Cancer: Its Cause, Its Prevention, Its Cure

By Dr. Royal Lee

Summary: In this report from the late 1940s, Dr. Lee reviews some successful alternative treatments of cancer and emphasizes the importance of avoiding processed foods in both preventing and reversing the disease. In particular, he cites the works of Drs. Max Gerson of New York and D.T. Quigley of Omaha, who famously reported that no case of cancer he had ever treated improved unless “the diet was so arranged that sugar disappeared from the urine.” In addition to refined sugar, Dr. Lee also names bleached flour and nitrite-preserved meats as likely cancer culprits. Published by the Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research, circa 1949.

[The following is a transcription of the original Archives document. To view or download the original document, click here.]

Cancer: Its Cause, Its Prevention, Its Cure

Cancer appears to have been proven to be a deficiency disease, thanks to Mr. Davidson, Dr. Daniel T. Quigley, and others. This fact seems to have been deliberately suppressed by some conspiracy—no doubt based on commercial influences.

The treatment of cancer has not been as devoid of results as one might believe from a study of the information emanating from the propaganda sources of medical officialdom. (Let us keep in mind the definition of a medical education formulated by a former president of the American Dental Association: “The warping of immature, susceptible minds into a system of meticulous commercial superstition.”) Various systems of treatment, various clinics at different points, are getting results of 35 to 80 percent success in relieving cancer patients of their symptoms of cancer. We need not say cure, for under a strict definition of “cure,” they may never be cured—even if they never exhibit another symptom of cancer.

We might list the successful methods as follows:

1. Escharotics. [This treatment is] limited to those cases in which a preparation can be applied directly to the cancer. (The Nichols Clinic at Savannah, MO, and the Hoxsey Clinic at Dallas used this method.) It definitely does destroy the cancer in a large percentage of cases. The Nichols Clinic annually publishes a book containing the names and addresses of the thousands of patients they have cured from all parts of the United States. The Hoxsey Clinic presents remarkable evidence of success in treating cancer of the types that are amenable to this form of medication.

2. Stimulants of the natural immune defense reactions of the patient. This method, as developed by Dr. Frederick Koch of Detroit, seems to be as successful as the escharotic system or even more so, particularly in combating the types of cancer that cannot be reached by escharotics. (See accompanying abstracts of transcript of the investigation by the Ontario Cancer Commission.) [Note: Abstracts not available.]

3. Restoration of the natural immunity to cancer through special nutritional factors. This has been demonstrated by Dr. Daniel T. Quigley in his success in preventing recurrence of cancer in operated patients. Dr. Quigley makes recommendations very similar to those of Dr. Max Gerson of New York, whose work is described in the accompanying reprint. [Reprint not available.] Both are emphatic about the elimination of dextrose-carrying food such as candy, soft drinks, canned fruit, etc.

Dr. Quigley announced in 1935 that “no case of carcinoma showed any material improvement until the diet was so arranged that sugar disappeared from the urine” (Am. Jol. Roentgenology & Radium Therapy, July 1935). It is significant that dextrose [i.e., glucose] is the only sugar that will cause diabetes in test animals. It is a synthetic sugar— commonly used as a filler and adulterant in candy, soft drinks, and canned goods—improperly called “corn syrup” and “corn sugar” in order to conceal the fact that it is synthetic.

The possibility of combating active cancer with nutritional factors was never found highly effective, however, until the Drosnes-Lazenby treatment was discovered. The enzyme complex of this biological culture of wheat is parallel in nature to the Chinese culture used in making soy sauce. We can only speculate on the biochemistry involved at this time; we do know, however, that it specifically inhibits and destroys cancer by an action that simulates that of a bacteriophage.

Other nutritional factors—vitamin complexes A, C, and G—now become of far more importance. They enhance the effect and speed the recovery of the patient and have been found invaluable in connection with the Koch treatment, the Drosnes-Lazenby treatment, and the Davidson embryo factor, described next. They seem to be useful in restoring the natural vital resilience of the patient, which has been depressed not only by the cancer but no doubt by a contributing cause in some degree. Their detoxifying effect is of primary importance in controlling the pains that appear to be due entirely to toxic exudations from the malignant tissue. The vitamin A and C complexes are important in promoting phagocytic isolation of the malignant are (sequestration) [sic].

The lipotropic factors of the B complex are also very important to the cancer patient. These includes inositol, choline, betaine, and the enzyme phosphatase, which releases inositol and phosphoric acid from cereal phytates. (The lipocaic hormone of the pancreas is probably a phosphatase.) It is significant that this lipotropic group is found in the black molasses that is sold as cattle feed in making refined sugar. (Commercial concentrates of this group in tablet form are now available.) Inositol and choline protect test animals from cancer. (See Science News Letter, Oct. 26, 1946, and June 19, 1943.)

Chlorophyll too is being used with considerable benefit in cancer patients. As a detoxifier, deodorant, and cholesterol eliminant, it should be of value in combating cancer.

