My name is Sam Chachoua and I’m an MD from Melbourne, Australia.
What I’m going to talk to you about now is something quite new and
revolutionary. It’s called Induced Remission Therapy and it’s a
treatment that is based on three natural phenomena: organ
resistance, organism resistance, and spontaneous remission.
I first got into cancer research at an early age when my father was
diagnosed with multiple myeloma, and I basically tried to see
whether I could find something that could help him where
conventional therapies were failing. One thing that I noted in all
the studies I had was that there are parts of the human body-for
example, the small intestine-which are consistently resistant to
cancer. Regardless of how far and wide cancer usually spreads, it
usually leaves the small intestine alone.
There’s also something known as "organism resistance", which means
that most other animals that we try to give human cancer to are able
to reject it. So I set about designing an experimental protocol
where I was going to find out what it was about the small intestine
that made it resistant to cancer, and I was going to find out what
it was about horses, cats and dogs and other animals that made them
resistant to human cancer.
To cut a long story short, I managed to isolate the immunological
factors which I used in experimental protocols at the Peter McCallum
Cancer Institute. At age 18 I’d written my first paper, and the
following year I presented it before the Clinical Oncology Society
of Australia. Let me tell you, I was pretty proud of myself.
I
thought:
"Kid, you’ve got it made; you’ve helped your dad now, and
this therapy is going to be adopted soon."
And I could just see it.
I was going to walk into the Clinical Oncology Society of Australia.
Everybody’s going to cheer and get on the phone and say:
"Hey, we’ve
got a young kid here; give me the Nobel Committee."
Naïve! I was
actually greeted with all the warmth one usually reserves for a
venereal disease or an acute attack of hemorrhoids!
Let me just jump to how this form of therapy can apply to
AIDS.
We’ve known for a very long time that it’s impossible to give
animals AIDS by injecting them with HIV. Now there are two
possibilities: either animals are inherently resistant, i.e., they
don’t have receptor sites for HIV; or maybe, just maybe, they have
an immune system which is capable of fighting and destroying the
virus. Well, hey, let’s check it out!
So the initial data all showed promise that you could raise an
immune response out of a horse, for example, that would selectively
destroy HIV. What intrigued and amazed me was seeing the thought
processes or, rather, not being able to see the thought processes in
the AIDS researchers who for years now have tried to find some way
of developing an immune system resistant to AIDS.
They sit there and
say:
"Well, we need to make an animal model. Once we have an animal
model, once we’ve made an animal sick with AIDS we can find a way to
cure it."
So they get their little test animals; they get their
rats, their dogs, their horses and cats; they inject them with
HIV-and they can’t give them AIDS!
They get really upset about that:
"How am I supposed to find a cure for
AIDS if I can’t give this
animal AIDS? I’m injecting it with HIV to try to find an immune
response that will kill HIV, and it won’t take it. How am I supposed
to do my job?"
Are you following the thought pattern here? It’s
looking right at them.
It would seem a bit of an anticlimax if I were to tell you that one
of the easiest ways to deal with the greatest plague today is to use
an animal system that’s resistant to the plague, and treat and cure
the people suffering from the disease. A hundred years ago, before
we had antibiotics, the only therapy we had for pneumonia, smallpox
and polio was horse serum.
They’d get a horse, shoot it with a
disease, draw the horse serum out, shoot that into the person and
cure them. If that therapy was good enough to deal with the plagues
a hundred years ago, why isn’t it being applied now?
But what happens if you do apply it now? Here’s the case of a young
man with AIDS. He’s 32 years old. He’s got a pneumocystis pneumonia,
he’s short of breath, he’s got a T-cell count of 80 and a T4/T8
imbalance. So, essentially, his blood, his virus, is extracted out;
an animal, such as a horse, is vaccinated with his blood; the
antiserum from the animal is then purified against this patient’s
blood so it doesn’t cause allergic reactions; and the patient is
treated with the horse’s serum.
And we see that within 24 hours, the
pneumocystis pneumonia clears up. That’s pretty remarkable
considering that the best that antibiotics can do, if they can clear
it, is take days to weeks. This patient’s symptoms resolved; his
T-cell count went up to 780 within 10 days from a low of 80, and his
T4/T8 ratio became normal.
Now what I’ve just told you is pretty dramatic, but doesn’t it make
some sense to you? Isn’t it common sense? We have a disease that can
ravage our immune systems but can’t ravage a horse’s, can’t ravage
another animal’s. Why not use those animals’ immune systems to
destroy the disease?
So, off I went to the big hospitals in the US, and I said, "Hey,
guys, look at this!" I showed them the case study and the patient I
brought with me. I showed them ’befores’ and ’afters’ which were
done on US soil, and they said: "Inject a person with horse serum?
