Summary
The trophoblastic theory of cancer holds that trophoblast cells are the same kind of cells as cancer cells and can be regulated and eliminated from the body in the same way, given that there is sufficient available trypsin, a protease (protein-digesting) enzyme produced internally by the pancreas and converted from dietary enzymes. Trophoblast cells are reproductive germ cells (cells that are able to divide and become any type of human cell) that are the first cells to divide from a fertilized egg. They become the blastocyst, the structure that attaches to the uterus in pregnancy and forms the embryo and placenta. Trypsin dissolves the outer protein coat of excess placenta cells, allowing white blood cells to penetrate and kill the cells, while sparing stable, vital, non-foreign tissue. Its action against malignant cancer cells is identical. If the pancreas loses function or trypsin supply is exhausted by the diet, and anti-cancer nutrients are not able to compensate, cancer can take hold and grow.
Trypsin enzyme and its relationship to cancer
As stated in the previous post, cancer appears to be a natural, normally non-lethal, process, in most instances a healing process in which germ cells that are already in the body divide and accumulate where there is damage to the tissue (such as the skin from sun, lungs from smoke, or bone marrow from radiation), especially in the presence of excess estrogen, which may be the primary trigger of tumor formation.
This process is primarily regulated by an enzyme known as trypsin. When there is enough internally produced and dietary trypsin in the body, cancer cannot accumulate to a detectable level. If enzyme levels are insufficient, due to low pancreas function, diet, or aggressive cancer, nutrients such as amygdalin, along with many others, can intervene and prevent malignant tumor formation. Absent sufficient trypsin or anti-cancer nutrients, cancer can flourish.
The mechanism of action of proteolytic (i.e. protease, protein-digesting) pancreatic enzymes on cancer is to digest the outer protein coating of malignant cancer cells (or excess trophoblast cells). White blood cells do not immediately attack either kind of cell upon contact because they do not appear to be pathogens that are foreign to the body, and because both are negatively charged and thus repel each other and do not make contact. When trypsin digests the negatively charged outer layer, however, white cells recognize, penetrate, and kill the unwanted cell.
Trypsin is produced by the pancreas or converted from dietary enzymes such as bromelain. Like all protease enzymes, trypsin, when activated, digests and dissolves proteins it comes into contact with. At the site of proteins not foreign to the body, like those of vital organs, trypsin is inhibited by natural blood factors such as alpha 1-antitrypsin (A1AT). Without the body’s internal management and inhibition of trypsin, it would digest much of the body. Dietary trypsin inhibitors like soy (which in the West is almost always genetically modified, and an estrogen promoter: a cancer triple whammy) are not necessary, and may upset trypsin levels and cause cancer when ingested frequently. Trypsin is not inhibited by the body at the site of foreign material, such as food or unwanted placental or tumor tissue, and helps eliminate them.
Returning to the idea of cancer as a healing process, consider benign tumors. What is known as a benign tumor is an instance of this healing process occurring as designed and not becoming metastatic and dominated by malignant cells. When trypsin or anti-cancer nutrients lack, the benign growth is allowed to get larger than it otherwise would have, but is not eliminated once formed since it is stabilized, developed tissue, like scar tissue, and usually harmless.
It’s possible that the triggering-into-growth of aforementioned germ cells is sometimes an accidental process rather than healing of damaged tissue. For example, in fetuses who may pre-natally lack sufficient trypsin and nutritional factors or be exposed to excessive estrogen, teratoma tumors can form, occasionally as near-complete other fetuses (fetus in fetu) inside the body, or as other teratomas that can contain teeth, hair, eyeballs, and fingernails. Teratoma tumors, once static, are not acted on by trypsin or dietary factors like amygdalin because they are fully developed human organs or tissue that are not recognized as different from other normal tissue in the body. That these ‘cancer’ cells are able to become any type of human tissue, and even a nearly complete human being, strongly supports the trophoblastic theory that cancer cells and reproductive diploid germ cells (such as trophoblast, among others), are the same kind of cell, and therefore manageable by the same means, namely trypsin enzymes, as well as amygdalin and other nutrients.
Discovery and use as treatment
In 1902, Scottish physician John Beard observed that malignant cancer cells and trophoblast, or the totipotent diploid germ cells (reproductive cells that are able to divide and become any type of human cell) that become the blastocyst, the structure that attaches to the uterus in pregnancy and eventually forms the embryo and placenta, were indistinguishable. Trophoblast cells reproduce rapidly until the eighth week of pregnancy, when the fetus’ pancreas begins to function. The pancreas produces what is known collectively as pancreatin, or the enzymes amylase (carbohydrate-digesting), lipase (fat-digesting), and trypsin (protein-digesting), the last of which causes the placenta to stop growing. Beard then conducted a number of experiments confirming the action of trypsin on cancer and trophoblast cells which were published in The Enzyme Treatment of Cancer in 1911. The theory failed to take hold due to its extreme novelty and the mishandling of experiments by Beard’s scientific peers and by enzyme producers in the business world.
The kind of reproductive germ cells that become trophoblast are mostly found in the ovaries and testes, but are also spread throughout the body, possibly for regenerative purposes. When the body is damaged, the cells begin to divide and seal over the tissue, forming benign tumor cells that would normally be undetectable, regulated by enzymes and anti-cancer nutrients. Without these regulating factors, malignant cells outnumber benign and cancer spreads out of control.
