... issues and tissues with a touch of the spicy from the spirit hag ...
... why aren't we listening to this guy ?
Published on August 9, 2004 By mignuna In Medical Technology


in 1973, an australian doctor named john holt tried a form of radio therapy on a terminally ill cancer patient for the first time.

after injecting the patient with a solution to temporarily disable glucose suspension in the blood, dr holt used radiotherapy applied by directing waves in bursts directly at the site of the tumour. this caused the destruction of the tumour via overheating without causing any damage to surrounding healthy tissue.

after the patients' complete recovery, dr holt quietly went about his work of saving lives, successfully curing terminal cancers in the lymph system, breasts and bladder before submitting his findings to the australian medical world via a report on his therapies published in 1974.

remaining largely unnoticed until 1991, the western australian cancer council trialed dr holts' research and declared that it could find no evidence that this treatment 'cured cancer', despite dr holts’ distress that the tests were performed on an unsuitable rectal cancer by a non-specialist doctor.

since 1974, dr holt has cured over 300 cancer patients with his pain-free, side-effect free, non-invasive treatment. the only discomfort patients feel is a slight warmth. and for over 30 years, patient after patient has been writing to the australian medical council and the press with no result.

the doctor himself has never helped his own cause, maintaining a strict 'no publicity' ethic, and refusing interviews for most of his decades in practice. now aged 69, he has never actually claimed to have been able to cure cancer, and still does not.

the head of the oncology specialist unit at sydneys' royal prince alfred hospital recently heard 'through the grapevine' of dr holt, and sent to him a terminally ill cancer patient estimated to have 3 weeks to live after intensive chemotherapy failed to arrest his advanced cancers.

after seeing his patient restored to perfect health, the referring doctor had this to say:

"i do all i can to preserve human life. i heard about dr holts' treatment, and as this patient had no other chance, i owed him the right to know about it. as a doctor, i am happy to say this mans' life has been saved. but as a scientist, i cannot tell you why it has".

and the stories continue. from a 7 year old girl with a leukemia and a lifelong history of secondary tumours who is now cancer-free, to an 18yo woman with tumours in her bones and lungs who was given a month to live eight years ago.

described as 'not a money man', dr holts' treatments remain inexpensive and accessible. he retains a practice that is public access, and he still works in a public hospital. despite his continued success treating cancer, dr holt has published no further findings since his 1974 report was improperly tested by the western australian cancer council in 1991.

over the last 30 years, australia has expended hundreds of millions of dollars in cancer research, yet the man who may already have the answer plans to soon retire to ireland and live out his dotage peacefully, unknown except by the hundreds of australians' whose lives he has saved.

an unassuming man qualified in general practice, obstetrics and gynecology amongst others, dr holt has 22 letters after his name, yet has been quoted as saying he has "learned to shut up and practice medicine in peace and quiet".

when asked if he thought his detractors may be sorry in the long run for ignoring the potential of his treatment, he is said to have replied that "well, sooner or later, they may get cancer".

despite such a chequered career, dr holt is happy with his contribution to medical science. it is not known how long he will continue to be able to practice medicine, but one thing is for certain. this guy is onto something that could change the future of mankind.

let's just hope his work doesn't die with him.



Comments
on Aug 10, 2004
"since 1974, dr holt has cured over 300 cancer patients"

The important question to ask is 300 out of how many? 3000? More? If he has been doing it since 1974 300 seems to be a low success rate.

That isn't to say that his treatment is without merit. Many other researchers have experimented with radio therapy as well. It is more successful than average for some cancers and almost useless for others.

People often think of cancer as a single disease when actually it has many different variations with many different cures. Even when you identify something as "breast cancer" you are not talking about just one type of cancer buy many; each more or less responsive to different treatments.
on Aug 10, 2004
If he has been doing it since 1974 300 seems to be a low success rate.


abe, he has been working in a private practice with no advertising in australia, so that number is relative to the number of his patients that contracted cancer during his normal practice, or the patients that were referred from oncologists who had 'given up'.

as i said, he never claimed to cure cancer. but when it occurs, apparently he usually can. and he's not even practising as a cancer specialist.

That isn't to say that his treatment is without merit. Many other researchers have experimented with radio therapy as well. It is more successful than average for some cancers and almost useless for others.


exactly. one of the major problems in the analysis of this research was that it was carried out on an unsuitable reactal cancer.