Are you insane? We’d never do that."
A few months later, some of the people whom I was speaking to from a
related centre-friends of theirs, actually-came out with the
announcement that they’re going to give a baboon’s bone marrow to an
AIDS patient because baboons are resistant to
HIV!
At that stage, feeling dejected and rather silly, I set about trying
to investigate as much in the way of alternative therapy and
conventional therapy as I could-and believe me, I investigated just
about everything, down to laughter therapy!
Now one thing that really struck me very quickly on in the piece
when I was reviewing all the alternative, natural and conventional
therapies is that there are two misnomers that exist in this world.
One of them is "natural therapy".
Please, don’t take me the wrong way. There’s a lot of good in
alternative therapy, there’s a lot of good in vitamins and diet, but
what on Earth is natural about shoving 50,000 units of vitamin C
intravenously? What’s natural about injecting ozone into somebody’s
backside? What’s natural about cappuccino enemas?
The other great misnomer in the medical field of conventional
therapy are the terms "radiotherapy" and "chemotherapy". How the
world "chemo" ever got side by side with the word "therapy" is
beyond me. Never before has a therapy repeatedly failed for 80
years, caused the most hideous side effects known to man, and
continued to prosper and flourish. It amazes me that chemotherapy
has spread its wings without people knowing.
For example, how many people know that the commonest therapy for
aggressive psoriasis these days is chemotherapy?
Teenagers and
people of child-bearing age will go to the doctor, and their doctor
will say:
"I’ll give you a folic acid antagonist called
Methotrexate."
You see, "folic acid antagonist" sounds better than "chemotherapy",
doesn’t it, but it’s chemo. These kids are swallowing poison, and
they and their kids will suffer the consequences.
Did you hear about the latest breakthrough, a new form of
contraception that’s now on the market? It’s a one-shot abortion
injection. Well, the abortion injection is a folic acid antagonist.
It’s chemotherapy.
Let’s be blunt about something. Alternative therapy is great, and we
can probably extend and improve the quality of life of people who
are ill, and, heaven knows, we can prevent a lot of diseases from
happening; but when you cut down to the chase, conventional therapy
and alternative therapy are joined by one thing.
Over the past hundred years in the war against
cancer, we’ve failed
abysmally. Let’s be frank here: if a hundred people were to do the
most arduous alternative therapy available, we would not cure a
hundred cancer patients; we would not cure a hundred AIDS patients.
There are only three reasons why we’re failing in our war. One
possibility is that the weaponry isn’t powerful enough. Now, in
chemotherapy and radiotherapy we have weaponry that can cremate a
person! So, it can’t be that one; rule that one out. The second
possibility is that the target is invisible. Now we know that to be
true; we know that cancer cells are immunologically invisible. The
third possibility is that there’s another target.
The one thing I found depressing about alternative and conventional
therapy is that they both totally ignored the phenomenon of
"spontaneous remission" which is perhaps the most natural phenomenon
which repeatedly tells us how to cure terminal disease. "Spontaneous
remission" is a term given to miraculous healings, where people on
their death bed ’rise from the dead’ within two to three days
without a trace of their disease. It’s a phenomenon that’s been
reported in the literature but hardly ever investigated.
The data on
spontaneous remission strongly suggest that just before
a person with cancer, heart disease,
arthritis or any of the other
terminal diseases has a spontaneous remission or a cure of their
disease, they suffer what seems to be a viral or bacterial or some
form of severe infection.
This was noticed by a Dr Didot, in France, who noted that the
existence of syphilis precluded the appearance of cancer. If
prostitutes had syphilis, they were very unlikely to develop cancer.
This doctor actually treated 20 cancer patients with syphilis and,
of those 20, 14 went into total remission. As the syphilis grew, it
munched up the cancer; the cancer went away. Another three patients
did pretty well, and a couple of them died of the syphilis. But this
was a few hundred years ago, and given the choice between "the Big
C" and "the Big S" - well, today we can cure syphilis with a couple of
shots of penicillin, or so I’ve been told!
Late last century,
Dr William Coley had a patient who had bone
cancer and developed a severe syphilis or skin infection. As the
skin infection grew, it munched on the bone cancer and the bone
cancer disappeared. Dr Coley went on to develop what he called
"Coley’s toxins" and used them for many years as a therapy that got
quite good results.
The trouble here is that Dr Coley succumbed to what I call "macho
medicine". The infection he isolated from the patient, and which
cured the patient, had remarkable successes in subsequent patients
treated with the same infection, but he wasn’t happy with that.
