Tuesday, December 6, 2011

The following is a rebuttal to Quack Watch’s article entitled: “Why You Should Stay Away from Insulin Potentiation Therapy” written by Robert Baratz, M.D., D.D.S., Ph.D.

The following is a rebuttal to Quack Watch’s article entitled: “Why You Should Stay Away from Insulin Potentiation Therapy” written by Robert Baratz, M.D., D.D.S., Ph.D.
I have undertaken to write this rebuttal because insulin potentiation therapy (IPT/ IPTLD) has helped multitudes of people with cancer who had already undergone the conventional route of surgery, chemotherapy and radiation and whose oncology team explained that there was “nothing else we can do.” I have personally had hundreds of these types of patients come to our center and, guess what? There was and is something that can be done to be restored to health.
It is clear that Dr Baratz has not studied the protocols or the science behind insulin potentiation therapy (IPT/IPTLD). His position regarding IPT/IPTLD as reflected in his article posted on Quack Watch has either evolved out of hearsay or his imagination, not honest research into the subject matter, which indicates that he is attempting to alter people’s opinion regarding this chemotherapy delivery system by ‘reference to “authority,” rather than by utilizing factual information in an effort to inform or educate. The following is a definition of this fallacious way of arguing utilized by Dr Baratz, MD, DDS, PhD:
“Argument from authority (also known as appeal to authority) is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correctbecause the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:
  1. Source A says that p is true.
  2. Source A is authoritative.
  3. Therefore, p is true.
This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of a claim is not related to the authority of the claimant, and because the premises can be true, and the conclusion false (an authoritative claim can turn out to be false). It is also known as argumentum ad verecundiam (Latinargument to respect),argumentum ad potentiam (Latin: argument to power), or ipse dixit (Latin: he himself said it).”
Even a cursory evaluation of the science underlying IPT/IPTLD reveals that all cancer cells studied have, not only many more insulin receptors on their surfaces, but that those receptors have up to a 60% greater affinity (stickiness) than usual insulin receptors on non-cancerous cells. Also, what becomes clear from an earnest evaluation of the research into this matter is that there is a 43% homology between insulin receptors and IGF-1 receptors. This aspect of receptor status regarding cancerous cells is an additionally, rather salient aspect of how it is that IPT/IPTLD works to target cancerous cells as well as increase the effectiveness of the chemotherapeutic agent(s) administered. Under these conditions, lower administered doses carry equal, if not more of a “punch.” IGF-1 receptors, once activated, initiates cells to begin dividing, which is a stage of the cell cycle wherein cells are more vulnerable, hence more easily and effectively eliminated. Although cancerous cells have an autocrine function (produce their own insulin and IGF=1), this is occurring at all times which stimulates and fuels their growth during all phases of the cell cycle. However, when this is purposely activated during treatment with a cytotoxic agent, there is greater destruction of the malignant cells being targeted.
Any physician who has worked in an emergency department knows that when a patient arrives in an unconscious condition, the standard protocol usually calls for a dose of naltexone and a dose of glucose. The naltrexone to counteract opiate overdose and the glucose counteract insulin overdose. The protocol requires both of these agents since there is no information regarding how the person became unconscious. When glucose is administered intravenously (IV) to someone who is suffering from an insulin overdose, they quickly begin to regain consciousness and are often confused, wondering where they are and how they got there. In the vast majority of cases, the person who was “comatose” (unconscious) from insulin having produced a potentially lethal hypoglycemic state returns to normal with no long term, adverse effects. Although the duration that the person was “comatose” is never precisely known, clearly, it must have included, at least a few minutes prior to the ambulance’s arrival plus the duration of the ambulance ride to the ER.
With insulin potentiation therapy (IPT/IPTLD), no one is ever allowed to become, even slightly neurologically impaired and, of course never allowed to lose consciousness. IV glucose is administered immediately if even the slightest neurological impairment becomes evident, e.g., slurred speech and glucagon is available to be used if the glucose does not immediately reverse the condition. Although glucagon is always available, it has never been necessary to use it. Glucagon is a hormone like insulin, produced in the pancreas by the Islets of Langerhans cells. Insulin is produced by the beta cells while glucagon is produced by the alpha cells. They are the ‘yin and yang’ of blood glucose homeostasis. Glucagon has the opposite effect of insulin and therefore, is its natural ‘antidote.’ NO ONE HAS EVER DIED FROM INSULIN POTENTIATION THERAPY. The same cannot be said of conventionally delivered, high dose chemotherapy. As indicated previously, even a cursory evaluation of the protocols used in IPT/IPTLD make it clear that this concern discussed in Quack Watch regarding the potential neurological impairment resulting from acute hypoglycemia brought about by insulin from this therapeutic modality could never occur if one follows the established protocols.
Why have there been no clinical trials using insulin potentiation therapy? As is commonly known, most clinical trials are expensive and funded by pharmaceutical companies attempting to receive FDA approval for use of a drug or device. No pharmaceutical company has to date accepted the offer to fund a clinical trial utilizing IPT/IPTLD nor even attempted to develop a clinical trail in order to prove that one can use 90% less of a chemotherapeutic drug that has already received FDA approval for its use. The stockholders simply would not allow this. It would not be considered a fiscally sound use of corporate money. The only human trail was performed in Uruguay and funded by the government (reference included). The lead investigator, Dr Lasalvia, is a well respected member of the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the results of his small trail clearly demonstrated that insulin plus a lower dose of a chemotherapeutic agent was more effective than either the drug alone or insulin alone. Although there are similar trials being performed in other countries where funding can be obtained from sources other than pharmaceutical companies, none of the studies have been concluded at this time.
In conclusion, IPT/IPTLD has been used successfully since 1933 in many countries for neurological infectious, other infectious diseases, i.e., Lymes, and cancer of almost every type, and all stages (I – IV). With this long history of successful use of a modality to deliver drugs in a targeted fashion, minimal side effects (toxicities) and with no deaths, it is truly a human tragedy that this modality has not been evaluated here in the United States beginning with animal models and progressing to humans, as do all of the drugs that receive FDA approval. To merely criticize and attempt to dissuade further evaluation of something with such great potential benefit to humans is not only a tragedy but should be an embarrassment to the scientific community at large.
Donato Perez Garcia, MD
IPT & IPTLD Certified MD., Senior Practitioner.
Ehrenpräsident der Europäischer Akademie für IPTLD.
Hospital Angeles Tijuana is the World Leading Medical Center for IPT-LD Treatment.