Can Bacteria Cause Cancer?

The Final Vindication of Virginia Livingston MD

By RON FALCONE
but it doesnt. Thanks to HCGs negative charge, immune system cells are repelled because like poles repel. Incredibly, HCG forms a kind of electric fence around the n 1974, a California physician named growing fetus, protecting it from invading antibodies. Virginia Livingston made a discovery that Livingston didnt have the benet of this later research, should have astounded the medical world. but she still presumed that HCGs life sustaining properties Instead, it hardly created a ripple. Workhad something to do with cancer. She theorised that tuing out of her San Diego laboratory, the mours are similar to embryonic forms of life, and like the sixty-eight year old Livingston performed some growing fetus also use HCG to repel the immune system. tests on bacteria samples she had taken from canShe also believed the PC microbe played a key role in helpcer patients. She was bafed to nd the samples ing cancer cells produce HCG, and vaccines that attack the testing positive for a hormone found in pregnant microbe would prove effective against cancer. Based on her theory, Livingston named HCG the horwomen, known as HCG. mone of life and the hormone of death. Life because of its role in pregnancy, Livingston had already created conand death because of its connection troversy by claiming that a bacterium with cancer. As it turns out, scienshe named Progenitor cryptocides ...orthodox tic research would eventually prove (PC) could cause cancer in humans. Livingston correct and possibly solve a She also believed vaccines that could medicine now mystery that has bafed doctors for a ght the PC microbe dramatically century: why cancer avoids the immune improved the health of her cancer paofcially accepts system, and grows relatively unscathed. tients. Now, Livingston was faced with the heresy that In 1995, Dr. Hernan Acevedo, a a new twist: why was the pregnancy Professor of Pathology and Laboratory hormone showing up in her bacteria bacteria do in fact Medicine at Allegheny General Hospicultures and what did this nding tal and one of the worlds foremost exhave to do with her already controvercause cancer. perts on HCG, discovered that not only sial theories? had the hormone indeed been present in There wasnt too much known about cancer bacteria as Livingston claimed, HCG in 1974. Scientists understood it was also found in every single cancer that it was secreted by the placenta tissue he examined. This was a potenduring pregnancy; they also knew that tially major breakthrough because a universal marker that it helped the fetus grow. But later studies revealed an even was common to all types of cancer had now been found; more remarkable function of HCG: it consists of molecules up until this time, scientists had failed to nd such a critithat possess a negative electrical charge. This nding cal marker. didnt seem relevant in 1974, but when scientists later Acevedos research now meant that a vaccine directed found that white blood cells are also negatively charged, at HCG could be produced. The logic behind such a vacpieces of a puzzle started coming together and an entirely cine is simple: attack the electric shield surrounding the new picture of cancer began to emerge. cancer, and the bodys immune system will have a better When sperm and egg unite, the new embryo is a partly chance of killing the cancer. foreign protein in the mothers body, because half of In 1999, a small bio-tech company named AVI Biopthe embryo consists of its fathers DNA. Normally, the harma began testing just such a vaccine on patients with mothers immune system should attack this foreign protein,

