Scandal REVEALED! A Decade of Sabotage That Could Have Kept a Potential Cancer Cure Hidden Forever

Scandal REVEALED! A Decade of Sabotage That Could Have Kept a Potential Cancer Cure Hidden Forever

Story at-a-glance -

  • In 1998, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) approved funding for a study in which Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez’s nutritional-enzyme therapy would be compared to the best available chemo¬therapy in the treatment of patients diagnosed with inoperable pancreatic cancer
  • During the study, there were multiple instances of incompetent and possibly deliberate mismanagement by ‘supervising’ researchers, along with NCI and other “supervisors,” confirmed by investigators from other branches of government
  • Deliberate attempts, including data tampering and cover-ups, were used to make Dr. Gonzalez’s treatment—effective on so many patients—appear worthless

By Jonathan V. Wright, M.D.

In 1998, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) approved funding for a large-scale clinical study, in which Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez’s nutritional-enzyme therapy would be compared to the best available chemo­therapy in the treatment of patients diagnosed with inoperable pancreatic cancer.

Dr. Gonzalez and his colleague Dr. Linda Isaacs initially approached this project with enthusiasm, believing it to be a wonderful opportunity to bring together “conventional” academic-world and “alternative” researchers, so often at odds, for the benefit of science but of course mostly for patients suffering terrible illness.

But as the years passed, Drs. Gonzalez and Isaacs realized with some disappointment that there was no new dawn of cooperation breaking between the conventional academic-medicine and alternative-medicine universes, and that the same biases against treatment methods developed outside of the mainstream still reigned supreme.

Even worse, they realized that scientists and physicians at the highest levels of academia would do anything to “prove” that an unconventional (and unpatentable) therapy has no value.

According to Dr. Gonzalez:

“Under the direction of the supervisors from Columbia University (the site for the project), the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), the study degenerated into a morass of mismanagement, meaningless and manipulated data, lives of patients put at risk, and sadly, cover-up of the mismanagement right into the office of Dr. Elias Zerhouni, former NIH Director. Repeatedly now we’ve seen the meaningless data of a mismanaged study used in the effort to ‘prove’ my treatment worthless, and undermine my 28 years of hard, determined research.”

In August 2009, Dr. Gonzalez learned by chance that Dr. John Chabot, the Principal Investigator at Columbia University, along with his Columbia colleagues had published an article appearing in the website-only version of the Journal of Clinical Oncology. Supposedly, the article “proves” that chemotherapy is more effective than enzyme-based treatment.

Even now, this article is being widely disseminated through the internet as if it were a legitimate report of a well run study with no questions asked. Dr. Gonzalez’s opponents—many of whom are irrationally virulent—and the enemies of alternative medicine in general, have gleefully used this article and its purported data as a tool that supposedly, once and for all, can discredit his therapy.

But the truth is quite different from what Dr. Chabot and his Columbia University colleagues would like the world to believe. Although the article claims that the clinical trial proves chemotherapy far superior to Dr. Gonzalez’s nutritional-enzyme program, if you dig a little deeper, you find a much different story…

Sins of Omission

What the trial actually reports is that a group of patients intensively treated with the triple-agent chemo­therapy regimen called “GTX” (Gemzar, Taxotere and Xeloda), and provided the most aggressive high-tech supportive care available in the United States did better than a group of untreated or minimally treated patients with more advanced pancreatic cancer given almost no high-tech supportive care. The people in this unfortunate group were then inaccurately labeled “Gonzalez” or “enzyme” patients. And in his supposedly “definitive” article, Dr. Chabot certainly doesn’t disclose that the research had managerial lapses almost from its beginning.

Nor does he acknowledge anywhere that the Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP), an oversight group at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), conducted a two-year investigation of Dr. Chabot’s supervision of the research. The OHRP findings (posted on their website) reveal that Dr. Chabot, who was solely in charge of evaluating and approving cancer patients for nearly the entire duration of this research study, had admitted 42 out of the 62 patients improperly: 40 of them didn’t even have proper “informed consent”—a step basic to any legitimate clinical trial.

The OHRP launched its investigation at the request of Dr. Gonzalez, who (along with Dr. Linda Isaacs) had found that 11 patients entered into the “nutrition” (i.e. enzyme therapy) arm by Dr. Chabot had appetites that were so poor they could never possibly have adhered to the prescribed diet, supplement, and enzyme protocol. And back in December 2004, Drs. Gonzalez and Isaacs allege that Dr. Chabot had admitted patients diagnosed with far more advanced disease into the “nutrition and enzymes” part of the study, compared with those admitted to the chemotherapy part.

Specifically, by that point, approximately 68 percent of the patients admitted into the nutrition group had been diagnosed with advanced stage IV disease (the worst), the great majority too ill to even comply with the treatment. Among the chemotherapy patients, on the other hand, just 38.5 percent were at stage IV. This imbalance made the data to that point meaningless and set up the nutrition/enzyme protocol for failure.