People often think of cancer as a single disease when actually it has many different variations with many different cures. Even when you identify something as "breast cancer" you are not talking about just one type of cancer buy many; each more or less responsive to different treatments.


agreed, again, abe. it saddens me that this doctor can be ignored when he has an answer. perhaps not the whole answer, but as his technique of applying the rays is apparently different, and involves blood glucose levels as well, he may have something to give. he certainly seems to.

thanks for this very insightful comment .

vanessa/mig XX
on Aug 11, 2004

i used to dismiss this kind of thing til the female half of the pair who owned a company i worked for some time ago was discovered to have ovarian cancer despite having had her ovaries removed  5 years earlier.  it was apparently endrometrial in origin (some tissue had wandered?) and they removed a large mass when doing the biopsy.  there was visible evidence of metastasis throughout her abdomen including 2 lesions on her liver that couldnt be excised.   the surgeons closed and informed them it was terminal, estimating she had 3-6 months even with really aggressive chemo or radiation therapy.

(i hope you dont mind me going into detail)  shed been an acrobatic rollerskater--so very athletic--and they were in their mid 50s at the time but in seemingly excellent shape. the company had originated when they began selling trampolines in the mid 60s and were responsible for establishing the first public trampoline centers in the us (they were friends with the people who developed the famous "aussie string bed" and one of jess' sons was the sorta famous stuntman, dar robinson)  altho they were my employers, they were also close friends as well as surrogate parents. 

word quickly got around (they had tons of friends in gymnastics--jess had trained a us medal winning olympian--the film biz and were members of a prestigious yachtclub), they began receiving a flurry of referrals for both orthodox medical people and alternative practicioners.  abbey decided that if she really had such a short time to live, she didnt want to spend it sick from chemo or in pain from radiation. i was skeptical about the other options but it was her decision ultimately and i did my best to help research even the really crackpot schemes.

ultimately they were put in touch with an old rumanian physician whod practiced in new york state--despite having had his license yanked by the state board there--who was reputed to be able to achieve amazing results using a technique hed developed involving megadoses of selenium. he'd started several clinics in the us and mexico but ultimately theyd been shut down, the problem being he refused to publish his method for peer review. 

they flew to see him and he said he thought hed be able to help her.  the treatment consisted of injections and some moderate diet changes.  the dr wasnt permitted to actually do the injections or formulate the compound but he put them in touch with a pharmacist who worked with the dr.  initially there was no real sign of improvement (possibly due to the fact they were having to fly coast-to-coast twice a week for the first 6 weeks) but within 2-3 months she felt fine and when she went to see her oncologist (whod done everything possible to dissuade her but finally conceded she had so little time that it would really be moot) her tests were nothing short of amazing.  within 6 months, she the liver tumors had all but vanished and all her tests indicated virtually total remission. 

she had first been diagnosed in late january and her goal then was to live til xmas.  by december she was in better health and spirits than shed been prior to this all happening.  she still had to be injected with the solution but that wasnt a problem.  she was flying to new york once every 6 weeks or so for evaluation everyone--the dr in ny and her doctors here--were ecstatic as were we.   they hosted a huge party (like 200 guests) just before xmas.

things continued well thru most of the following summer (they spent their weekends at avalon on catalina island where they moored their boat during the season) and she engaged in all the normal stuff.  the dr in new york was seeing her onece every couple months and everything seemed cool.   in mid-september, there was a big fight (leonard-duran) broadcast on cable and they invited me up to their place to watch it (they had ahahahah a tv in every one of their 15 rooms including a huge bigscreen in the livingroom--one of my tasks was finding new technology toys for them and negotiating merchandise swaps hahaha).  abbey was a huge sportsfan but i noticed she wasnt seeming to enjoy the fight as much as i expected.  (this was the famous bout in which duran gave up near the end, yeling 'no mas...no mas').  normally we would have hung out for a while afterwards, but she said she wasnt feeling well and went to bed so i split.

the next morning i arrived at work to learn shed been taken to the hospital about 3am but i figured it was probably something unrelated.  4 hours later, she died.  jess told me she had been in pain when they first admitted her but had been resting and hed been as suprised as anyone when she passed.  there was no autopsy (ive always suspected she may have been oversedated).  this strikes me as terribly sad as im typing it but having seen only one other person who succumbed to cancer (a guy id known in hs who later married one of my sisters and who lived for only 9 months from the day of his initial diagnosis and who wasted away in front of us and was in considerable pain), she died a very peaceful death and outlived the prognosis by nearly 2 years of healthy good times.

