Our aim is to ensure that patients get relevant and sound information from their treating oncologist and have access to literature and resources that will assist them in making informed decisions re their treatment and the management of their disease.

We encourage patients to stand on their rights to get a 2nd opinion and to insist in getting information from the medical fraternity that will assist them in coming to an informed decision re their own treatment.

We feel strongly that cancer patients and their caregivers are particularly vulnerable and need to be offered sound scientifically proven information and options.

Our organization’s policy is that it cannot be seen to support any therapeutic invention in the absence of scientifically independently validated clinical trials showing a benefit.

We are not a medical or clinical discussion forum and our services are limited to the psychosocial support of patients and caregivers. We wish to encourage cancer patients and their families to be careful of any treatment modalities that do not adhere to the above criteria.

Directors of PLWC

A presentation by Dr Carl Albrecht on IPT – George South Africa, 16 September 2009.

IPT fact or fiction

Our aim is to ensure that patients get relevant and sound information from their treating oncologist and have access to literature and resources that will assist them in making informed decisions re their treatment and the management of their disease.

We encourage patients to stand on their rights to get a 2nd opinion and to insist in getting information from the medical fraternity that will assist them in coming to an informed decision re their own treatment.

We feel strongly that cancer patients and their caregivers are particularly vulnerable and need to be offered sound scientifically proven information and options.

Our organization’s policy is that it cannot be seen to support any therapeutic invention in the absence of scientifically independently validated clinical trials showing a benefit.

We are not a medical or clinical discussion forum and our services are limited to the psychosocial support of patients and caregivers. We wish to encourage cancer patients and their families to be careful of any treatment modalities that do not adhere to the above criteria.

Directors of PLWC

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Insulin_Potentiation_Therapy.asp?sitearea=ETO&viewmode=print&

Other common name(s): IPT, low-dose chemotherapy

Scientific/medical name(s): none

Description

Insulin potentiation therapy (IPT) refers to the use of insulin along with lower doses of chemotherapy to treat cancer. It is also sometimes used with other treatments for chronic diseases.

Overview

Despite individual reports, there are no published scientific studies available showing that IPT is safe or effective in treating cancer in humans. IPT may have serious side effects.

How is it promoted for use?

Insulin potentiation therapy is promoted as a “kinder, gentler” approach to chemotherapy, with “little to none of the negative side effects of chemotherapy.” It purports to use about a tenth of the usual dose of cancer treatment medicine. The effect of the chemotherapy is claimed to be magnified or potentiated by the use of insulin, which lowers the blood sugar. People who offer this treatment claim that insulin “opens up” the receptors on cancer cells so that more chemotherapy can get in.

IPT has also reportedly been used to treat fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, arthritis, and some infections. Some practitioners use IPT along with other complementary or alternative treatments such as cell therapy (see Cell Therapy).

What does it involve?

The patient reports to an IPT clinic after having had nothing to eat or drink other than water for 6 to 8 hours. Intravenous (IV) fluids are started, and the patient is given a dose of insulin based on his or her body weight. For people with cancer, low doses of chemotherapy drugs are given a few minutes later so that they reach the bloodstream after the insulin has started to lower the patient’s blood sugar. This is called the “therapeutic moment” by some IPT providers.

At this point, the patient usually has some symptoms of low blood sugar (hypoglycemia). These can be quite severe, especially the first time, because people can respond to a standard dose of insulin quite differently. The IV is switched to a high-sugar solution to raise the blood sugar. After the symptoms of low blood sugar begin to improve, the patient may be given food to raise the blood sugar further. During this process, the blood sugar may be checked by fingerstick.

At the next treatment, the insulin dose may be raised or lowered, depending on the patient’s response to the first dose. Between treatments, the patient may be given chemotherapy drugs taken by mouth, and may also get vitamins or other supplements. Treatment is usually given twice a week, generally for 12 to 18 sessions. After the first round of treatment, some people are advised that they need additional “maintenance” sessions.

Some supporters of insulin potentiation therapy recommend using it along with dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), a solvent sometimes used to treat a particular bladder problem (see DMSO). Other medicines or supplements may be paired with IPT for patients with illnesses other than cancer.

One source was quoted at $15,500 to $17,500 for three to four weeks of “intensive IPT.”

What is the history behind it?