Dr. William Kelley, originally an orthodontist by trade, was the first to base treatment on Beard’s theory. Kelley’s initial protocol was for the patient to follow a largely raw, vegan diet with large amounts of raw vegetable juice, maximizing dietary enzyme input and minimizing use of the body’s own enzyme supply, leaving more available to help the body attack malignant cancer cells. The program later included animal pancreatin as its sole animal food. That Kelley was not a physician should not be surprising, since US physicians are legally barred from administering non- conventional cancer treatments and can lose their license or be imprisoned for practicing them.
Like so many others in the alternative health movement, Kelley was harassed his entire career: he was arrested at gunpoint and jailed briefly, and had his license suspended, house set on fire, office raided frequently by federal agents, and records and bank accounts confiscated. Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez, who was a journalist assigned to investigate and discredit Kelley before becoming a doctor, became so convinced by his methods that he quit his job as a reporter and graduated from Cornell medical school to become an oncologist, and continued the treatments after Kelley’s death. Gonzalez, who was fanatical about frequent blood testing and nutrition and health in general, and was known to be in excellent health, died this year at 68 from a first heart attack, part of a spate of strange deaths of several prominent figures in alternative medicine, including anti-vaccine activist Dr. Jeff Bradstreet. (I have not looked into it thoroughly and so do not rule out coincidence)
While a vegan diet is problematic with respect to certain nutrients that are hard to get from plant sources, vegans do have a significantly lower cancer rate, and I believe this is the reason why. (I am not a vegan and believe if one takes some of the steps outlined in the previous post, one can safely eat meat. Animal foods may also be protective against cancer in ways that plant foods are not.) It is also the reason why ‘plant-based’ is the mantra of the cancer establishment, though for the wrong reasons. Take this typical article, from Oprah, which recommends a vegan diet as a potential cure for cancer but makes almost no mention of enzymes (only that animal foods ‘modify important enzyme activity,’ rather than the simple truth that they use up more enzymes), instead putting the blame on animal protein for being too acidic. This is a fragile argument, since many modern societies have eaten much more animal protein than we do today, yet had far lower cancer rates, likely because of the factors explained in the previous post. In any case, protein acidity does not appear to be a significant factor for cancer.
Any calls for veganism from the highest levels of the establishment made in the name of public health are disingenuous, since it is abundantly clear, given the deluge of anti-organic, anti-gardening, anti-food-choice legislation in recent years, that what they wish for most of us is not to connect with farmers for a variety of healthy, organic plant produce, and certainly not to grow our own, but rather to eat GMO soy three meals a day (1, 2, 3), washed down with a glass of Roundup (1, 2), enjoyed in cubicle-sized apartments (1, 2) far from the land. In other words, to be cheaply maintained, obedient workers who are dependent, debilitated, disconnected from nature, and dead when ‘usefulness’ expires (1, 2).
What the cancer establishment says about enzyme treatment
In spite of being the basis for the increasingly popular enzyme-based cancer treatment (and the uncredited reason for the success of plant-based diets for cancer patients) and being accepted by many in alternative medicine, who are usually targeted by Snopes, Quackwatch, and other ‘debunking’ organizations, I have not been able to find a single challenge of the trophoblastic thesis, that is, of anyone saying that malignant cancer and trophoblast cells are different. Even on the American Cancer Society website, the heart of the cancer establishment, enzyme treatment, known as the Gonzalez Regimen, is not said to not work, but rather to be too demanding for the average patient in terms of number of enzyme capsules to be taken per day. But an all-day chemo bag, losing your hair, complete mental and physical debilitation, and sometimes death is not? Another website, Quackwatch, fails to take on the trophoblastic theory itself in a long hit piece on Gonzalez and Kelley.
The treatment is often noted by establishment articles for its support of coffee enemas, far out of proportion to their actual role in it. They are used to stimulate the liver and accelerate passage of dead tumor cells out of the body, allowing a more aggressive treatment schedule for late-stage patients. If treatment moves too quickly and overwhelms the liver, dead tumor cells can accumulate and cause the patient to die of sepsis, a lethal Herxheimer Reaction. To avoid this treatment one can proceed on a slower schedule and take breaks to recover.
Why is this not more well known?
The success of enzyme and amygdalin treatments for cancer are known and have been suppressed by the ‘cancer establishment,’ which consists of not just the major societies and hospitals, but also the largest media companies- who by themselves have enormous but fast shrinking power to suppress treatments- the drug companies, and federal regulatory agencies, primarily for one reason: they are not patentable and therefore cannot be owned and controlled by the financial interests that rule our and most countries’ governments and economies. The cancer industry is a growing, multi-hundred billion dollar a year market, the second largest and most profitable business in the world after energy, in large part because of astronomical prescription drug costs (and regulatory monopoly on care).
Further reading and viewing
I was first exposed to this theory through the documentary A World WIthout Cancer, which is also a book. It was made in the 1970s so it has an old-fashioned feel, and it uses some dumbed-down graphics, but it makes very compelling arguments. Here is a 15-minute excerpt from the film that focuses on the trophoblastic theory, much of which was discussed in this post. On the subject of suppression I recommend the documentary Second Opinion: Laetrile at Sloan-Kettering. It’s somewhat dry but provides insights into the mechanics of hiding the truth in medicine. Another good source is a 3-part presentation with background information on John Beard, William Kelley, and their work, and this radio interview. I have not read it, but Beard’s book on the subject is available on Amazon.
