CANCER'S CAUSE, CANCER'S CURE (11 page)

Pharmaceutical Industry Executives Reject the Oncotest

If the Oncotest is so potent a test for carcinogens, why has Beljanski’s cancer prediction method remained obscured? Unfortunately, industrial interests do not share those same alarms besetting the public about cancer-causing agents. As I have already hinted, the agricultural, chemical, petroleum, and pharmaceutical industries cite the high financial costs to put firm controls in place, along with the complaint that there is the risk of shutting down entire regions of their market activity if the substances they produce are shown to be carcinogenic.

Although the performance of screening tests should be immensely helpful in determining carcinogenic substances in the agrifood and pharmaceutical industry’s quality control checks, these tests are not used because they represent a threat to business profits. Beljanski did offer his Oncotest as an invaluable diagnostic tool to the pharmaceutical industry, only to be rebuffed. The reason executives of major and minor pharmaceutical manufacturers cited for refusing his offer was that the Oncotest “is too sensitive and efficient at detecting the carcinogenic character of any compounds, including drugs.” Beljanski’s wife, Monique Beljanski, gave me this explanation in the fall of 2005. The test detects many molecules as potential dangers to people, pets, farm animals, and other organisms, all of which had not previously been recognized, and may continue to be unrecognized. Cynically, one Big Pharma executive higher up in the drug industry told the test inventor: “You’re going to put us in jeopardy! Prevention, as far as we’re concerned, means keeping quiet.” Monique was in a total state of frustration when she described her husband’s disappointment at the response.

The Oncotest was also cast off because it presented a direct refutation to the conformist dogma that cancers come only from mutations— which is far from being the general case and, to a large extent, untrue.

Furthermore, industrial interests exert a lot of pressure on ruling bodies to maintain the status quo. It is in the financial best interest for the pharmaceutical industry to hold onto maintaining mutagenesis tests to determine carcinogenicity because these ineffective tests make it possible to continue to sell substances that may be carcinogenic but are not mutagenic.

In the face of just such difficulties, Mirko Beljanski was, nevertheless, not one to worry about whether the pharmaceutical industry could profit or not from his new test. Unfazed, he sensed that this breakthrough Oncotest provided an opportunity like none before, and he remained steadfast in his work.

What’s Next?

Faster and more sensitive than any other prediction test used to determine carcinogens, the Oncotest offers a vast number of advantages. It highlights potential carcinogenic compounds that fail to be detected by the classical mutagenic tests (such as the Ames Test) which take at least three days to perform and often require several weeks of costly re-examinations on animals in laboratories. Of the two hundred molecules— common items used by consumers almost every day—which were submitted for analysis by the Oncotest, more than thirty-five were found to have carcinogenic potential. Many of them yield positive responses by the Oncotest but are negative by standard mutagenic tests, even though these same substances cause cancer in laboratory animals after three months. (There is also a variant of the Oncotest that can be used to clarify the results of the Ames test available in the notes for those who are interested.)

Such an innovative method for screening was radically different from all tests existing at the time, and it proved to be, and still is, both sensitive and rapid. It also became clear that the Oncotest had a very useful application. With it, a researcher could figure out four different possible results of any one substance in terms of how it affects DNA.

These are:

1. A substance acts as a carcinogen.
The substance, such as nicotine taken into the body directly or indirectly through cigarette smoke, causes an increase in deregulated DNA activity by penetrating and holding open cancerous cellular DNA strands for an excessively long period of time, sometimes even permanently. Destabilization of the DNA of a healthy cell results from long and cumulative exposure to carcinogens (just as it happens in life but not in a fast,
in vitro
test). This carcinogenic effect is exhibited only on DNA that has been destabilized and can become cancerous. It does not take place with normal DNA. That is to say, the duplication of the DNA originating from healthy cells is barely changed, even in the presence of a carcinogen. However cancerous DNA is significantly affected. Subsequently carcinogenic substances selectively target DNA which is already slightly destabilized. All known carcinogens act in this manner in the Oncotest. Other examples include steroid hormones and Vinblastine, a type of cancer drug that stops cells dividing.

2. A substance has a neutral potential
. This type of neutral substance has no effect on the duplication of either normal or cancerous DNA. Cholesterol, insulin, and riboflavin are examples of neutral substances.

3. A substance has toxic potential.
The adverse substance poisons the polymerase enzyme which performs the DNA duplication. When this kind of toxicity occurs, neither type of DNA (normal or cancerous) is duplicated or replicated. The common herbicides paraquat and diquat are substances with toxic potential.

4. A substance inhibits the duplication of cancerous DNA.
There are some substances in nature which inhibit the duplication of cancerous DNA, but at the same time they cause no interference with the healthy DNA’s duplication. These would be the ideal anticancer substances, but is there such a substance in nature? That was the “what’s next” question that propelled Beljanski into, perhaps, some of the most notable research in his life.

Case Study: Breast Cancer

Breast cancer is the most common malignancy in women, affecting more than one in eight females living in industrialized western nations. Specifically 184,450 American women developed breast cancer in 2008, and approximately 50,000 died from it. (While the case history to follow involves a French patient, we could not learn how many French women had contracted it in that same year.) However, of those fifty-thousand diagnosed but now dead American women, most likely many of them had learned of their health problem much earlier. The disease is most treatable when detected in its earliest stages.

For decades, breast cancer was treated by the Halstead radical mastectomy procedure or a modified radical mastectomy, but the approach during the past three decades has gradually changed to those procedures which are less debilitating. Conventionally, as of this writing, most breast cancer patients are treated with more limited surgery (a lumpectomy which removes the cancer and some surrounding tissue, rather than the entire breast), chemotherapy, and radiation. Women with hormone sensitive breast cancers are usually treated with drugs that reduce the effects of estrogen on the cancer. These include drugs such as tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors like Arimidex¨ or Femara¨. In addition, more and more women are electing to engage in programs that involve changes in lifestyle, including improved nutrition, exercise, stress management, nutritional supplements, and relatively non-toxic intravenous treatments, such as high-dose, intravenous Vitamin C therapy.

