exploratory operation was suggested but refused by the child’s mother, who took the patient home. At 20 months, tonsillitis developed and the child was taken to Beth David Hospital. On March 16, 1924, when the child was 21 months old, she suddenly stopped walking because of weakness of the right lower extremity, which became rapidly progressive.

At first she was able to stand, but the right foot turned out and she fell on attempting to walk. She was first seen by Dr Alfred V. Pollak at this time, at the Hospital for Joint Diseases. He noted that the patient was a bright, well-nourished child, without fever or pain. There was great weakness of the lower extremities: total inability to stand because of paresis of both legs.

There was a mass between the right scapula and the spine, with dullness on percussion. Breath sounds were exaggerated anteriorly. A blood examination was reported as follows: hemoglobin, 42%; erythrocytes, 3,200,000; leukocytes, 14,000…. Roentgenological examination at this time was reported: “Cyst, lower right chest; pressure erosions, spine and rib, oesophagus is displaced anteriorly”.

Dr Howard Lilienthal was called in to see the case on April 12, 1924, a month after she had stopped walking. He found both legs flccid and obviously paralyzed.

There was a protruding sub-cutaneous mass covered with normal skin between the right scapula and the spine which was firmly elastic. The child’s general condition was good. On April 15, 1924, Lilienthal operated, and the tunor exposed…. He removed grey-ish red soft neoplastic tissue. He then suggested toxin therapy.

Lilienthal operated, at Mount Sinai Hospital. He resected about 1.5 inches of a rib subperiosteally over the tumor.

He then aspirated a minute quantity of thick bloody fluid. The posterior mediastinum was then opened and the capsule of the tumor exposed. This was incised so as to admit the index finger. The wall was tense and the tumor rudely spherical.

Toxin Therapy: (Parke Davis XIII). On April 25, or ten days after this operation, injections were begun by Pollak. The initial dose was one half of a minim, the site being the gluteal muscles. This was followed by a severe reaction.

For 11 days the injections were given daily, increasing the dose to a maximum of 4¹/2 minims. The febrile reactions ranged as high as 106 ⁰ F. Further injections were refused by the patient’s mother, because of the severity of the reactions. Pollak’s observations as to the effects of toxin therapy are of value: He stated that the intensity of the reactions had been very great, and added:

“From the very first the healing of the operation wound was extraordinary, and after the third injection the progress of the healing was even ten-fold quicker than before, and after the reaction was over the child seemed to be better generally. The hemoglobin count was 42 % at the time of the operation and after the eleventh injection it went down to almost 30%. Because of the violent reactions the mother requested that the injections be stopped, at least temporarily… The child began to walk within three weeks from the first injection, relief being due apparently to decompression.

Intercurrent Infection: During the summer immediately following toxin therapy, the child developed a very severe case of pertussis, there being as many as 14 violent paroxysms in one afternoon. … A severe attack of measles, and then bronchitis followed the pertussis, but the child recovered without any ill effects. It is possible that the severe attack of pertussis, as well as the measles and bronchitis may have generated toxins which helped to continue the process of regression of the neoplasm. The possible effects of contagious diseases other than tuberculosis on malignant tumors in man have not

been seriously considered until rather recently. However, several investigators have reported the inhibitory effects of intercurrent contagious diseases on tumors in mice or rats. Bashford was one of the first to note that mice convalescent from contagious diseases are refractory to tumor transplants.

Clinical Course: The patient’s condition continued to improve…. On September 19, 1926, Philips reported: “There appears to be considerable regeneration of the posterior ribs, which previously showed marked pressure erosions, and considerable regeneration of the resected portion of the eighth rib has taken place.” A month later examination showed a normal chest.

In February 1928 Dr Leopold Jaches examined the patient’s chest and reported: “No evidence of abnormality in the lungs, diaphragm, heart and aorta. The eighth rib shows evidence of previous resection, but it has regenerated almost completely”, (film No. II,846).

The patient remained in perfect health and was seen periodically by Pollak and Lilienthal during the next 21 years. She was presented at various medical meetings by Lilienthal, who on one of these occasions stated: “My experience with this form of therapy in a number of other instances has been so favorable that I would strongly recommend its use in inoperable sarcoma and also as a prophylactic postoperative treatment after surgical removal of operable tumors as well”. The patient reported in November 1949 that she had had a son, her first child, and added: “The baby was a natural birth and I had a wonderful pregnancy.” The patient was last traced in good health in 1953, or over 28 years after the toxins were begun.