Insulin was first isolated from pancreatic tissue in the early 1920s and has been used as a conventional treatment for diabetes since that time. In the early 1930s, insulin was used to produce coma for short periods in patients with schizophrenia in an attempt to cure them or reduce symptoms. About 1% of these patients died, however, and survivors often had lifelong complications. This type of treatment for schizophrenia was abandoned in the late 1950s.

IPT was developed in Mexico by Dr. Donato Perez Garcia, Sr., around the same time that insulin had begun to be used in schizophrenics. In fact, some supporters of IPT note that, at this early stage, patients with cancer were also put into insulin comas. Dr. Perez Garcia used this technique to try to treat several types of cancer. His son, Donato Perez Garcia Bellon, and grandson, Donato Perez Garcia, Jr., have followed in his footsteps. A physician from the United States, Dr. Steven G. Ayre, is a supporter of IPT and has published some descriptions of the theory behind it. More recently, books have been published suggesting that IPT can cure cancer, and some alternative clinics have begun to recommend it.

What is the evidence?

One very small published study on IPT was done in Uruguay. It included 30 women with breast cancer that was resistant to mainstream therapies. Of these women, 10 received insulin, 10 took the chemotherapy drug methotrexate, and 10 received IPT using both drugs. After 8 weeks, researchers reported that the women in the IPT group had smaller increases in tumor size than either of the other groups. Even though they used lower doses of methotrexate than usual, there were some side effects (mouth sores) noted in the IPT group. This study did not look at survival, quality of life, well-being, or lasting effects. No long-term improvements were shown by this study.

Most of the information about insulin potentiation therapy comes from individual reports. Even among those, however, there is no evidence that the people who reported being helped by IPT were followed for long enough to learn whether the treatment worked.

Despite supporters’ claims that insulin potentiation therapy has been well researched, no scientific studies that show safety and effectiveness have been published in available peer-reviewed journals. These claims cannot be verified.

There are also concerns about using lower doses of chemotherapy drugs. When chemotherapy drugs are tested in clinical trials, their effects are carefully monitored to learn which dose will best balance the need to kill cancer cells with the goal of keeping side effects at a tolerable level. There is no evidence that chemotherapy at a fraction of the recommended and tested dose can produce the same effect as the full dose if used with insulin.

Are there any possible problems or complications?

Because people respond differently to similar doses of insulin, blood sugar can drop quickly to dangerous levels during IPT. Low blood sugar can cause weakness, shakiness, confusion, rapid heartbeat, sweating, seizures, brain damage, or even death if it is prolonged.

People who are on pills to lower the blood sugar for treatment of diabetes may react more severely to low blood sugar caused by IPT. In addition, several medicines can affect the body’s response to blood sugar changes. For example, beta-blocker medicines such as atenolol (Tenormin) and metoprolol (Lopressor) can mask the symptoms of low blood sugar, so the blood sugar may become dangerously low before it is noticed. Sulfa antibiotics (Bactrim and Septra) can make the blood sugar go even lower, as can excessive amounts of alcohol.

The possible effects of insulin potentiation therapy to treat cancer during pregnancy have not been studied. However, chemotherapy drugs are not generally advised during pregnancy. Use of IPT for cancer during pregnancy may harm the fetus.

A few people have severe allergic reactions to certain types of insulin, with reactions including fast heartbeat, low blood pressure, trouble breathing, itching, or rash. Insulin has not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to lower blood sugar to abnormal levels. Even when used as prescribed, it can be dangerous in some: an estimated 2% to 4% of deaths in people with Type I diabetes are due to low blood sugar.

Relying on this type of treatment alone, and avoiding or delaying standard medical care for cancer, may have serious health consequences.

Additional Resources

More information from your American Cancer Society

The following information on complementary and alternative therapies may also be helpful to you. These materials may be found on our Web site (www.cancer.org) or ordered from our toll-free number (1-800-ACS-2345).

• Guidelines for Using Complementary and Alternative Methods

• How to Know What Is Safe: Choosing and Using Dietary Supplements

• The ACS Operational Statement on Complementary and Alternative Methods of Cancer Management

• Complementary and Alternative Methods for Cancer Management

• Placebo Effect

• Learning About New Ways to Treat Cancer

• Learning About New Ways to Prevent Cancer

References

Ayre SG, Perez Garcia y Bellon D, Perez Garcia D Jr. Insulin potentiation therapy: a new concept in the management of chronic degenerative disease. Med Hypotheses. 1986;20:199-210.