www.newdawnmagazine.com

January-February 2010

NEW DAWN

57

only one day after his announcement, Ewing denounced poor prognosis cancers like those of the pancreas, and them as meaningless. Although Ewing never disproved early results were very impressive. There were no cures Glovers evidence scientically, that didnt matter. Ewings in the study, but the patients were by and large considered charge that cancer was not an infectious disease stuck, incurable to begin with. Still, many experienced posiand tainted decades of future research. tive extensions of life beyond those normally attained from A troubling question is whether Ewing was motivated standard treatments alone. However, plans to launch furby factors other than science. Consider that during the ther trials were put on hold and the company quietly went 1920s, Ewing enjoyed a close relationship with James on to other areas of research. The reasons are not clear, but Douglas, owner of copper mines and one of the most poweconomics may have played a role. erful men in America. Douglas, who had a deep nancial Consider that the drug Gemzar, made by pharmaceutiinterest in the potential use of radium to treat cancer, cal giant Eli Lilly, is a primary treatment for pancreatic agreed to bail out Ewings nancially strapped Memorial cancer, but AVI Biopharmas vaccine (shown to be as Hospital with the promise that the effective as Gemzar and also far less new treatment for cancer X-ray toxic) was put on hold for ten years. therapy would be actively pursued During this hiatus, Gemzar enjoyed there, and ultimately, throughout the worldwide distribution in 90 counworld. With such incredible potential tries, with sales generating $1.3 bilat stake both medically and nanlion last year alone; Gemzar is also cially, there was little motivation for Lillys second best-selling drug. Ewing to pursue an obscure germ Despite the setback, two compatheory of cancer. nies are now trying to raise the enor As the years passed, Ewing was mous capital needed to launch new bestowed the highest accolades for HCG trials. One, CG Therapeutics, his use of the X-ray in cancer treatvows to meet the challenge, voicing ment, Memorial climbed out of near condence that the rewards will far bankruptcy, and Glover faded into outweigh the nancial risks. Echoing obscurity, rarely even listed as a footCGs position is lead scientist Tom note to history. Hopps who went so far to say that The years following Glovers CGs vaccine will be the biggest debacle saw many others cor(cancer vaccine) of all time. Hopps roborating his work, only to face unusually bold prediction remains similar opposition. In 1931, Dr. Elise to be proved, but human trials datLEsperance of Cornell University ing back to 1999 have shown very discovered a causative bacterium in favourable results. Hodgkins disease, a form of blood If anti-HCG vaccines do prove cancer. LEsperances discovery was to be the breakthrough that Hopps published in the esteemed Annals of believes, Livingston will have been Virginia Livingston MD (19061990) Surgery, but the report fell on deaf partly vindicated. But many will ears. In 1941, a French physician, still associate her with the heresy George Mazet, identied a leukemia-causing bacterium of cancer bacteria and its long debunked role in cancer. and he reported it in the journal Montpellier Medecine. But This is ironic considering that orthodox medicine now ofagain, orthodox researchers appeared unwilling to look cially accepts the heresy that bacteria do in fact cause into the nding. cancer. Virginia Livingston faced a similar plight and by TwENTIETH CENTURY PARIAH the early 1970s, was either being ignored or discounted OR MEDIcAL GENIUS? altogether. Conspiracy theorists might have been tempted to blame a plot at work against Livingston but government When Virginia Livingston rst proclaimed that a agencies were citing a more tangible factor: research sponTuberculosis-like germ was responsible for cancer back in sored by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) simply failed the 1940s, orthodox medicine was clearly not ready; it had to establish a cancer bacteria link. only been two decades since James Ewing, one of the lead The research in question was conducted between 1963 ing cancer scientists of the era and a co-founder of Memoand 1974, and it involved a dozen studies by mainstream rial Hospital (now Sloan-Kettering Cancer Institute in New scientists. Unfortunately, a careful review of these studies York City), aggressively disputed the cancer germ theory. reveals a number of aws biased against Livingston work. Ewings main target of attack was Dr. Thomas Glover, For example, none of the studies focused on Livingstons a Canadian physician who discovered a cancer germ in specic TB germ or on the methods she and colleagues the early 1920s. (Glover also devised a vaccine that he used to grow it in the lab. In addition, no references were claimed had positive therapeutic effects). In 1926, Glover made to Livingstons published papers, or to those pubformally announced his ndings to the medical world, but lished by her colleagues.