Note: Pollak’s observations of the apparently stimulating effect of the toxins on the rate of healing of the operative wound are of interest, as this effect was also reported by other surgeons using the method, and is apparent in many of Coley’s cases, especially osteolytic bone tumors, where extensive areas of bone destroyed by the neoplasm completely regenerated following toxin therapy.

 

Part 5: Why Does Coley’s Method Work?

October 7, 2018

So far this series on Coley’s cure has included a few case studies from the list of 30 cases published in 1953 at the behest of Coley’s daughter Helen. She wrote a book (or perhaps it is a long article in Acta Medica Scandanvia) entitled “A Review of the Influence of Barcterial Infection and of Bacterial products (Coley’s Toxins) on Malignant Tumors in Man.” Her co-authors were George A A Fowler, MD and Frances H. Bogatko, MD.

The rest of this article is taken, unedited (except for an announced abridgment about fever) from the Introduction to that book. I will print the “Discussion” that followed this Introduction, in a later part of this series at Gumshoe News (Imagine treating as “news” something that has been in existence for 65 years!)

INTRODUCTION

The treatment of cancer by injections of bacterial products is based on the fact that for over two hundred years neoplasms have been observed to regress following acute infections, principally streptococcal.

If these cases were not too far-advanced and the infections were of sufficient severity or duration, the tumors completely disappeared and the patients remained free from recurrence.

If the infections were mild, or of brief duration, and the neoplasms were extensive or of histological types which were less sensitive to infections or their toxins, only partial or temporary regressions occurred.

Of all the many investigators who studied this phenomenon, the late William B. Coley, M. D. is the only one who devoted a lifetime to the subject. His search [or a systemic treatment of cancer began in the first year of his practice (189I) when he lost his first case (a bone sarcoma) in spite of early, radical and repeated surgery. This led him to study all the cases of sarcoma treated in the New York Hospital during the preceding 15 years.

His interest in the possible therapeutic value of infections or their toxins was aroused by one of the cases in this series of histories — a thrice-recurrent inoperable sarcoma of the neck, in which five operations had failed to control the disease. This patient recovered after two attacks of erysipelas and remained free from further recurrence seven years later (8).

Beginning in May 1891, Coley attempted to produce erysipelas in a twice- recurrent inoperable myxosarcoma of the tonsil and neck. After repeated trials, using four different cultures, he succeeded. The resulting severe erysipelas caused complete regression of the tumors except for cicatricial tissue from the former operations.

After attempting to induce erysipelas in nine other patients, Coley recognized the difficulties — either the patient might prove immune, or the infection fatal. He tried cultures of erysipelas sterilized by heating or by filtration, but these proved weak and ineffective.

In December 1892, he learned of the investigations of Roger on bacillus prodigiosus(Serratia marcescens) in association with other micro-organisms. These experiments suggested that bacillus prodigiosus or its toxins may increase the virulence of other organisms with which they are associated in their proliferating stage.

Coley therefore decided to mix the toxins of bacillus prodigiosus with those of, erysipelas in order to increase the Virulence of the latter. The first “Coley Mixed Toxins” were sterilized by filtration, and the first case treated by this preparation was a bedridden young man with an inoperable sarcoma of the abdominal wall and pelvis, involving the bladder. (See Case 1 for complete history.)

The extensive growth disappeared and the patient remained free from recurrence until his sudden death in a subway station from heart disease, 26 years later (11).

The preparation then in use, however, was variable and not potent enough to produce cures in the more resistant types of neoplasms. Limited space prevents a detailed description of the more than 15 different formulae of Coley’s toxins used in the past 60 years. Suffice it to say that it was not until the more potent unfiltered Buxton and Tracy preparations were available and were intelligently administered that the more resistant types of cancer were successfully treated….

During the past I4 years we have been making a critical analysis of toxin therapy. The approach has been much more fundamental than merely to study the historical background of Coley’s Toxins. The goal has been to gather available data on the effects of acute infections or their metabolites, and various forms of inflammation on malignant disease. 