Coley wanted something that would do better, so he found a more
toxic infection. Instead of using the specific Streptococcus strain
which he’d isolated from the patient, he found a Streptococcus that
kills people, reasoning that it’s more toxic, therefore it will kill
more cancer, and therefore the chances of cure are better.
It’s been long known that in areas
where malaria exists, there’s no
cancer; and when you get rid of malaria, drain the swamps, kill the
mosquitoes, the cancer rate rises. People who have cancer and who
catch malaria have a chance of going into remission. Just recently,
Dr Henry Heimlich [who developed the Heimlich manoeuvre for
preventing choking] injected a few AIDS patients with malaria and
managed to get them into some form of remission where they improved
and stayed stable at the improved level.
All these observations led me to come up with something I call
"nemesis theory", which states that for every disease there’s an
antidisease organism which will specifically attack and destroy it.
This then led to the development of "nemesis therapy", where I make
extracts of these "nemesis organisms" with which to treat specific
diseases.
And how do you find nemesis organisms? Well, you look around. Where
there’s a disease and there’s less of another disease, the chances
are that they’re antagonistic to each other. Or, you work on basic
levels, as I like to do, and do test after test after test to check.
What I did in the laboratory was get thousands of bottles and place
leukemia lymph node tumor biopsies in them. Each bottle had a
particular organism growing inside it. The one with affinity for the
cancer actually grabbed hold of the cancer and ate it. This protein
’web’ - actually, a fungus - shot up and encapsulated the tumor. Within
a few days, there was a little bit of the cancer left. A couple of
weeks later, no cancer - just the fungus!
So what this does is it gives us this new therapeutic modality. This
nemesis organism can now give us highly specific chemicals that it
used to kill the cancer, but which can be made so they do not attack
any other sort of tissue. Two, it can give us tagging complexes
which stick to the outside of the cancer and make the cancer highly
visible to the immune system. And three, it can give us a complete
range of digestive enzymes which are specific for digesting the
cancer and the cancer alone. So this little baby not just kills the
disease, it also cleans up after itself!
With use of the tagging system, if the immune system looks at this
fibrillary network of protein stuck onto the outside of the cancer,
it doesn’t see cancer; it sees a bug and it wants to go after the
bug. Now, you don’t inject the bug; you purify the protein extract
that sticks to the cancer and you inject that. That then sticks to
the cancer in the body. The body can then see it and recognize it
because it’s tagged with bacterial, fungal or viral protein.
You and I have no trouble getting rid of a cough or a cold in a week
or two. We can get rid of cancer: make the cancer look like a cough
or a cold by sticking cough or cold particles on it, and the body
will attack it, destroy it and remove it.
However, there were instances where patients had a regression
several months or years after treatment of their tumors with a
tagging complex. This suggested that tagging the cancer was not the
be-all and end-all, that tagging the cancer cell still didn’t cure
cancer the disease. There was another factor at work.
An interesting observation was made about 20 years ago when
leukemia patients were treated by wiping out their bone marrow and
then giving them somebody else’s bone marrow. It was found that the
leukemia would invariably recur. And you know how they say how
cancer comes back?
Well, the doctor says:
"Sorry, Mr Jones; it seems
that when I was operating on you and I was giving you the chemo and
the radio, one cell spilt, and this one cell hid and then went all
over the place and grew again-just this one cell, the spilt cell."
One cell or a few cells get loose and the disease comes back. This
may account for some of the cancer recurrences, but to try to
explain all cancer recurrences that way, the medical term for that
is "crap"!
What we know from those leukemia trials is that they wiped out the
patient’s bone marrow. There was nothing left! They gave him someone
else’s bone marrow. Six months later, the leukemia came back. Now,
if it was a leftover cell, then when you check that leukemia cell
you should find that it’s the same as the leukemia you treated
before the patient went into remission, true? It should be the same
cell come back. However, when they ran DNA checks, they found that
not only wasn’t it the same cell, but it belonged to the donor. It
was the donor’s bone marrow that had turned into leukemia cells!
This finding has been published in the conventional medical
literature, and it means that cancer the disease is not
cancer the
cell. There is something in the body of a patient which regenerates
and augments cancer, the cancer cell. And if you don’t address that,
then you won’t get rid of the disease.
So there I was, with all these little bottles, cooking up these
nemesis organisms and tagging them, but something kept showing up
over and over and over again which was driving me nuts. I would
incubate the cancer with another organism-say, an E. coli - and I’d
find other organisms growing when the cancer cells died, that I
hadn’t put in there. They would usually be staphylococcal or
streptococcal in appearance. Acid-fast bacilli sometimes would show
up, depending on what culture medium was used and for how long I
cultured them.