4. Dr. Davidson’s “embryo factor.” This is the “embryo hormone” of Dr. N.E. Ischlondsky, as described in his book Protoformotherapy (London: Henry Kimpton, 1937). Davidson evidently had not heard of Ischlondsky and independently discovered the value of embryonic tissue extracts in combating cancer. Ischlondsky discusses the fact that while his extract had not been tested [specifically] as a cancer treatment at the time of reporting, he had treated nearly a thousand cases with other conditions using his embryo factor, and whereas by statistical probability twelve to fifteen cancer cases should have resulted in that time, none had actually appeared.

The Lee Foundation has supplied this embryo hormone to a few physicians for tests in inoperable cancer, and very encouraging results are being reported. It is available for test use where other measures of control have failed.

5. Specific drugs that combat cancer. Dr. Psota’s report, herewith, gives his experience with cocaine. [Report not available.] He found that the coca-leaf chewers in South America were immune to cancer. He could not get coca leaf through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration barriers when they found what it was to be used for, however, so he tried cocaine, with the results reported.

As Dr. Quigley has observed, every cancer patient exhibits more or less of the symptoms of [a nutritional] deficiency and has various, intercurrent diseases characteristic of such deficiencies—subclinical or frank scurvy, pellagra, beriberi, low vitality, low resistance—as shown by heart symptoms, gastritis, ulcers, colitis, liver disease, gallbladder disease, gonadal dysfunctions, etc.

The building up of a patient with natural food concentrates has been phenomenally successful in increasing the percentage of success in all cancer treatment methods. It no doubt is a basic part of the management of a cancer case.

The use of refined flour products may have a pernicious influence aside from the vitamin deficiency entailed. The presence of nitrites (often used as flour bleach) is specifically destructive to chymotrypsin. (See Advances in Protein Chemistry, vol. III, p. 210, Academic Press.) Chymotrypsin has been well substantiated as one of the protective enzymes that block the development of cancer, and it is now being distributed experimentally as a cancer remedy (Spicer Laboratories, Pasadena, CA).

Nitrites are used as meat-color protectors and as preservatives to a great extent as well. Heretofore no evidence has been available that they are poisonous in the amounts used in food. (Of course, it would be unlawful to use poisons in food in any amount whatsoever if the 1918 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court on flour bleaches were to be heeded—notice judgment 6380—but for some strange reason it is being universally ignored.)

Recently, nitrites have been found in drinking water in an amount sufficient to be fatal to babies, who seem to be peculiarly susceptible to nitrite poisoning. Maybe that is why it has not been considered good practice to feed babies the kind of hot dogs and bologna so commonly indulged in by adults (Jol. A.M.A., 141:535, 1949; 129:112–116, 1945).

Has there been a suppression of cancer remedies? Very definitely, to judge from the history of Dr. Koch, the Hoxsey Clinic, and others. We refer you to The Birth of a Science for some eye-opening facts, and to the transcript of the Hoxsey litigation. (The Birth of a Science is available from The Lutheran Research Society, Inc., 751 E. Grand Blvd., Detroit, Michigan, at $1.00 per copy.)

To call attention to just one item in The Birth of a Science, one of the cancer patients who testified to her cure by the Koch method, a Detroit housewife, was beaten up by a hoodlum, apparently hired for the job, who was later identified in the courtroom as sitting between two Food and Drug Administration representatives. When the witness pointed him out, he disappeared, and the two Food and Drug men denied that anyone had been sitting between them. This is nothing unusual in connection with food cases; the Food and Drug Administration has a gang of “experts” who have been testifying consistently for ten years that no disease can result from malnutrition or deficiencies of vitamins or minerals. By thus setting the stage with a complaisant federal judge, they can jail or fine any hardy soul who tells his customer that he has a better food product than refined sugar or bleached flour. (Ask us for our booklet How Our Government Subsidizes Malnutrition and Disease.)

Only the foulest of racketeers resort to the intimidation of witnesses. Yet that is an old trick of the Food and Drug operators. They seldom have resorted to physical violence, though; they are more likely to call on the patient of a doctor who is using a food-product treatment they are gunning for and use the prestige of their affiliation with the federal Food and Drug Administration to describe the user of the remedy being hazed by the government as a “poor deluded soul” if he believe he has been benefited or cured by the treatment under fire. Apparently, beating up of such “poor deluded souls” is the next stage of the campaign to protect the frightful racket of the combined forces of organized medicine, food adulterators, synthetic drug interests, and the federal government as represented by the FTC and FDA.

The federal judge in the Hoxsey case called attention to the strange animosity of organized medicine to the obvious success of the Hoxsey Clinic.

Why is there such a campaign to eliminate cancer remedies? Can it be possible that the cancer patient is worth more to the medical monopoly if he cannot find a cure than if he did? Some suggest this possibility, since it does cost about $6,000 to die from cancer. There must be some reason for this malignant opposition to a cancer cure.

By Dr. Royal Lee. The Lee Foundation for Nutritional Research, form LH-210, circa 1949.

Form LH–210
Lee Foundation
Milwaukee, 3, Wisconsin

Patrick Earvolino, CN

Patrick Earvolino is a Certified Nutritionist and Special Projects Editor for Selene River Press, Inc.

Leave a Reply