This includes: the beneficial effects of one intercurrent disease upon another; the effects of pyogenic, non-pyogenic or non-pathogenic bacteria or their toxins or enzymes; the effects of viruses; the effects of various inflammatory or antibiotic substances; the effects of physiotherapeutic or chemotherapeutic agents of non-bacterial origin; and all known cases in which so-called “spontaneous regressions” occurred.

Many of the questions relating to this study have received little consideration. For example, why is it that the incidence of cancer has increased much more rapidly since the advent of modern asepsis and public health than ever before? 

…

We believe this is because these technics have sharply reduced the incidence of surgical infections and infectious diseases. Shear, of the National Cancer institute, seems to agree with us, for in 1950 he observed that 75 per cent of the spontaneous remissions in untreated leukemia in the Children’s Hospital in Boston occurred following an episode of acute disease.

He asks: “Are pathogenic and non-pathogenic organisms one of Nature’s controls of microscopic foci of malignant disease, and, in making progress in the control of infectious diseases, are we removing one of Nature’s controls of cancer?” (94, p. 390).

Jacobsen (1934) cited data which he claimed represented the uniform observations of experienced clinicians with reference to the low incidence of malignant disease in patients who had been victims of a common infectious process, i.e., in the actively tuberculous or osteomyelitic, and in patients with acute infections diseases in general, particularly those giving a history of typhoid, paratyphoid, scarlatina or diphtheria.

Jacobsen concluded that the. evidence tends to support the conclusion that the reticulo-endothelial system when sufficiently active, (as when stimulated by one or a number of infectious processes) may attain in a measure the ability to cope with neoplastic diseases in a similar, if not identical manner.

He also believes that the present increase in malignant morbidity is due to the decreased resistive powers of the reticulo-endothelial system occasioned by the lessened incidence of exposure to and infection of the general public with those diseases which were widely endemic before the advent of modern public health methods. [Holy cow!]

He believed that as acromegaly is a disease of the pituitary, so cancer should be regarded as a disease of the reticulo-endothelial system, and the hope of prevention and cure lies in toxin therapy (62).

In an editorial in the J.A.M.A. (1934) this whole matter was discussed and it was concluded that further studies in this field seemed indicated in the light of the accumulated evidence (52).

As to experimental work which may support this theory, Teutschlander has demonstrated a definite decrease in the susceptibility of tuberculous fowls to Rous chicken sarcoma (106), and Bashford found mice convalescent from contagious diseases were refractory to tumor transplants.

Shwartzman reviewed the literature bearing on the effects of intercurrent infections on animal tumors. [Arch. Path.21. 284-297. 1936]

Many physicians believe that the chief therapeutic value of toxin therapy lies in the fever produced. [This was found to be not so, so I am omitting the paragraphs –MM]

It appears that these early physicians induced inflammation at the site of the neoplasm by a variety of methods, while at the same time they stimulated the organism as a whole, and that they persisted with the treatments for many months, changing the remedies as tolerance developed.

In studying all these apparently unrelated older and more recent approaches to the cancer problem, one finds they have certain points in common: a more or less severe local inflammation, produced by an irritating or destructive agent such as radiation, diathermy, intratumoral injections of toxins, acute local infection, poultices, leeches or vesicants, occurring either alone or combined with a profound systematic stimulus.

The systemic stimuli were produced by various means such as Coley’s toxins or other bacterial or plant products injected remote from the tumor by the intramuscular, intraperitoneal or intravenous route, or by the systemic effects of severe bacterial infections.

In addition to the above, cases were in which spontaneous remissions occurred following an intercurrent fracture (109a), burn, shock (1 a) or absorption of extensive pleural effusion, or ascites (60, 70, 109). In all these cases there also appeared to be both inflammation and a systemic stimulus such as fever or “stress”.

Of all these combinations, the largest number of successful results have occurred in two groups: a) in cases of malignant disease in which an acute erysipelas 

infection developed in or near the tumor; b) in cases treated by Coley’s toxins, where a reasonably potent product was administered both into the tumor or its immediate periphery (to induce local inflammation and sensitize the tumor cells) and also remote from the tumor, in doses sufficient to elicit marked systemic reactions, fever and chills, the injections being continued until after the growth had disappeared in order to prevent recurrence or metastases.