Now this is really interesting. What you notice is what some people
would call "pleomorphism" in progress. A couple of elements would
develop these elongated rodlike structures, and you could actually
see a coccal form changing into a rodlike form. Pleomorphism in
action.
I went to my colleagues and said:
"Look, why do I keep getting these
bugs? It’s a sterile cancer I’m putting into the bottle, for
goodness sake. I’m incubating with something completely different,
and these bugs keep showing up."
And they said: "Well, Sam, you know
what you’re like. You probably sneezed and contaminated the whole
lot!" Then I said: "It’s happened over and over and over again. So
it’s contamination?" "Yes, yes, absolutely."
A hundred years ago, everybody blamed this contamination as the
cause of cancer. I have the literature. There were thousands of
articles written on bacteria -bacterial and fungal organisms- being
the cause of cancer. But, as technology gets more and more advanced,
we have to reject what’s obvious; and when we reject what’s obvious,
the truth becomes very hard to find.
So how could I prove to these people that these organisms are
actually intricately involved in the cancer process or in the AIDS
process?
The first thing to do is to grow a bunch of them out of some cancer
cells, inject them into a few animals and see how many animals get
cancer-and a lot of them do. Because the bug does not kill the
animal, the animal develops cancer. In a strange way, it actually
appears that developing the cancer makes the animal live longer.
Now, let me warp your minds a little bit here. Believe me, what I’m
about to say to you is just a theory, and it has no bearing at all
on the efficacy of the therapy, but what if these bugs can’t entice
an immune response? They are contained in the middle of the cancer;
the body is not doing anything to fight them, and yet they’re not
spreading.
What’s containing them? What if cancer isn’t really the
enemy? What if it’s the body’s last-chance attempt at getting these
bugs and localizing them in an area so they don’t spread and kill us
in a hurry? What if cancer is actually doing us a favor? Is that
why every time we fry a cancer lesion with radiotherapy and
chemotherapy, the whole thing then comes back and explodes all over
the place because we’re actually releasing the cause from its
entrapment?
Just a theory!
This therapy at the very least can control the disease, and at best
can cause dramatic, rapid improvement. There are many cases of
cancer tumor reducing to half its size within a week or two.
For example, fig. 1a shows the mammogram of a breast cancer in a
65-year-old woman. After 10 days of treatment, the breast is normal
(fig. 1b). Fig. 2a shows a case of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in a
32-year-old woman. After two weeks of treatment, her lymphoma was
considerably reduced in size (fig. 2b). (Download
file)
It’s unheard of to be able to do that and not have significant
die-off or toxic effects-and yet they don’t exist with this
treatment. When you follow nature and follow the guidelines of what
happens in spontaneous remission, Induced Remission Therapy
can
achieve cures with minimal side effects.
I didn’t choose the public forum to come here and speak to you
today. Please understand me: I would much rather be addressing
medical practitioners, peers, and getting this out not as an
alternative therapy but as a conventional therapy. I’ve spent 12
years trying to get my research published in the conventional
literature, and 12 years going from hospital to hospital and being
treated like something they’d stepped in.
In light of what I read in the paper today-somebody wrote an article
condemning this conference - it appears that the message being sent by
that person is that if the conventional medical establishment in all
its holiness doesn’t agree with a concept or a therapy, then the
public is just too stupid to be able to understand it fully and
evaluate it for themselves.
The attitude is that the public is just
so dumb that they shouldn’t be given the opportunity. Well, my
apologies to the author, but the greatest fool I know is a blind
fool who’ll say opinions about things he hasn’t even bothered
experiencing or investigating himself.
In this "Kevorkian age", as I call it, where people champion the
concept of death with dignity when faced with suffering, pain and
disease, I’m offering a technology that can end suffering, pain and
disease; and I pray that the emphasis will shift now from trying to
support death with dignity to championing life with dignity.
INDUCED REMISSION THERAPY: 1998 UPDATE
After years of lectures, presentations to peers and public
appearances as well as numerous radio, television, newspaper and
magazine appearances, I find that conventional medicine still has
little awareness of the efficacy of my therapies-as evidenced, for
example, in the advances achieved using Induced Remission Therapy
(IRT) in AIDS remission (see
table 1).
Any doctor can make amazing claims, but independent, unbiased
testing is a credible way to determine the efficacy of a treatment.
It would not only document the effectiveness of my vaccines but
would also stir interest in any promising new therapy.