58 NEW DAWN

January-February 2010

www.newdawnmagazine.com

In some cases, scientists disproved a bacterial link Livingstons unsubstantiated claims of an 82% success but the means with which they did appear almost absurd. rate via her treatment. As a scientist, Livingston should For instance, in one study mice were supposedly made have known that anecdotal claims are not acceptable germ free by massive doses of radiation. Then after the without rigorous large scale testing, but she likely didnt mice were made to develop cancer via certain chemicals, care due to the contentious relationship shed had with the tissues recovered from these mice showed no bacteria the establishment. implied conclusion being that bacteria dont cause cancer Livingstons deance only emboldened her critics, to (at least in these mice)! Of course, the argument is fallabe sure, but a key question remains: is there any objective cious because it doesnt preclude a bacterial cause in other evidence supporting her treatment for cancer? Have any cases. clinical trials been performed and is there any basis for Even had a cancer-bacteria association been found, it is thinking the embattled physician may have been on the unlikely the NCI would have extended an olive branch to right track after all? Livingston who by the 1970s had already been at conShortly before publishing its 1990 article, the ACS siderable odds with the medical establishment. It is also did attempt to evaluate Livingstons Therapy in a small true that Livingston probably sabotaged her own cause clinical trial, but at the outset there were problems. Not by failing to do follow-up research; after three decades only had patients been suffering from late stage, inoperof investigation, a dozen published able cancers, none could be helped by studies, and constant run ins with the traditional treatments. According to cancer orthodoxy, shed apparently had Barrie Cassileth, the studys coordinaIn some cases, enough and by all accounts, simply lost tor, only patients with diagnoses and interest. Instead, Livingston devoted stages of disease for which there is no scientists all of her energies on treating patients effective conventional treatment were at a clinic she, and her rst husband enrolled in the trial. Cassileth admitdisproved a Owen Wheeler, founded in the 1970s. ted that survival time(s) would not bacterial link but (Wheeler met Livingston after seeking (have differed) between the two groups treatment from her for neck cancer, and (Livingstons and conventional treatthe means with he claims to have been cured). ment) because conventional treatment which they did For a while, the Livingston-Wheeler was largely ineffective for these terclinic operated under the radar and a minally ill patients. Still, Livingstons appear almost growing cadre of patients began seektherapy did perform at least equal to ing help there. Eventually Livingstons the standard treatments. absurd. decision to ignore scientic protocol Cassileth agreed that the study and treat patients without medical sancresults could not be generalised to tion only intensied animosities and patients with less advanced stages of spurred calls for further investigation into her claims. Such (cancer). In other words, it is unknown how well Livinga call did come in 1990 when the American Cancer Socistons treatment would have fared on more treatable paety (ACS) asked for samples of Livingstons cancer germ. tients. Why, then, did the ACS ofcially label her therapy The San Diego physician obliged, but after samples were as unproven? analysed, scientists didnt nd tuberculosis bacteria (the Critics called the ACS trial a sham, questioning how alleged component of PC). Instead, they found the coman equal result could translate into a negative conclusion. mon everyday bacterium Staphylococcus, and this created They also wondered why only one small trial was pera restorm of controversy. formed, when in the world of cancer medicine, hundreds Not surprisingly, the ACS viewed Livingstons error as are typically conducted before nal treatment conclusions proof against her overall theories and shortly after pubare rendered. Moreover, drugs being tested in clinical trilished a highly critical article in Ca: A Cancer Journal for als are rarely scrapped after a single outcome. For examClinicians. By all accounts, Livingston only made matters ple, it isnt uncommon to nd some drugs showing moderworse by continuing to use her vaccine that the ACS now ate effects and others, little or none, but these results dont considered unproven. usually terminate future trials. Dr. Alva Johnson, a retired professor of microbiology In fact, some cancer drugs are approved even in spite of at the University of Virginia Medical School, explains Livhighly dubious cure rates. Consider, for instance, Fluoringstons vigilance this way: she was so sure that bacteria ouracil (5-FU) which was for years the gold standard of collected from her patients was enough to prove a link to treatment for pancreatic cancer. Yet, there has never been cancer, she felt justied in using a vaccine to combat the any conclusive evidence that 5-FU appreciably extended underlying bacteria. Absent the lengthy and expensive life span in such patients, and pancreatic cancer remains process of drug testing and FDA approval, Livingstons use incurable for the vast majority of its sufferers. Regardless, of an unsanctioned treatment only backed her deeper into 5-FU is an approved treatment for pancreatic cancer, a corner and further away from mainstream acceptance, having been administered to tens of thousands of patients notes Johnson. over the years, and having generated billions of dollars in Further antagonising the medical establishment was revenue.
www.newdawnmagazine.com January-February 2010

