Treatment, or even cure, for so-called autoimmune diseases, including cancer
The following is a question and answer session conducted by Catherine O'Driscoll with Gary Smith to be included in a news letter supporting Catherine’s recent DVD “In Search of the Truth about Dogs” A film about the detrimental impact of vaccinations and other modern practices on animals. For copy of the DVD please
Q: You believe you may have found an effective treatment, or even cure, for so-called autoimmune diseases, including cancer. What is the basis of this cure?
I wouldnt describe this as a cure, but it is a treatment for all chronic inflammatory disease. These diseases include Cancer, neurodegenerative disorders such as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's, 'auto-immune' diseases such as RA, as well as bacterial, fungal, viral and parasitic infections. One thing that all of these disease have in common is that they do their damage (redness, pain, swelling, disfunction and sometimes death) through what is termed chronic inflammation.
Inflammation has long been associated with cancer and infection. The established view is that inflammation is a vital component of the immune system but that in chronic inflammatory diseases something has gone wrong. My research and observations actually explain that chronic inflammation (distinct from acute inflammation) works in opposition to the immune system and that cancers and other infections actually cause chronic inflammation (wounding that diverts the attention of immune cells) in order to evade what scientists call our adaptive immune response (a learned targeted response to a specific invader).
Essentially if you have a wound that won't heal (as indicated by redness, pain, swelling and disfunction (mental or physical)), the first rule of thumb according to my hypothesis is that you most likely have an infection. In 'auto-immune' diseases and some diseases classed as allegies too, it is not your immune system attacking you because it has gone wrong, but is most likely being caused by an infection. Pathogens can use a variety of techniques that cause physical and chemical stresses that prompt this reaction, but the good news is that there is an existing non toxic, relatively cheap type of drug known as an Angiotensin Receptor Blocker (ARBs) used already to resolve chronic inflammation in heart disease that can also be used as a single pivitol 'off' switch for chronic inflammation in ALL diseases. These drugs work in a much better way than traditional approaches such as steroids that not only switch off chronic inflammation but also detrimentally your immune system. (I know the reason for this too but it's not published yet).
Q: If inflammation represents the presence of pathogens hiding from the immune system, what effect would stopping that inflammation have on potential disease?
Basically if you switch off the chronic inflammation then you will increase the possibility of your immune system identifying the pathogen and developing an effective adaptive response. Some of these pathogens are, however, very resistant but at least you will be stopping the long term damage that they cause.
Q: Would you also need to destroy the pathogen?
Ideally yes. Some pathogens may revert to their benign form (MRSA for instance), some might continue to flare up when your immune system is low, usually as a result of stress, wounding or another infection (cold sores being a prime example), so finding a way to remove some of these invaders using targeted drugs and therapies is a good idea. Using ARBs in conjunction with these therapies should be helpful as they will reduce any chronic inflammation caused as a result of bacterial or viral cell death (no chesty cough (chronic inflammation) when taking ARBs but you will get a runny nose (acute inflammation)).
Q: I understand that although you’ve given presentations to pharmaceutical companies, academics and even government, no-one is interested in trialling your work. Why do you think this is?
My presentations have been well recieved and no one has been able to refute the logic and evidence for what I am saying. Regarding the lack of real progress, some of this I know is due to the usually resistance to change, the politics and 'not invented here' syndrome, but more disturbing this is due to the lack of business case to fund trials, almost all of which is usually sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry. I can understand that a University research group that currently gets most of its funding from big pharma might be hesitant to rock the boat in researching an idea that might damage industrial business cases, but most surprisingly to me has been the lack of support and interest from some of the largest charities.
Q: How do you think the dog world could move a potential cancer cure further on
Although the processes that need to be applied and followed in vetinary trials are still rigourous and follow ethical standards, generally it is a little easier and a lot cheaper to run. Several companies I know who have failed to apply treatment in human medicine, often due to the investment needed, have first moved into the pet market in order to demonstrate the principle.
What I would really like to do, perhaps using CHC as a forum, is to gather enough interest and funding to undertake a clinical study. This could really be world changing not just for pets but for people too!
– 
– 
– 
– 
– 
– 
– 