Baratz R. Why you should stay away from Insulin Potentiation Therapy (IPT). Accessed at: www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/ipt.html on June 11, 2008.

Cryer PE. Hypoglycemia. In Braunwald E, Fauci AS, Kasper DL, et al (Eds). Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine 15th ed., 2001. Washington DC: McGraw Hill, 2138-2143.

DrugGuide.Com. Antidiabetics: Pharmacologic Profile. Accessed at: www.drugguide.com/classification_articles/antidiabetics.htm on June 11, 2008.

Insulin Potentiation Therapy. Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Accessed at: http://www.mskcc.org/mskcc/html/69265.cfm on August 27, 2008.

Lasalvia-Prisco E, Cucchi S, Vazquez J, Lasalvia-Galante E, Golomar W, Gordon W. Insulin-induced enhancement of antitumoral response to methotrexate in breast cancer patients. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2004;53:220-224.

Note: This information may not cover all possible claims, uses, actions, precautions, side effects or interactions. It is not intended as medical advice, and should not be relied upon as a substitute for consultation with your doctor, who is familiar with your medical situation.

Last Medical Review: 11/01/2008
Last Revised: 11/01/2008

http://www.mskcc.org/mskcc/html/69265.cfm

Insulin Potentiation Therapy
IPT

Clinical Summary

Insulin Potentiation Therapy (IPT) is a questionable cancer therapy that uses insulin as an adjunct agent to potentiate the effect of chemotherapy and other medications. This therapy was developed in Mexico by Dr. Donato Perez Garcia in the 1930′s and has been used together with other unconventional therapies for many years (1). Advocates of IPT believe that cancer cells consume more sugar than healthy cells and therefore cancer cells are more sensitive to insulin and insulin-like growth factor (IGF) (2) (7). Insulin is also believed to increase the permeability of cell membranes, increasing the intracellular concentration and cytotoxic effect of anticancer drugs (1). According to the theory behind the therapy, if cancer cells can be activated by exogenous insulin, a reduced dose (up to one-tenth the normal dose) of a chemo drug can provide the same cytotoxic effects with less severe adverse reactions. No clinical trials have been performed to validate these claims. In addition, the pharmacokinetic profiles on concurrent use of insulin and chemo drugs are lacking and it is unclear whether the insulin also potentiates the toxic effects of chemotherapy on healthy cells. Although proponents have cited many anecdotal case reports suggest that IPT may be effective, currently there is no data comparing the efficacy of IPT to conventional chemotherapy. Most of the medications used, such as insulin and other chemo drugs, are approved by the FDA, but the IPT clinics administer them ‘off-label.’ Some clinics that administer IPT are not operated or staffed by oncologists. Side effects of IPT include hypoglycemic reaction. A systematic review of 21 studies showed a correlation between circulating levels of IGF-I, IGFBP3 (IGFbinding
protein) and an increased risk of common cancers (8). IPT remains an unproven cancer therapy until there are more studies available to validate its benefit.

Purported uses
Cancer treatment

Constituents
Insulin, chemotherapy agents.

Mechanism of Action

IPT is a treatment strategy that utilizes the physiological activities of insulin. It is based on the theory that insulin and insulin-like growth factor (IGF) play an important role in the cell cycle. IGF has been shown to affect the proliferation, adhesion and migration of normal as well as cancerous cells (2). Certain IGF receptors are found to be overexpressed in many forms of cancer, therefore, cancer cells may be selectively more sensitive than normal cells to IGF (1) (7). IGF receptors can be activated by exogenous insulin. Insulin is also believed to increase the permeability of cell membranes, leading to the increase in intracellular concentration and cytotoxic effect of anticancer drugs.  Proponents argue that insulin synergistically enhances the efficacy of anticancer drug so that a reduced dose can be used with similar cytotoxic effects (5) (6). The mechanism of IGF receptor’s role in cancer treatment appears to be more complex. At least one study has demonstrated the inhibition of IGF receptors can also increase the effects of anticancer drugs (3).

Pharmacokinetics
Insulin is believed to increase the permeability of cell membrane, leading to the increase
in intracellular concentration and cytotoxicity of anticancer drugs (1).

Warnings
May cause hypoglycemic reactions.

Adverse Reactions
Hypoglycemia

Herb-Drug Interactions
Hypoglycemic agents.

References

• Ayre SG, et al. Insulin, chemotherapy, and the mechanisms of malignancy: the design and the demise of cancer. Med Hypotheses. 2000 Oct;55(4):330-4.