NEW DAWN

59

serum by injecting horses with cancer bacteria, and then extracting the antibodies into a vaccine). After ve years of follow up, survival percentages ranged from 100% in 3 cases of colon cancer, 65% (in 23 breast cases), 50% (in 6 ovarian cases) and 20% (in 5 prostate cases). The Glover serum results were formally reported in 1953 to the 6th International Congress of Microbiology in Rome, but no interest was generated stateside. One reason might be that in post World War II America, pharmaceutical companies were actively developing mustard gas products and highly protable petroleum-based drugs for cancer hardly synonymous with an inexpensive vaccine made from horse blood. Shortly after Glovers results were announced, an Italian scientist, Clara Fonti, began treating patients with antibodies made from cancer bacteria. In one of her rst cases, Fonti injected herself in the chest with living cancer bacteria from a malignant tumour; when lesions developed, Fonti transfused her own antibodies into a patient. The treatment reportedly had a dramatic effect and Fonti later claimed hundreds of cancer remissions. In 1973, French researchers conducted a three year study at the Saint Antoine Hospital in Paris, and reported superior results with a TB-based vaccine given to lung cancer patients. Again, little interest was expressed and a possible reason is that national cancer agencies were aggressively Dr. Wilhelm von Brehmer pursuing a viral, not bacterial, cause of cancer at this time. In 1971, for example, US President Richard Nixon signed into law the National Cancer Act, the goal being to nd a cure by decades end. Billions of taxpayer dollars were Fair or not, the Livingston Therapy continues to ocallocated but a large part of the research was dedicated cupy its place on the American Cancer Societys infamous to nding a universal cancer virus (not bacterium) which Unproven Therapies blacklist. However, independent might lead to a cure. research dating back more than half a century contradicts This was a point of contention for Livingston and oththe ACS position, and seems to tell a considerably different ers who had long argued that bacteria story. could behave like viruses (which are usually much smaller) and even imitate IT ALL DEPENDS WHOS them. In fact, Livingston had already DOING THE RESEARCH Livingston had demonstrated that bacteria could change As early as the 1930s, an Irish physialready demonstrated their size and shape like chameleons a cian named William Mervyn Crofton bizarre phenomenon known as pleothat bacteria could was treating patients with an autogenous morphism. (This phenomenon might vaccine made from their own bacterial change their size explain why bacteria may have been toxins. This crude vaccine (later serving confused with viruses over the years and shape like as the prototype for Livingstons treatand in some cases, not even recognised ment) was in its earliest stages of develchameleons a bizarre under the ordinary microscope). opment, but Crofton reported many posiUnfortunately, Livingston and the phenomenon known as tive successes. He published a number of other germ mavericks were crying out papers on his work in the Irish Journal pleomorphism. to a deaf audience. As far as the Nixon of Medical Science and specically in a backed scientists were concerned, their paper entitled The Cancer Problem. central focus was on viruses, period. In the 1940s, a German, Dr. And after thirty years and hundreds Wilhelm von Brehmer, announced of billions of dollars spent, what was the nal outcome of numerous cancer remissions with an antibacterial vaccine Nixons 1971 War on Cancer? A small number of cancer similar to Croftons. Around this time, a large-scale clinical viruses were, in fact, found, but this knowledge had little trial with Glovers serum (as it was originally called) was impact on overall cure rates for most forms of human canalso launched. The trial involved one-hundred laboratory cer. conrmed cases of cancer treated by a small group of docIn recent years, a newer generation of physicians attors who had studied Glovers methods. (They made their tempted to treat patients with bacterial vaccines. One was

60 NEW DAWN

January-February 2010

www.newdawnmagazine.com

Dr. Vincent Speckhart, a Virginia physician, who reported excellent results with a Livingston type vaccine. Speckhart claimed complete responses in three patients, one suffering from leukemia, another from malignant lymphoma, and the third, breast cancer. Speckhart found himself facing a disciplinary board for using an unapproved vaccine and shortly thereafter, was forced to stop using his treatment. Ironically, the American Cancer Society recently approved its own version of an anti-bacterial vaccine known as BCG. Used to treat bladder cancer and in some instances colon cancer, BCG is made from the same family of TB germs that Livingston implicated in cancer. BCG is also similar to a vaccine used in Japan for many years known as Maruyama Vaccine (also made from strains of tuberculosis). Though considered an alternative therapy in Japan, new research is showing that Maruyama vaccine has denite anti-cancer activity. For example, scientists at the Fujisaki Institute reported that it doesnt kill cancer cells the way chemotherapy drugs do, but stimulates an effective immune response. They also found that the vaccine causes a build up of collagen (the berous protein inside of bones, connective tissues, etc.) causing tumours to stop growing and spreading in some cases.

Virginia Livingston, MD and Alan Cantwell. San Diego, California, 1981.

A NEw CONSENSUS EMERGES

Right around the time the ACS published its ofcial denouncement of Livingston in 1990, Dr. Shy Chung Lo of the Armed Services Institute of Pathology announced a major nding: Lo cultured a virus-sized bacterium called Mycoplasma fermentans from cancer tissues, reinjected it into animals, and was then able to cause cancer. In fact, Lo had fullled Kochs Postulates the time-honoured tenets of science that prove a cause and effect between a bacterium and a disease. (Remarkably, mycoplasma were the same germs tested by NCI scientists between 1963 and 1974 and which were said to not have any connection with cancer!) At the time of Los nding, mainstream science was still disregarding the notion of a cancer germ as so much bunkum. In the interim, scientic reports began emerging from China and then other quarters of the world showing a link

between yet another bacterium H.pylori and stomach cancer. Today, H.pylori is widely accepted by the mainstream as the rst cancer causing bacterium to be found. The list of scientic studies showing other species of bacteria in cancer is expanding. For example, Salmonella typhi, Streptococcus bovis and Chlamydia penumoniae arenow being associated with gallbladder, colorectal, and lung cancer, respectively. Given these new ndings, the question of why Livingston would confuse a TB-like germ with Staphylococcus might someday be answered. And ironically, Livingstons vaccine now seems more plausible than ever, because it was made from each patients own strain of bacteria; this strategy might best address the problem of having to know exactly what type of bacteria a patient has before starting treatment. According to Alan Cantwell MD, a retired dermatologist and cancer bacteria researcher, Livingstons vaccine was probably the single most important cornerstone of her treatment. Cantwell was a colleague of Livingstons, and has produced numerous colour micrographs of pleomorphic cancer bacteria taken from both cancerous and healthy tis-

Intracellular variably-sized coccoid forms in breast cancer. Acid-fast stain; magnification x1000, in oil.
Photo courtesy of Dr. Alan Cantwell.