For homemaker Henriette Bouchet (Mme. Bouchet), the myriad of methods for treating breast cancer were of little concern until October 1986, when she discovered a tiny lump in her right breast. A week later the growth had disappeared, so she paid no more attention to it. But the memory remained. Mme. Bouchet, like most women, knew that any thickening in any section of the breast could be indicative of malignancy. She counted herself lucky that nothing came from the lump’s presence— it just got rid of itself.

Then in February of the following year, a small hollow area or indentation showed up directly in the same area of her right breast. Just under the indentation she found a small growth, the size of a pimple. But the gynecologist who had been attending to her hormonal needs for over twenty-five years refused to acknowledge that any abnormality of the breast was present. “He told me that everything was just fine,” explained Mme. Bouchet.

“This gynecologist pacified my fears by prescribing what I now believe was a placebo, for it did nothing for me whatsoever. I was dissatisfied with the treatment for many weeks afterward. I then began to seek more effective care than I had received. Based on follow-up tests that I underwent in June 1987 at an oncological center located in Strasbourg, France, on the Franco-German border, I learned that my situation actually was serious. The medical facility’s breast-cancer specialist told me that I had a malignant tumor growing in my right breast. The doctor, a female, said that it was evolving rapidly and had metastasized to lymph nodes in my armpit. She suggested that I required a mastectomy within the next two weeks.

“I was stunned!”

Mme. Bouchet returned home immediately and again contacted her long-standing gynecologist who already knew of her condition since the doctors in Strasbourg had phoned him. “He performed my mastectomy July 2, 1987, and recommended radiation therapy for me to be taken throughout the month of August that year. But I refused it! When next my doctor wanted me to undergo chemotherapy, I refused that destructive treatment as well. I knew that the chemical poisons of such drug treatment were not for me,” she said emphatically.

Having refused radiotherapy and chemotherapy, Mme. Bouchet did not know how to proceed, and for eight months she did nothing except improve every health aspect of her lifestyle that she could: she switched her diet to organic foods, practiced yoga daily, meditated periodically throughout each day, and generally engaged in a holistic way of living. Prior to her surgery, Mme. Bouchet had instructed the surgeon not to remove any lymph nodes, though clinically she appeared to have several lymph nodes involved. She had refused to have them removed because this well-educated woman was aware that the removal of armpit lymph nodes did not improve survival statistics, even though lymph nodes were involved. She was aware that lymph nodes were generally removed by surgeons to help determine the degree of involvement of the cancer, which would help them decide how intensive the rest of their conventional treatment program should be. (For example, they could then answer the question, what chemotherapeutic drugs should be used? How long should they be given?)

Since Mme. Bouchet had determined beforehand that she did not want any conventional treatment other than surgery, this patient decided not to have any of the lymph nodes removed. Such a procedure also spared her possible complications of lymph-node removal, such as chronic swelling of the affected arm, which sometimes occurs in women who have this surgical operation done. Nevertheless, the woman was concerned that cancer cells were still present in her body and she wondered if just the lifestyle changes would be enough to prevent the cancer from growing and spreading.

Eventually returning to her gynecologist, she depended on him to tell her what to do next. The doctor surprised her and did not advise any follow-up surgery but, instead, told Henriette Bouchet to contact Mirko Beljanski to get the herbal products that this microbiologist had discovered. Dr. Beljanski, according to the gynecologist, had published information about a new concept of cancer causation, and certain herbals, alkaloids, or other nutrients he had available would possibly prove useful her. Her physician went on to assure her that he knew of women with breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and other hormonal malignancies who had benefited greatly from taking them.

Conscious of the fact that Dr. Beljanski was a biologist and not a physician, the patient consulted him to evaluate his information and obtain the botanicals he had prepared for counteracting cancer. In mid-1988, Mme. Bouchet decided to avoid receiving any additional conventional cancer treatments including surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy and instead tried Dr. Beljanski’s anticancer botanicals.

They became a central part of her life and a routine aspect of her nutritional program. She believes that ingesting Beljanski’s supplements are as mandatory for her as eating or sleeping. In an emphatic manner, she says, “On July 9, 1988, I took charge of my life.”

Since that time, Mme. Bouchet’s health has been excellent with no sign of cancer and no evidence of premature aging. She continues to follow various preventive measures against illness, a primary part of which involves the ingestion of no less than three of Dr. Beljanski’s products.

4

Beljanski’s Breakthrough Botanicals:

The Power of the Bolt Molecule for Handling Cancerous DNA

I
began this book by addressing the war on cancer. In the preface, I ponder on who is at war with whom. There are many who proclaim that we’re winning this war on cancer because we have so many ways to fight the disease. But if that were true, then why are so many people dying, roughly fifteen hundred people a
day
just in the U.S.?

Here we have this disease that, because it seemingly defies a cure but continually takes the lives of so many people, has become a gigantic battleground of money and power. On one side of the battlefield is the pharmaceutical industrial complex with its well-funded and highly influential lobby, Big Pharma. They are accompanied by traditional health professionals who use the usual cancer treatments created by the pharmaceuticals and that we know well: chemotherapy and radiation being prime among them. We healthcare consumers also know that while sometimes drugs and radiation are effective, oftentimes they are not. And these treatments are always accompanied by the awful side effects of which everyone is all too well aware.

On the other side of the field stand the alternative treatments.