• Leroith D, Roberts C. The insulin-like growth factor system and cancer. Cancer Lett. 2003 ;195(2):127-37.

• Benini S, et al. Inhibition of insulin-like growth factor I receptor increases the antitumor activity of doxorubicin and vincristine against Ewing’s sarcoma cells. Clin Cancer Res. 2001 ;7(6):1790-7.

• Ayre SG, et al. Insulin potentiation therapy: a new concept in the management of chronic degenerative disease. Med Hypotheses. 1986 ;20(2):199-210.

• Ayre SG, et al. Neoadjuvant low-dose chemotherapy with insulin in breast carcinomas. Eur J Cancer. 1990;26(11-12):1262-3.

• Albaster O, et al. Metabolic modification by insulin enhances methotrexate cytotoxicity in MCF-7 human breast cancer cells. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol. 1981 ;(11):1223-8.

• Holdaway IM, Friesen HG. Hormone binding by human mammary carcinoma. Cancer Res. 1977;37(7 Pt 1):1946-52.

• Renehan AG, et al. Insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I, IGF binding protein-3, and cancer risk: systematic review and meta-regression analysis. Lancet 2004;263: 1346-53.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/ipt.html

Why You Should Stay Away from Insulin Potentiation Therapy

Robert Baratz, M.D., D.D.S., Ph.D.

Insulin Potentiation Therapy (IPT) is one of several unproven, dangerous treatments that is promoted by a small group of practitioners without trustworthy evidence that it works. It is claimed to be effective against cancer, infectious diseases, arthritis, and many other conditions. Several patents have been issued, but patents are based on whether or not something appears to be original. Proof of effectiveness is not required.

Background History

IPT is based on the notion that intravenous insulin increases the effect of medications so that lower doses can be used. Its promoters suggest that somehow the insulin “opens the pores” of cells throughout the body so that certain drugs enter more easily. It is used mainly for treating cancer. The leading proponent is Stephen B. Ayre, M.D., of Burr Ridge, Illinois, who coined the treatment’s name in 1986 [1]. In 2003, his Web site stated:

The treatment . . . features an innovative low-dose chemotherapy protocol called Insulin Potentiation Therapy (IPT) that uses 75-90% less chemotherapy than the traditional treatment to destroy cancer cells. This low dose treatment causes little to none of the negative side effects such as loss of appetite, nausea, hair loss and fatigue.

IPT was developed in Mexico City in 1932 by Dr. Donato Perez Garcia, Sr. and was used by him for decades to treat a wide variety of cancers, including cancers of the breast, lung and prostate. His son, Donato Perez Garcia Bellon, M.D., and his grandson, Donato Perez Garcia, Jr., M.D, followed Dr. Garcia in this work. Collaborating with these two physicians over the last 25 years, Dr. Ayre studied and researched IPT, resulting in their publication of scientific articles on the therapy in medical journals.

Cancer cells have 20 times more insulin sensitive receptors than normal healthy cells. By introducing insulin into the body before the chemotherapy drugs, the insulin highlights the cancer cells due to their higher insulin receptor content, and selectively enhances their absorption of the chemotherapy. Less chemotherapy is needed to kill the cancer cells, with less dose related side effects. Glucose is given to counter insulin’s other effect of lowering blood sugar [2].

IPT is performed by injecting insulin into the patient’s vein. After the blood sugar falls, the practitioners rapidly inject chemotherapy drugs in doses that are below the amounts that have been proven effective. Immediately thereafter, a strong sugar solution is injected to arouse the patient. In some cases, several chemotherapy agents are mixed together even though one or more may not have been validated in full doses for the patient’s tumor. This procedure is typically performed in medical offices where resuscitation equipment and training are minimal to nonexistent. The practitioners who perform this are “trained” in two-day courses and “licensed” to perform IPT. In 2003, about 100 were listed in the directory on IPTO.org and one practitioner’s Web site quoted a cost of $15,500 to 17,500 for 3 to 4 weeks of “intensive” IPT therapy plus $2,000 to $3,000 per week additional for up to 4 weeks of “home maintenance” therapy.” [3] About half of the 69 listed doctors who practiced in the United States also offered chelation therapy, which is equally disreputable.