Intracellular bacteria in prostate cancer. Acid-fast stain; magnification x1000, in oil.

Photo courtesy of Dr. Alan Cantwell.

www.newdawnmagazine.com

January-February 2010

NEW DAWN

61

Many alternative health researchers claim that the international pharmaceutical medical monopoly actively suppress cancer cures because they make vast sums from the same three failing treatments: surgery, chemotherapy and radiation treatment.

sues. Cantwells published research is potentially signicant, because it establishes that cancer bacteria are not simply opportunists that contaminate cancer tissues after people become ill, as orthodox scientists have long argued. How can such a diversity of bacteria in one disease be explained? There are several different theories, and some challenge the very foundations of traditional science. The conventional view is that bacteria infect certain parts of the body (H. pylori in the stomach lining for example), thereby inaming tissues and triggering cell abnormalities. However, another theory is that human blood, whether healthy or diseased, contains primitive bacterial bodies which transform into adult forms, capable of promoting cancer. This idea is considered radical because most scientists believe that healthy human blood is sterile, but there are compelling studies telling a different story. In 1977, Dr. Gerald Domingue found staphylococcal-like bacteria in 71% of people who were ill, but also in 7% believed to be healthy. Intriguingly, these organisms appeared to morph out of round or dense primitive forms. Two decades later, Finnish scientists discovered novel bacterialike particles which were staphylococcal-like; during certain phases of their life cycles, the particles could turn

into small viruses. The Finnish doctors called their novel particles nanobacteria. Is it possible that bacteria can evolve in the human body through the sharing or swapping of genes, defy the traditional behaviours ascribed to them, and then play critical roles in cancer? Doug Robinson, a Virginia physician and oncologist believes so, based on a remarkable study he conducted in 2004. According to Robinson, cancer and bacteria appear to form an insidious relationship by exchanging genetic materials. Robinson says that bacteria can then transform into organised cells and tissues (which they arent capable of doing on their own), thus aiding tumours in their invasion and growth. For example, bacterial tissues can form blood vessels used by tumours for their oxygen and nutritional needs; cancer cells might also teach bacteria how to make HCG (not the other way around as Livingston believed), thus disarming the immune system, and helping tumour growth even more. Much more research is obviously needed, but it is becoming clear that Livingstons basic theories were the prologue to a more complex picture of cancer bacteria only now being unravelled via such elds as molecular biology and genetics. And because of these new ndings, scientists may now have to re-think many of their older paradigms.

LIVINGSTONS FINAL VINDIcATION?

Virginia Livingston died in 1990 at the age of 84, the same year her vaccine was banned by the State of California. The controversial physician and scientist has never been recognised or given credit for her achievements, but her ideas are gaining respectability. Indeed, bacteria are now recognised as causative for cancer, HCG has been independently veried in bacteria and in every tumour studied, and Livingstons prophetic statement about the hormone of life, and the hormone of death is being supported by contemporary research. Despite these vindications, the American Cancer Society still rejects Livingstons revolutionary ideas. That the ACSs original critique was written in 1990 before H.pylori became widely accepted as the rst known cancer bacterium, and before the era of anti-HCG vaccines may soon render that agencys position obsolete. Either way, vindication would probably have made little difference to Livingston a physician willing to sacrice a career, in order to treat patients the best way she thought possible.

Medical journalist and author RON FaLcONE attended the University of Bridgeport, Connecticut, USA, devoting himself to a career as a professional journalist and author. He began work on anon-fiction account of the life of controversial cancer physician Virginia Livingston which morphed into theComplete Guide To Alternative Cancer Therapies (Citadel Press). In 1995, Mr. Falcone established and operated a medical information company, Cancer Treatment Search Services, that prepared customised reportsfor cancer patients and their doctors throughout the world. He also authored Natural Medicine For Breast Cancer (Dell Health, 1997) and Natural Medicine ForProstate Problems (Dell Publishing, 1998). Mr. Falcone also wrote most of the draft for the Wikipedia entry on the cancer bacteria link, and also created the Cancer Bacteria website www.cancerbacteria.com. He currently lives near Orlando, Florida with his wife Anne,and their children Benjamin and Emma.

62 NEW DAWN

January-February 2010

www.newdawnmagazine.com