Holding the National Cancer Institute Accountable for Cancer Deaths

The NCI should be held accountable for 25 years of protracted, unrelieved opposition to genuine breakthroughs and for wasting $200 billion of taxpayer money on pharmaceutical drugs with little efficacy.

Almost from its inception, the National Cancer Institute has staunchly opposed alternative cancer treatments. A class action suit, now proposed, could change all that.

The NCI has consistently suppressed information about and scuttled reputable research on hydrazine sulfate, an anticancer agent that, for several years, was primarily responsible for extending Keeton's life. She wanted other Americans to have the right to choose hydrazine sulfate and she wanted them to join her in staging a class action suit against the U.S. government.

Kathy Keeton fought off what her doctors had called terminal Stage IV breast cancer with a life expectancy of a mere six weeks. Refusing chemotherapy and defying her doctors, she extended her life for another two years with a nontoxic substance - hydrazine sulfate - that cost only $3 a week.

After considerable research, Dr. Gold identified hydrazine sulfate as an experimental synthetic chemical capable of inhibiting the loss of protein or body mass caused by cancer and, thus, preventing extreme weight loss.

Early research supported Dr. Gold's supposition. A study of 740 cancer patients (200 with lung cancer, 138 with stomach cancer, 66 with breast cancer, 63 with Hodgkin's disease, and 31 with melanoma, among others) reported tumor stabilization or regression in about 51% of patients, while 46.6% of the patients reported symptomatic improvements, such as fewer respiratory problems, pain reduction, and a decrease in fever. Research at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center in Los Angeles, California, showed that hydrazine sulfate extended survival rates of lung cancer patients.

"The NCI failed to inform patients that the concomitant use of certain medications, tranquilizers, barbiturates, or alcohol during the test could deactivate the therapeutic action of hydrazine sulfate and induce morbidity and mortality in patients," Keeton told the Digest a few weeks before her death. Not only is this bad science, it is potentially criminal because some patients died as a result of their participation in the trials, she added. Following the debacle, the FDA withdrew its "had compassionate use" proviso which allowed physicians to oversee patients taking hydrazine sulfate.

"The NCI's the real culprit at the back of everything," Kathy Keeton stated. "We hope to force them to put up the money for human-based trials on hydrazine sulfate, not under their auspices, but through an independent body."

In the September issue of Penthouse (as well as the New York Times and Washington Post), in which a full-page ad announced his intention to sue the NCI, Guccione published an article, branding the war on cancer "the $200-Billion Scam." Jeff Kamen, author of the article, points out that while the U.S. government has spent $200 billion of American taxpayers' money in the last 25 years on its "war against cancer" and its supposed search for cancer cures, it also spends time and money attacking inexpensive alternatives, such as hydrazine sulfate, despite their proven efficacy.

The NCI's continuing hidden agenda to bury the real cancer cures, and to steadfastly oppose research into hydrazine sulfate, is "a Washington scandal of astonishing proportions," says Kamen. According to him, a Government Accounting Office investigation of sloppy science at the NCI regarding the hydrazine sulfate clinical trials ended up as a genial whitewash of the NCI methods and results.

The Digest applauds Keeton and Guccione for their boldness in initiating this suit against the NCI and for their progressive journalism concerning alternative cancer treatments. Without question, the NCI should be held accountable for any malfeasance in running clinical trials on a promising anticancer drug. But we think the stakes should be raised even higher.

The NCI should be held accountable for 25 years of protracted, unrelieved opposition to genuine breakthroughs in nontoxic cancer treatments and for wasting $200 billion of taxpayer money on pharmaceutical drugs with little efficacy. It's not just public money wasted. How many lives lost to cancer could have been saved if using alternative cancer approaches had not been virtually a criminal act for the last 50 years?

Serious, probing questions should be publicly raised and debated as to why this extravagantly futile research budget should be extended into the future. If 25 years and $200 billion yielded almost nothing of benefit to cancer patients, why not discontinue the effort today?

The Digest agrees with Kathy Keeton that every cancer patient on the planet should have the same chance as she did to use alternative treatments. Hydrazine sulfate gave her two years when her doctors said she would die in six weeks. But we think every cancer patient should have access to all cancer therapies that are nontoxic, nonharmful, and have strong clinical support for their effectiveness.

Mounting a crusade to validate a single nontoxic anticancer substance is laudable and it may bring to light much about the NCI's reprehensible actions against the health of the American public. But we also point out that no single substance, no matter how natural, nontoxic, or well-researched, will ever be a magic bullet for everyone or, probably, even for many people.

Cancer is an exceedingly complex disease, compounded by layers of dysfunction, toxicity, and immune compromise. It is also strikingly individualized, with no two patients having the same medical history. Many factors combine to create a cancer and many modalities and substances must be used synergistically to reverse it, dependably and permanently. This is the larger medical view that we hope will emerge and prevail in the wake of Guccione's lawsuit against the NCI.


In cancer terminology is a relative index of how much cancer exists in the body, its size, location, and containment or metastasis.

Stage I: the earliest, most curable stage, shows only local tumor involvement.

Stage II: indicates some spreading of cancer to the surrounding tissues and perhaps to nearby lymph nodes.

Stage III: involves metastasis to distant lymph nodes.

Stage IV: the most advanced and least easily cured, means the cancer has spread to distant organs.

Watch this important film about cancer treatments the medical establishment doesn't want you to know about... 

Latest News

Get Your Kids Off Drugs: Better Ways of Dealing with ADHD

School is a particularly difficult time for children suffering from attention deficit disorder and other related problems. In America, thousands of our children come to school drugged into passivity on Ritalin and other psychiatric drugs. “Pop a pill” has too long been the cry of conventional medicine and frustrated parents. Alternative medicine offers options to help your child without exposing him to powerful psychiatric drugs.

Follow Burton Goldberg


Enter your E-mail *

First and Last Name