Proponents claims that IPT is free of side effects, However, a rapidly falling blood sugar level can produce coma, shock, stroke, and even death, and I also know of at least one case where the patient got side effects from the chemotherapy. In 2003, Ayre’s Web site further stated:

Steven G. Ayre, M.D., has spent twenty-seven years single-handedly researching, publishing, and speaking at meetings on the science of Insulin Potentiation Therapy. He began practicing IPT in the United States in 1997, after he had become convinced, due to his lengthy study, that this therapy was a much improved way of using chemotherapy. In September of 2000, Dr. Ayre and his colleagues made a presentation before the Cancer Advisory Panel of the National Center for Cancer Complementary and Alternative Medicine at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. This meeting has led to a collaborative effort with cancer researchers at the Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, to design and perform clinical trials on IPT. The funding is provided by the National Cancer Institute. Because of the perceived patient need, and because all drugs used in the therapy are already FDA approved, IPT treatments are now being made available to persons here in the USA. Good patient reimbursement by health insurers is the rule [4].

This statement is very misleading. Ayre’s “researching” and “lengthy study” did not include any appropriate study to test whether IPT worked. Nor has the clinical trial to which the passage refers been carried out. To maintain FDA approval for a clinical study it is necessary to have approval from an Institutional Review Board. The “review board” that approved the study was composed of dubious practitioners (most of whom promote chelation therapy) and was ordered to shut down in January 2001 after the FDA concluded that it was run improperly. In retrospect, it appears to me that the board and the proposed study were part of an scheme to make patients think they were part of a legitimate study. It is also curious that the study is still mentioned on Ayer’s Web site even though it was canceled more than a year ago. Ayre did attend a meeting of an NIH advisory panel at which possible preliminary investigation was discussed [5]. However, there has been no visible evidence that the suggested data collection has taken place. As far as insurance coverage is concerned, I do not believe that insurance companies knowingly pay for IPT therapy. One IPT provider’s Web site states that “some insurance companies . . . will cover IPT treatments the same way they would cover standard chemotherapy.” However, coding IPT as standard chemotherapy on a claim form would constitute insurance fraud. BlueCross of California classifies IPT as “investigational/not medically necessary” and does not cover it [6].

IPT is often described as an “off label” use of insulin, with a claim that this is “allowed.” This description is not quite accurate. The FDA only regulates the sale of products that cross state lines, and approves labeling of drug products for particular uses. Violation of those uses can result in seizure of products and stoppage of further sales. However, under some circumstances a physician can take a drug licensed for one use and use it for another or may use dosages higher than those on the label. This concept is not a wide open door to illicit use; nor can it be used to justify unapprroved “research” that lacks a rational basis. Licensed physicians are expected to conform to a standard of care and do what is clinically acceptable and safe. IPT does not fit this description. No major medical school, hospital, or other institution has embarked on a clinical trial, largely because the “therapy” is dangerous, potentially lethal if too much insulin is administered, and does not a have a sound biological basis.

Lack of Evidence

IPT’s promoters use vague and misleading language to make it seem legitimate. It is not. When examined even casually, the claimed “cures” are bogus. Besides the danger of insulin shock and death, using the wrong chemotherapeutic agent(s) or doses that are too low can foster the development of resistant cancer cell strains. Thus, IPT can prevent appropriate chemotherapy from working later and make an otherwise curable cancer incurable.

Ayre’s home page states that, “while individual anecdotal case reports over forty years suggest that this treatment may be effective, there is at present no collection of scientific data to validate Insulin Potentiation Therapy as a treatment for malignant neoplastic diseases, or cancer.”

The IPT.org Web site is operated by Chris Duffield, Ph.D., a man who says he became “entranced by the IPT story” Dr,. Ayre told him and helped form a company that tried unsuccessfully to attract investors to fund IPT research [7]. Duffield discusses 19 “mechanisms proposed for how IPT works,” but he notes that “no one knows really for sure” whether the explanations are valid [8]. He also states:

Many doctors and patients are looking for statistics, and we simply have to tell people that we do not have them. If they insist on having statistics, IPT is not yet for them. However, a lot of people have heard about IPT from friends, or have talked with doctors who have had excellent results with IPT. For some people, the IPT concept makes sense, and the reported benefits are so attractive, that they decide to give it a try.

Here is the closest thing we have to statistics. It is an estimate from Dr. Donato Perez Garcia 3, based on his many years of IPT experience, and from experienced passed down from his father. While stated as facts, these are just his personal opinions, and are not agreed on by all other IPT doctors. This text is from an email he sent to a patient on June 6, 2002. . . .