After all of these tactics began to surface, Dr. Gonzalez turned to Indiana congressman Dan Burton, who filed a complaint with the director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

The director of the NIH eventually agreed that an investigation was warranted to help determine if the activities of Dr. Chabot and the other researchers go beyond simple mismanagement. (Of course, there’s no mention of this investigation in Dr. Chabot’s Journal of Clinical Oncology article either).

But it gets even worse…

Accidental Discovery

Not only did Dr. Chabot resort to underhanded tactics during the study, but he and his colleagues at Columbia then hid the fact that they’d published their supposedly “conclusive” anti-enzyme therapy evidence in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

That’s right: Despite the fact that the research grant was originally approved by the NCI because of Dr. Gonzalez’s efforts and was awarded to study his treatment, and even though Drs. Gonzalez and Isaacs were in charge of treating all the non-chemo­therapy patients, the Columbia University personnel hid the publication of their “discrediting” study from them. Dr. Gonzalez only learned of the article’s publication through the National Library of Medicine alert system after its appearance on August 17, 2009.

On August 20, Dr. Gonzalez filed a formal complaint of misconduct with the JCO editors, who admitted they knew nothing about the OHRP investigation or findings, or even that Dr. Gonzalez was an active participant in the study. The article omits any mention that Drs. Gonzalez and Isaacs were treating the enzyme and nutrition patients (most likely so that the journal editors wouldn’t contact them before publication).

In response to Dr. Gonzalez’s allegations, the Journal of Clinical Oncology (JCO) launched yet another investigation of the corrupted article, which is still in progress. However, the editors of the JCO did withdraw the article, shortly before its scheduled appearance in the printed journal. As if the story wasn’t extraordinary enough already, it turns out that the recent JCO article wasn’t the first time that Dr. Chabot and the Columbia researchers had tried to publish their one-sided account without Dr. Gonzalez’s knowledge.

The Truth Behind the Trial

On December 3, 2006, Dr. Boris Pasche, Oncology Editor at the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) contacted Dr. Gonzalez, informing him that Dr. Chabot and his Columbia University colleagues had submitted an article to JAMA for publication. Dr. Pasche became very suspicious while reviewing the article because he knew the clinical study was an evaluation of Dr. Gonzalez’s treatment, yet he wasn’t listed as a co-author.

According to Dr. Gonzalez, in the body of the paper Dr. Chabot included a paragraph claiming Dr. Gonzalez had refused to cooperate with the writing of the article and had quit the study—all false. Dr. Gonzalez knew nothing about the article, had not seen it prior to its attempted publication, and had not quit the study.

Dr. Pasche, in turn, knew nothing about the OHRP investigation or Congressman Burton’s complaint to the NIH Director. He told Dr. Gonzalez that Chabot should never have submitted the article with Federal investigations in progress, and that JAMA would reject the article with a warning to Chabot not to attempt publication elsewhere.

In the text of the article submitted to JAMA, Dr. Chabot repeatedly claims that the “GTX” patients did much better than those entered for the Gonzalez program, but, once again, the actual data reveals something far different. A graph appearing at the end of the appendix of the article (never discussed in the actual text) presents the survival curves for the two groups. The graph clearly reveals that no chemotherapy patient at that point had lived to three years. In fact, the longest survivors of the study were two of Dr. Gonzalez’s patients, including one who lived nearly three and a half years.

Why all of the deception, you might wonder?

During their investigation, Drs. Gonzalez and Isaacs learned Dr. Chabot is one of the originators of the “GTX” chemotherapy program that was being compared against the Gonzalez treatment! And according to Dr. Gonzalez, Dr. Chabot never disclosed this conflict of interest in either of his articles. I could go on and on about the alleged fraud, deception, and cover-ups involved in the effort to make Dr. Chabot’s patent medicines look good and Dr. Gonzalez’s natural approach appear to be a failure, but there’s just not room.

Dr. Gonzalez has recently completed a 640-page report on the mismanagement of the entire research study. It points out in detail three major categories of misbehavior:

  1. Multiple instances of incompetent and possibly deliberate mismanagement by Dr. Chabot of Columbia University, along with NCI and NCCAM “supervisors,” confirmed by investigators from other branches of government
  2. Attempts to cover up the behavior above
  3. Deliberate attempts to make Dr. Gonzalez’s treatment—effective on so many patients—appear worthless. These deliberate attempts included actual data tampering!

If you want to read Dr. Gonzalez’s full summary, please go to http://www.dr-gonzalez.com/jco_rebuttal.htm. Dr. Gonzalez has also written a book on the clinical study, entitled A Clinical Trial: How Bias and Incompetence at the Highest Levels of the Academic Medical Community Sabotaged a Promising Cancer Treatment. It should be available at www.newspringpress.com.

About the Author

Jonathan V. Wright, M.D. has degrees from both Harvard University (cum laude) and the University of Michigan and is author of the best-selling Book of Nutritional Therapy and Guide to Healing with Nutrition.  For more information on Dr. Wright's groundbreaking natural therapies, please visit www.wrightnewsletter.com

Reprinted with permission from Nutrition & Healing. Copyright 2010 NewMarket Health, LLC.

Click Here and be the first to comment on this article
Post your comment