the dr in nyc later said he regretted not seeing her more often but he really did perform a miracle of sorts considering the initial assessment.  he has since died himself altho his son now operates a clinic and the treatment is still available.  his name was emmanuel revici and you can google for information about him

im so sorry for going on at such length in this thread but i was struck by the similarities between the australian doctor you reported upon and revici--and the fact of their ostracism and lack of support despite their accomplishments   as a footnote, i dont know if this is an anomaly or ?  but over the past 5 or 6 years ive learned about maybe a dozen acquaintances, relatives of friends, etc. whove been diagnosed with cancer.   ive been very fortunate (well in a way...ive also been very unprepared for this) to have not encountered much of that in my life til recently but in the past the pattern was pretty dismal.  id hear someone was ill and then 4 months to a year later, theyd be gone.  but those in the past 5-6 years seem to be not only living much longer (all are still alive today) but some have been pronounced 'cured'.   i dont know if its because there is a better understanding or better technology or just a fluke but im thinking its one or both of the first two options.

i also dont know why i felt i needed to bore you with all this but ill make it up to you somehow

on Aug 12, 2004
There seems to be 10,001 causes of cancer and 10,001 cures for it (some of which are nuts, but work sometimes). This makes me think that cancer is largely psychosomatic.
on Aug 12, 2004

psychosomatic.


if only that were true. 

on Aug 12, 2004
On the 7pm news on ABC tonight they had a story about former immigration minister al grassby or something having his kidney cancer cured with a technique that sounded almost identical - the doctor sent away to the US for the machine and is now pressuring the Canberra Hospital to buy one. The reporter said it was a recent invention. Just goes to show, doesn't it.
on Aug 12, 2004
if only that were true.


Don't discount the idea out of hand. Research has been showing that the mind-body connection is far stronger than previously thought.
on Aug 12, 2004
I also dont know why i felt i needed to bore you with all this but ill make it up to you somehow


kingbee, i've saved your comment as a document so i can read it at my leisure. and i can't make it clear enough that your contributions to my blog are soooooo welcome. i'm grateful to you for finding the time to leave me such an insightful addition to my blog. i very much enjoyed the comparison in the stories, and i agree that the doctors are very similar. amazing stuff. thanks again for all you bring to me, kingbee



There seems to be 10,001 causes of cancer and 10,001 cures for it (some of which are nuts, but work sometimes). This makes me think that cancer is largely psychosomatic.


thanks for this comment, abe. i couldn't say i think cancer is largely psychosomatic, as it mostly has a physical manifestation. as to why some 'cures' work and some don't, though, i totally agree with you. positive thinking can and does make a diference to cancer. it's been proven, although, again, nobody seems to know 'why'.


On the 7pm news on ABC tonight they had a story about former immigration minister al grassby or something having his kidney cancer cured with a technique that sounded almost identical - the doctor sent away to the US for the machine and is now pressuring the Canberra Hospital to buy one. The reporter said it was a recent invention. Just goes to show, doesn't it.


wow, cactoblaster, i didn't see that, so thanks for mentioning it. ironic to think that the government messed up the research and now a minister is ill. if only they'd understood back then. thanks again for adding this insightful comment.


vanessa/mig XX

on Aug 12, 2004
Don't discount the idea out of hand. Research has been showing that the mind-body connection is far stronger than previously thought.


abe, you and i were typing at the same time it seems. i was just saying this ...

i couldn't say i think cancer is largely psychosomatic, as it mostly has a physical manifestation. as to why some 'cures' work and some don't, though, i totally agree with you. positive thinking can and does make a diference to cancer. it's been proven, although, again, nobody seems to know 'why'


in my other comment. thankyou again for adding this.

vanessa/mig XX
on Aug 13, 2004
I think there might be some confusion here about what I meant by psychosomatic. I was not saying that caner is "just in your head" , because that is obviously false. I was saying that what causes cancer to appear in the first place is in your head, and thats why it is often cured by your head.

Somewhere out there in some 5th world country is a person with cancer who is about to be cured by a witch doctor.
on Aug 14, 2004
Don't discount the idea out of hand. Research has been showing that the mind-body connection is far stronger than previously thought.


True, Abe. I have a few theories on cancer myself. I'm not going to go into detail because I don't want to call out the snipers, but suffice it to say I can provide good scientific support for them.
on Aug 14, 2004
This makes me think that cancer is largely psychosomatic.


One other thing most people don't realize. Psychosomatic disorders are GENUINE physical ailments (not imagined).