The email describes “response rates for a full remission” of 25% to 95% for various situations [9], but it provides no details that would enable independent assessment of the claims.

In 2003, a scientific journal reported that women with breast cancer received methotrexate plus insulin did better than women treated with methotrexate alone [10]. Although the report suggests that insulin may have a short-term effect, it did not any data on long-term effects or health outcomes. Moreover, in 2007, two of its five authors were charged with fraud in connection with another cancer scam [11], which may mean that their 2003 data are not trustworthy.

Dubious Theories

Duffield’s mechanism list mixes a few truths with a lot of speculation to reach unjustified conclusions. Item #7, for example, states:

More insulin receptors on tumor cells increase drug uptake. Proposed. Uncontrolled proliferation of cancer cells is stimulated by a number of growth factors, including insulin (which stimulates energy uptake) and insulin-like growth factors (IGF) I and II (which stimulate cell division and growth). There are many more receptors for these hormones on the cell membranes of cancer cells than there are in normal cells. And some cancer cells actually secrete these hormones themselves, resulting in still faster growth. More insulin receptors means more insulin effect, so more drug will enter cancer cells due to the various mechanisms already outlined. This allows the drug to be given in a smaller dose, far less toxic to normal cells, while building up lethally toxic concentrations in cancer cells. Thus the growth mechanism of the cancer cell is used against it in IPT.

However:

• There is no such thing as a “cancer cell.”  There are many types of cancer, and even within each “type,” cells can be very close to normal in look and behavior, or, at the opposite end of the spectrum, can be embryonic and undifferentiated.  Even within a single tumor mass, there can be groups of different types of cells.  All cancers involve uncontrolled growth, but one cannot legitimately characterize “cancer cells” as being identical in look, behavior, biochemistry, growth control, or any other feature.
• Cell proliferation is stimulated by a number of growth factors, but this is not unique to “cancer cells.”  Moreover, growth factors alone don’t cause uncontrolled proliferation.  It is the presence and activity of certain genes and the lack of others that causes loss of growth control  In some settings IGT may stimulate growth of certain cells, but there is no particular relationship between IGF and cancer cells.  Ira Goldfine’s group at ECLA has studies breast cancer cells and found that tumor cells with a normal amount of insulin receptors may be more similar to normal cells and more subject to normal controls on cell growth, and therefore less likely to grow back aggressively [12,13]
• Hormone-secreting cancers (insulinomas) are very rare, and their secretion of insulin is irrelevant to their own growth.  The more insulin that is secreted, the more “normal” they are.  More insulin receptors does not automatically mean there is more insulin effect – the receptors have to work, and the insulin levels must be adequate.
• There is no published evidence that insulin causes more drug to enter the cancer cells or that giving insulin enables chemotherapy drugs to build up within these cells while sparing normal cells.

Dubious Device

The IPT.Org web site states that during the 1950′s and 1960′s, Dr Garcia and his son developed a device that could detect cancer and other diseases [14].  Called the “Onco Diagnosticator”, consisted of a glass container that held a neutral solution into which two copper wires connected to a 32-volt power source are placed.  The site states that the device was “extremely simple” and that “any high school student could make one for a science project.”  Testing was conducted by placing a few milliliters of a patient’s serum (the clear fluit that remains after cells and clot are removed from a blood sample) into the solution and seeing whathappens after two hours.  According to the story:

The Drs. Perez Garcia found that the serum would often change to a violet color, readily visible when the serum was poured into a test tube at the end of the reaction. Based on their experience, they believed that absence of violet would mean absence of cancer, pale violet would mean susceptibility to cancer, darker violet would indicate early-stage still-hidden cancer, and very dark violet would indicate the presence of later-stage cancer discoverable by standard methods. Later work found other colors, again seeming to correlate with the type and severity of disease.

Although for them the color was the primary indicator, they also found that the pH of the electrolyte solution in the beaker would change depending on the patient’s condition. In healthy people the pH would be below 8.5. And in cancer patients the pH would be higher: 8.5-9.5 or more in males, and 9.5 to 10.5 in females. They also found that the temperature of the electrolyte solution would become higher in cancer patients than in normal people, and would be higher in female cancer patients than in male cancer patients. I assume that higher temperature means higher current flow, and indeed the doctors also measured current (milliamps). . . .

Dr. Perez Garcia y Bellon 2 told me that the color, pH, and temperature would move closer to normal as a patient underwent weeks of IPT treatments. So apparently their method could be used to monitor the progress of a patient’s condition [14].