The results in patients with inoperable neoplasms so treated were uniformly good.

We do not include terminal cases in this category, although some of these also responded dramatically.

Jacobi’s work with bacterial filtrates (B. typhosus) on several types of animal tumors emphasizes the importance of sensitizing tumors by intratumoral injections. He elicited violent hemorrhagic and necrotic reactions followed by either complete sloughing and healing or by slow recurrence of tumor growth which again responded to further injections.

This occurred in all the animals in which the tumor tissue was first “prepared” or sensitized by an intratumoral injection followed by an intravenous or intraperitoneal injection. In the controls in which saline was substituted or in which the filtrate was injected only intratumorally or only intraperitoneally, these effects were not obtained, and the tumors continued to grow, causing death of the animals.

Duran Reynal’s more extensive studies bearing on this problem were discussed in some detail in two of our earlier publications (78, 79). These findings may have an important bearing on planning the optimum technic of administration for treating human cancer (61).

Although Fogg observed inhibition of growth of sarcoma 180 cells in tissue culture with certain bacterial products (54), it was not generally recognized that bacterial toxins do not actually kill cancer cells in vitro (130) although they cause regression of cancer in vivo.

This would seem to be a further indication that much of their curative action must be exerted indirectly, through stimulating the body’s basic defense mechanisms (inflammation, alarm reaction, fever, etc). However, both heat and inflammatory exudates do destroy neoplastic cells in vitro, as well as causing regression of neoplasms in vivo, as indicated by the work of many investigators such as DeCourcy (46), Hodenpyl (60), Lohmann (68), Mackay (70), Okuneef (84), Overgaard and Okkels (85), and Tuffier (109).

If we consider that an erysipelas infection produces a more severe local inflammation

with local heat as well as vesication and absorption of exudates than any other form of: infection, and that in addition to these properties, it produces marked systemic reactions, including fever, we may have discovered the reason why the greatest number of dramatic disappearances and apparent cures of cancer have occurred following erysipelas, rather than after typhoid, pneumonia, malaria or some other infection.

(Note: It is probable that the development of erysipelas in a given patient may depend not only on the virulence of the culture but also on the physiology of the host, local and systemic immunity factors, tissue permeability, response to inflammatory stimuli, etc.)

— END OF THE INTRODUCTION TO THE “REVIEW OF THE INFLUENCE, etc., by Nauts, Fowler, and Bogatko

— Mary W Maxwell considers herself the most complete cataloguer of cancer cures that have been maliciously kept from the public. See her 2013 book Consider the Lilies, price $14.95 USD.

 COMMENTS

Mary Maxwell October 7, 2018 at 12:19 pm

NOT EXACTLY ABOUT BREAST CANCER, OK?

I just read something that irritated the heck of me. It is found at the website IdoInAutismland.com which is a brilliant piece of work by Ido Kedar, age 22, of California. He and a few other severely autistic persons have learned to write, (on a keyboard) although they cannot speak even one word.

The method is called RPM — Rapid prompting. It was invented by Soma Mukhopadhyay. I have seen her in action, she is fabulous. Her son Tito Mukhopadhyay and Eliszabeth Bonker are in fact poets – using RPM.

(I mean poetry as in poetry, not doggerel verse like I sometimes grace these pages with.)

The group that’s supposed to be in charge of speech therapy for autism does not accept these people as genuine writers. Here is what they wrote:

“ both FC [facilitated communication] and RPM, there is no credible evidence that messages are authored by the person with a disability, and there is no credible evidence indicating authentic independent communication or any other beneficial outcome arising from FC or RPM (Lang et al., 2014; Tostanoski et al., 2014; Schlosser et al., 2014).”

“Both FC and RPM rely on presumptions of competency (Travers & Ayres, 2015). Presumption of competency is a risk to an individual’s safety when it is given more credence in treatment decisions than known facts about the individual or evidence to the contrary.”

“In the absence of evidence that messages delivered by RPM are authored by the person with a disability, RPM poses a potential risk of harm to the person using RPM and their family members.”

Oh Mah Gahd. And you think we have trouble selling good cancer cures!