So I brought case studies of
AIDS patients I’d treated to Cedar
Sinai Medical Center for evaluation. Dr Shlomo Melmed was impressed
with the results, and at his suggestion I sent samples of my vaccine
to the AIDS and Immune Disorders Center’s Division of Infectious
Diseases for in vitro analysis. The clinical analysis performed by
Dr Eric Daar indicated that out of the 22 samples tested, 20 of them
showed 99% efficacy in neutralizing HIV-1.
This analysis was followed up with an independent evaluation by
University of Southern California clinical laboratories. This
involved the electron microscopy of blood samples taken by a control
group infected with HIV. This group yielded over 100 photos that
demonstrate the attack, death, disintegration and purge of the
HIV
virus. The PhD who conducted this test remarked that,
"the number of
intact viral particles has declined for each patient following
vaccine administration at a level approximating 50%".
Examples of this progression from attack to purge are shown in
figures 3a to 3d. The first electron microscope photograph (fig. 3a)
shows the fragmenting cell full of HIV particles.
The next photo
(fig. 3b) shows the cell three days later, with improved stability
and decreased viral particle count. The third photo (fig. 3c) was
taken six days after vaccine treatment and shows fewer viral
particles per cell. The final photo (fig. 3d), taken nine days after
therapy, shows no intracellular viral particles and the now-visible
cell nucleus. (Download
file)
This evidence from the cellular level demonstrates that
AIDS and
cancer can be attacked genetically without causing significant
damage to the healthy, fast-multiplying cells needed to maintain a
healthy life.
You’d think that the media, the medical community and others would
be alerted to the fantastic results of this treatment.
It’s hard to imagine that institutes entrusted with the public faith
and public funds to discover and research new therapies would delay
the application of life-saving technology and treatments. It was my
hope that knowledge of Induced Remission Therapy (IRT) would be disseminated and the
FDA would
allow the practice of this therapy upon the countless AIDS and
cancer victims who had little hope otherwise. But these doctors and
medical institutes denied having any affiliation with me.
They
denied the impressive test data and even denied knowing me - until forced to declare otherwise before a judge in a civil legal action
in San Diego, CA (case no. 700406). It was their incomprehensible
behavior that led me to bring a lawsuit, if for no other reason
than to make these test results a record of the court, but I had to
pursue these medical organizations so as to have access to further
laboratory evidence.
We tend to worship our doctors as gods who will save us from
diseases. If these false gods let us down, is it not time to take
back responsibility for our lives and well-being? As the public
begins to learn of this promising healing technology, IRT, they
demand to know why it is being withheld.
I’ve always resented my work being associated under the catch-all
phrase "alternative medicine". My treatment involves an extremely
focused hybrid of what is considered "conventional medicine".
However, in my pursuit of any form of therapy that could augment or
even supersede my own findings, I’ve always been interested in
alternatives as opposed to conventional, toxic and often barbaric
treatments.
Although there is hope of finding other practitioners who have
medical information to offer, I have yet to find any breakthroughs
that would complement my own.
I’ve been appalled to find alternative health
organizations that
sell juice drinks, vitamin C shots and laetrile powders to desperate
patients-products costing hundreds and often thousands of dollars
yet only costing a few cents to make.
It was in this spirit that I made this offer:
US$100,000 to any
"alternative" therapy that can prove 10 cases of full cancer
remission.
Additionally, I made this offer to the
skeptical world of
conventional medicine: US$100,000 to any reputable medical
organization that will test and publish the results of my AIDS and
cancer vaccines.
No one has yet come forward to make a claim on these offers.
With the realization that Induced Remission Therapy
(IRT) can offer favorable results now, and with the assistance of additional
resources, medical industry professionals who are truly dedicated to
curing disease, and have the ability to catalogue, store and culture autogenous vaccines on a large scale, could and would alter medical
treatment as recognized today. Historically, institutions are
resistant to change. Change comes slowly. So for any promising
therapy to be accepted into the mainstream of medical practice, this
would require a paradigm shift in medical science as we know it
today.
IRT deals with maladies at the genetic level. Indeed, it is the only
therapy now in application that concentrates on disease at this
level. The matrix of many diseases is at the genetic level, so many
types of illness can be treated with IRT.
Genetic correction is the only hope for achieving a cure in such
disease conditions as AIDS and cancer, and starkly contrasts the
available toxic and inferior modalities that attack disease
mechanisms and symptoms while leaving a damaged blueprint.
The best demonstration of this remarkable ability can be seen in the
cases where HIV virus is genetically removed from the cell nucleus.
Not only is the body purged of the disease, but it is able to repair
damage suffered during the course of the illness. This opens up a
new field of cellular regeneration never before possible.
The capacity to reverse age - and disease - related
DNA damage opens a
new world of therapeutic opportunity and almost limitless
applications.