If these claims were valid, this would have been one of the greatest medical discoveries of all time. Unfortunately, there isn’t the slightest theoretical reason or scientific evidence that the device works as claimed.

The Bottom Line

Although IPT’s proponents have been treating patients for decades, they have no tested theory and have produced at most only one properly designed clinical study of one cancer. If you would like to bet your money and your life on their general impressions, they’ll be happy to do business. However, the lack of evidence should serve as a powerful warning to stay away.

Dr. Baratz is president of the National Council Against Health Fraud. He has extensive training and practical experience in internal medicine, emergency medicine, oral medicine, dentistry, material science, and research methodology. In addition to practicing medicine and dentistry, he serves as a medical and dental consultant to many state licensing boards, federal agencies, insurance companies, and the legal profession.

Our aim is to ensure that patients get relevant and sound information from their treating oncologist and have access to literature and resources that will assist them in making informed decisions re their treatment and the management of their disease.

We encourage patients to stand on their rights to get a 2nd opinion and to insist in getting information from the medical fraternity that will assist them in coming to an informed decision re their own treatment.

We feel strongly that cancer patients and their caregivers are particularly vulnerable and need to be offered sound scientifically proven information and options.

Our organization’s policy is that it cannot be seen to support any therapeutic invention in the absence of scientifically independently validated clinical trials showing a benefit.

We are not a medical or clinical discussion forum and our services are limited to the psychosocial support of patients and caregivers. We wish to encourage cancer patients and their families to be careful of any treatment modalities that do not adhere to the above criteria.

Directors of PLWC

There have been renewed inquiries regarding Insulin Potentiation Therapy to treat cancer.   Below see CANSA’s media release (issued earlier this year) warning against use of this dangerous and unapproved treatment. The information can also be found on our website www.cansa.org.za under ‘Research’ and under ‘Treatment’.

CANSA warns cancer patients against using Insulin Potentiation Therapy (IPT)

The Cancer Association of South Africa (CANSA) is warning cancer patients about false promises that have been made about so-called Insulin Potentiation Therapy (IPT). There has been a campaign, especially on radio, to present IPT as a breakthrough in cancer therapy. Some desperate cancer patients have grasped at this treatment, especially when conventional treatment has failed to arrest the growth of their cancers.

“CANSA researchers have looked into IPT and discovered that it is not a new breakthrough but was developed in Mexico in the 1930s,” said Dr Carl Albrecht, CANSA’s Head of Research. “Since then there has not been a single published report in a peer-reviewed journal of a clinical trial showing any tumour regression or complete response (disappearance). The best that was found was a reported 7 percent decrease in tumour growth or 4 millimeters less growth over 49 days relative to a tumour of 61 millimeters in diameter compared to controls. The bottomline is that the tumours continued to grow in this study and no cures, or even partial responses (50 percent decrease) have ever been published in reputable journals. These results are of no clinical significance and IPT has not been proven as a treatment for cancer,” Dr Albrecht said.

“The treatment is based on the theory that cancer cells need and absorb glucose more than normal cells and that by injecting a cancer patient with sufficient insulin, cancer cells could be made far more sensitive to chemotherapy. Consequently far less chemotherapy would be required and cancers could be eradicated more effectively. If this were true, there would be world-wide excitement around this approach, however, it is reported in only one publication in 1981 and the idea has not progressed since. It is certainly no breakthrough,” Dr Albrecht said.

“Furthermore it was reported that 10 percent of the IPT-treated patients showed low blood sugar symptoms within 20 minutes of treatment and had to receive glucose injections. Doctors have warned that this treatment is potentially lethal because insulin can cause a rapidly falling blood sugar level, which can produce coma, shock, stroke, and even death,” Dr Albrecht said.

The Mayo Clinic in the United States has referred to IPT as being a dangerous alternative cancer treatment and has stressed that there is absolutely no scientific evidence that it works or is safe. The world famous Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center has referred to IPT as being unproven and questionable with potentially lethal side-effects. A South African cancer patient enquired about the IPT treatment and was told that he would need to go to Mexico for treatment which would cost R36 000 a month and in his case could last up to three years. The patient remarked that he would “have to sell a farm to cover these costs.” After being shown the facts concerning IPT he opted for conventional therapy in South Africa.

The representative association of oncologists in South Africa has expressed support for CANSA and the data presented.