Simon (reply)

Seems to me FC or RPM would garner credible evidence simply though the ability of the communicator to simply repeat a poem(verse, whatever) on request through a couple of different facilitators.

My Mom died after a heroic battle with breast cancer (10 years), using latest state of the art diagnostic and treatments in 1996. Had an acquaintance who died in 2014 from breast cancer after a long protracted battle with breast cancer(circa 7 years)using the latest state of the art treatments from specialist oncologists etc. They were the same treatments, after all those years and all those billions. Both died from liver cancer but that’s just my opinion.

Simon

75 per cent of the spontaneous remissions in untreated leukemia

Mary Maxwell

Thank you, Simon, and I am sorry your mother suffered.

I typed “pubmed” to get connected to all the journal articles in medicine for free. Then typed “spontaneous remission in leukemia” and got this article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5738709/

Not the slightest mention of Coley’s discovery. They ought to be shot at sunrise, the lot of them.

56

Many natural ways to treat immune toxification rather than chemical radiation overload . William Coley was a very clever doc for explaining truthfully what he discovered by experience.

 

Part 6: Gallo Congratulates Cantwell (in Effect)

December 15, 2018

The five parts of this Coley series that Gumshoe has published so far were strictly about Coley. And today, too, I will include another case study from the book-size article by his daughter Helen Coley Nauts.

But first to something new under the sun.

At least Dr Robert Gallo says it’s new. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in the US describes a breakthrough (maybe) in cancer treatment based on realization that bacteria play a role in cancer.

This is 2018. But forty years ago, in 1978, Alan Cantwell, MD, published his first study of bacteria in cancer. He did not come to the idea theoretically, although later — in cahoots with Virginia Livingston, MD — he got theoretical. He main discoveries were made by looking down the microscope – an ordinary microscope.

And what did he see?  Bacteria.  Of course everyone told him that the outbreak of bacteria was a result of – not the cause of – the cancer.

Cantwell has never turned his findings into a cure. He does not have a cure. He only requests that scientists stop rejecting the clear evidence.

A Relationship with Gallo

Cantwell does have a “relationship” with Robert Gallo.  It’s the same relationship I have with Gallo.  Cantwell and the late William Douglass, MD, and Len Horowitz and a few others think HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) was made in a lab, likely at Ft Detrick, which is where  Gallo was situated.

Alan Cantwell, who is gay, is the author of Queer Blood, describing the highly suspicious campaign to vaccinate gay men in New York in 1979, purportedly as an experiment in prevention of Hepatitis B.  All the men who took the vaccine died of AIDS, says Cantwell – who has also published extensive opposition to the legend that the virus “jumped species” to humans from a green monkey from Africa.

That said, you would not expect the famous Dr Gallo to acknowledge that he got any inspiration from Cantwell’s work on bacteria-in-cancer.  Nor does Gallo mention Virginia Livingston’s cure for cancer which was based on a vaccine.  (Not a preventative vaccine but a way of culturing the person’s own bacteria and putting it back into the patient.  Her success rate was very high, even with late-stage cancer patients.)

New Theory Involves “DNA Repair”

So what is Gallo’s new theory of bacteria in cancer?  Yours Truly is not qualified to analyze it. I will quote from The University of Maryland School of Medicine (UNSOM) on December 4, 2018”

“Currently, approximately 20% of cancers are thought to be caused by infection, most are known to be due to viruses,” said Dr. Gallo.

“Mycoplasmas are a family of bacteria that are associated with cancers, especially in people with HIV.  Our work provides an explanation for how a bacterial infection can trigger a series of events that lead to cancer. Of particular importance, the infection did not need to persist and the protein did not need to be continuously present in all cancer cells.” [Emphasis added]

The gist of it seems to be the discovery that “DnaK, a protein of the bacterium mycoplasma, interferes with the mycoplasma-infected cell’s ability to respond to and repair DNA damage, a known origin of cancer.” [Emphasis added]

UNSOM’s dean, E Albert Reece, MD, expressed his pleasure that two departments – virology and the Institute for Genome Sciences had collaborated.

I take it the study was done by comparing “immune-compromised” mice that were injected with mycoplasma (from an HIV patient) and other immune-compromised mice that did not receive the mycoplasma.

“The researchers found that mycoplasma infection caused the mice to develop lymphoma earlier in life than non-infected immune-compromised mice and that some, but not all, of the cancer cells had bacterial DNA.”

Gallo’s colleague Dr Zella said:

“We focused on a protein called DnaK, which is part of a family of proteins that function as a ‘chaperone’ for other proteins protecting them from damage or helping them to fold,” said Dr. Zella. “However, in this case, DnaK reduces the activity of important cellular proteins involved in DNA repair and anti-cancer-activities, such as p53. Thus, cells infected with mycoplasma would not be able to properly repair damaged DNA, thus, potentially increasing the risk for cancer development.”

The UNSOM bulletin said:

“Thus, mycoplasma infection could not only trigger events leading to the accumulation of DNA damage and oncogenesis in infected cells, but also trigger cancer-causing events in nearby uninfected cells that took up DnaK released from infected neighboring cells.”

Dr Tettelin said:

“We analyzed the amino acid sequences of DnaK from many bacteria and found that the DnaK proteins from bacteria associated with cancer grouped together were different DnaK sequences from bacteria that are not associated with cancer…. This raises the possibility that other bacteria have the same cancer-promoting ability.”

What Are Coley’s Toxins?

To repeat: I am ignorant of the above science. I can’t say how they tie in with, or do not tie in with, Coley’s very effective cure for cancer – which began to be used in the 1890s and petered out when “radiation treatment” was invented around 1913.

Coley’s work was based on bacteria. Some bacteria produce toxins.

Coley grabbed the toxins, injected them into cancer patients, and (if I read him correctly) the person’s immune system got into action and “cured” the person of the injected substance and also “incidentally” of the cancer.

Various preparations of Coley’s toxins were made by different manufacturers. A total of 14 different ones are published at Wiley Online Library. I will quote only the three most successful ones here:

Lambert, Buxton, and Parke Davis. Recall that case studies earlier in this Gumshoe series specified which type was in use.

Type IV. From 1892 to 1894, prepared by Lambert: A filtrate containing the soluble toxic products of streptococcus erysipelatis obtained from a fatal case was added to [that of] bacillus prodigiosus. These were not subjected to heat but were preserved in glass-stopped bottles by the addition of thymol.  They were mixed only at the time of use.

Type VI. June 1984 to late 1907. Prepared by Buxton. The cultures were grown together.  They were sterilized by heating for one hour at 50 to

60 degrees Celsuis. The first erisepilas were obtained from a fatal case. From 1896 to 1899 the virulence was maintained by frequent passage through rabbits. After 1899 through eggs as well as rabbits… Type XIII. May 1915 to 1951. Prepared by Parke Davis….Chromogenic cultures of prodigiosus were specified and nitrogen determinations were taken after the first sterilization.  A fresh strep was obtained from the Mayo Clinic in January 1922 ….

Case Study Number Four

For those who did not see the earlier parts in this Gumshoe series, Helen Coley Nauts, the daughter of Dr William Coley, came across his papers after he died.  She saw that his rate of cure for cancer patients was about 66% — including cases that had been at the terminal stage.

She then found the cases and checked on follow-up throughout the lives of those persons.  For reasons to be discussed in a later Part, Nauts did not get much enthusiasm from the medical establishment in America.

However a medical journal in Stockholm, Acta Medica Scandinavia, published her 103-page work in 1953.

The name of the article is “A Review of the Influence of Bacterial Infection and of Bacterial Products (Coley’s Toxins)  on Malignant Tumors in Man” by Helen Coley Nauts, George A A Fowler, MD, and Frances H Begato, MD, FACS.

I will list one case here, to show that the early doctors were more or less using trial and error to establish the correct dosage of the toxins, and to learn how the fever or chills were involved with the curative process.

CASE 4: Miss E.E.F, age 44 of Connecticut [abridged]

In October 1895 she first noticed a hard lump below the left clavicle. [It] grew rapidly and by one month had reached the size of an orange. It was firmly adherent to the deep vessels in the axilla region. Her general health deteriorated.

Toxin Therapy. Buxton Type VI.  Injections were begun by Storrs and Dr Griswold the day after her admission to Hartford Hospital. The first chill occurred after the fourth injection on December 29. Injections were given every day till February 8.