CANSA is warning all cancer patients to stay away from Insulin Potentiation Therapy.

For more information contact  Dr Carl Albrecht on:

• Cell:  084-208-515
• Email:  calbrec@iafrica.com

KANSA Waarsku pasiënte teen die gebruik van “Insulin Potentiation’-terapie (IPT)

KANSA (Kankervereniging van Suid-Afrika) waarsku kankerpasiënte teen die vals beloftes wat gemaak word met betrekking tot sogenaamde ‘Insulin Potentiation’-terapie.

‘n Veldtog, veral op die radio, het “IPT” as ‘n deurbraak kankerterapie bevorder. Sommige desperate kankerpasiënte het die behandeling aangegryp, veral waar konvensionele behandeling nie die groei van hulle kanker gestuit het nie.

“KANSA-navorsers het ”IPT” bestudeer en bevind dat dit nie ‘n deurbraakterapie is nie, maar reeds in die 1930s in Mexiko ontwikkel is, “ aldus dr. Carl Albrecht, Hoof van Navorsing by KANSA.  “Sedertdien is daar nie ‘n enkele gepubliseerde verslag in ‘n portuurhersiene joernaal of kliniese proef wat enige gewasregressie of algehele genesing  van ‘n gewas aandui nie. Na bewering is die mees gunstige reaksie tot op datum ‘n vermindering van sewe persent in die groei van ‘n gewas, of vier millimeter minder groei oor ‘n tydperk van 49 dae relatief tot ‘n gewas van 61 millimeter in deursnee in vergelyking met kontroles. Die slotsom is dat die gewasse aanhou groei het in dié studie en geen genesing of selfs gedeeltelike vermindeing (50 persent ) is nog ooit in agtenswaardige joernale gepubliseer nie. Hierdie resultate is van geen kliniese betekenis nie en “IPT” is nog nooit bewys as ‘n behandeling vir kanker nie,” volgens dr. Albrecht.

“Die behandeling is gebaseer op die teorie dat kankerselle glukose meer nodig het en beter absorbeer as normale selle en dat wanneer ‘n kankerpasiënt met genoeg insuline ingespuit word, kankerselle meer vatbaar gemaak word vir chemoterapie. Gevolglik sal veel minder chemoterapie nodig wees en kanker kan meer doeltreffend aan bande gelê word. Indien dit waar sou wees, sou sodanige benadering wêreldwye opwinding veroorsaak het – dit het egter net in één publikasie verskyn in 1981 en sedertdien het die idée geen vordering gemaak nie. Dit is beslis nie ‘n deurbraak nie,” sê dr. Albrecht.

“Daar word ook gesê dat tien persent van pasiënte wat “IPT”-behandeling ontvang het, binne 20 minute na behandeling lae bloedsuiker simptome getoon het en glukose-inspuitings moes kry. Dokters waarsku dat dié behandeling moontlik dodelik kan wees want insuline kan veroorsaak dat die bloedsuikervlak vinnig daal en koma, skok, beroerte en selfs die dood kan veroorsaak,” volgens dr. Albrecht.

Die Mayo-kliniek in die Verenigde State het “IPT” as ‘n “gevaarlike alternatief  vir kankerbehandeling” beskryf en beklemtoon dat daar absoluut geen wetenskaplike bewyse is dat dié behandeling doeltreffend of veilig is nie.
Die wêreldberoemde Memorial Sloan-Kettering-kankersentrum het na “IPT” verwys as “onbewese” en “twyfelagtig” met “moontlike dodelike newe-effekte.”

‘n Suid-Afrikaanse kankerpasiënt wat navraag gedoen het oor “IPT”-behandeling is ingelig dat hy na Mexico sou moes gaan vir behandeling wat R36 000 maadeliks sou kos en in sy geval tot drie jaar kon duur. Volgens die pasiënt sou hy “’n plaas moes verkoop om dié kostes te dek.”  Nadat die feite oor “IPT” aan hom verduidelik is het hy konvensionele terapie in Suid-Afrika gekies.

Die verteenwoordigende assosiasie van onkoloë in Suid-Afrika ondersteun KANSA en die data wat voorgelê is.

KANSA vermaan alle kankerpasiënte om weg te bly van “Insulin Potentiation”-terapie.

Vir meer inligting kontak Dr Carl Albrecht by:

• Sel:  084 208 5150
• E-pos: calbrecht@cansa.org.za