The following day a more potent solution prepared from more virulent cultures was obtained and the dose was reduced from 8 minims to one minim. It produced the most violent chills.  The patient reported:

“Chills came on 30 to 90 minutes after treatment and lased 30 to 45 minutes.  The days I had a chill I had less pain and felt better after the chill than the days when I had none.”

A total of 76 injections were given over 3 months. By March 1896 the growth had disappeared and the patient had gained weight, and strength.  When last traced by Coley she was well except for pain in her knee joints.

She died in 1943 at the age of 89 of heart disease. This was 47 years after the toxins were administered.

— End of excerpt from the Nauts article.

The Shame of Suppressed Cancer Cures

Shame on Dr Lloyd Cox of Sloan Kettering, who would not accept Helen Coley Nauts’ remarkable compilation of her father’s successes.

Shame on the American Medical Association for its pressuring state legislatures to criminalize doctors who administer any cures other than the Big Three (surgery, radiation, and chemo).

Shame on the associates of Dr Alan Cantwell who, over the years, refused even to look at his photos of microscopic evidence of bacteria in cancer.

Shame on Gallo & Co for acting like this new insight into bacteria is new.

Shame on the persons who created “immunodeficiency virus” as part of the Ft Detrick plan to weaponize disease.

Helen Coley Nauts ended her 1953 book poignantly with a quote from Cicero:

“If no use is made of the labor of past ages, the world must remain always in the infancy of knowledge.”

Infancy of knowledge?  It’s more like we have pushed the born child back into the womb.

— Mary W Maxwell is author of a book about suppressed cancer cures. She believes the 21st century assault on human health was maliciously planned and she is disgusted by people’s refusal to face up to this blatant fact.

COMMENTS

Mary Maxwell December 17, 2018 at 9:42 am

Dr Cantwell has sent me a correction. ALL the men in the 1979 vax trial did not die.
Just many of them.

berry December 15, 2018 at 10:46 pm

My mind immediately goes to the fact that mainstream medicos were also reluctant to acknowledge that stomach ulcers were caused by bacteria, not mental stress: see wikipedia on Barry Marshall

Mary Maxwell 

Berry, when I say “manmade” I mean maliciously manmade. There have been hundreds of articles since 1990 about accidental ways, such as laboratory contamination.

Here is a list of those blaming an interference by polio virus. http://fathersmanifesto.net/polioaids.htm

But then, I think the polio epidemic also was malicious. But that’s an “unrequited love” of mine. Have never heard anyone else say it.
I have a few unrequiteds. Pretty sure I will go to my grave with them.

56 December 16, 2018 at 12:32 pm

There’s a tale in folklore , from my small town birthplace in Europe .

A young lawyer , recently graduated , came to his retired lawyer father .
“Dad you should be so proud of me . I have just resolved those cases that were unsolved for all those decades .”

His father looked at him and answered ,
“You fool , those cases financed your education and provided comfort for our family through all these years .”

Mary Maxwell December 16, 2018 at 1:59 pm

Well, 56, since Ned and Terry aren’t on campus this arvo I thought we could do a bit of lawyer joking. So I googled for same and this is the first one that came up:
.
Boss: Who said that just because I tried to kiss you at last month’s Christmas party, you could neglect to do your work around here?

Secretary: My lawyer.

56 December 16, 2018 at 3:02 pm

Ned and Terry are two great lawyers here .
Their input always appreciated .

Mary Maxwell December 16,

A group of physicians are duck hunting. The general surgeon spots a duck flying from the marsh, aims his rifle, shoots the duck in one shot, and turns to the others and says “I just shot myself a duck.”

The radiologist sees a duck, aims a shotgun, hits the duck, and turns to the group. He states “I just hit a flying animal. It may be a duck, pheasant, or quail. Possible flying squirrel. Cannot exclude a pterodactyl at this point. I think I should shoot it again, but with a scoped rifle next time.”

The emergency physician spots a duck flying the marsh and aims a huge, automatic combat shotgun, unloading two full magazines into the air, as the other physicians take cover behind him. After the tremendous noise ceases, the intern uncovers his ears and shouts, “What the hell was that?” The emergency physician turns around and says, “I have no idea, but I’m pretty sure that I hit it.”