Long-Term Metastatic Cancer Survival Physician
Long-Term Metastatic Cancer Survival Physician
Jake Ames, MD, HMD
Puerto Vallarta, Mexico
Douglas G. Mitchell, Ph.D., D. Univ.
Melbourne, Australia
Almost all patients with metastatic cancer greatly underestimate what is needed to achieve long-term survival. Young people typically have acute problems: accidents, infections, appendicitis, digestive problems, etc. Their doctors typically give them effective treatments to solve these problems. As people get older, a cancer diagnosis may be their first experience of a life-threatening chronic illness, and they assume their doctors will effectively treat it. If it is an early stage cancer which can be completely removed surgically, this assumption is usually correct. If not, the cancer has metastasized (spread), their oncologist (with some exceptions, mainly with non-solid tumors) are not going to give them long-term survival.
Why not?. Because the strategies they are allowed to use and are educated to use may well modestly extend life, but are rarely curative.
To achieve long-term survival, it is necessary to aggressively attack the underlying causes of the cancer. This is mainly nutritional inadequacy.
It is also necessary to avoid damaging your health with ineffective, toxic therapies.
Oncologists, with some exceptions, do not have the tools necessary to achieve long-term survival.
The Ames protocol does have the needed tools.
Why don’t our oncologists use more effective therapies?
1. Doctors are not allowed to use many very effective therapies. Therapies that have not been validated by controlled trials are usually “ locked out” by regulators. Natural products cannot be patented. No one will pay the huge costs needed to get regulatory approval if everyone can sell their product.
2. Metastatic cancer is not suited to simple drug treatments. It is far better to treat cancer using a range of treatments. Such complex protocols will not get past the regulators.
3. Oncologists main tools after failed surgery are chemotherapy and similar therapies, immunotherapy, and radiation. These are generally not curative, but “helper” treatments. They may on average modestly extend life, but not much. According to Morgan et al 1, chemotherapy, on average, results in an additional 2.3 % of patients achieving 5-year survival. Very few. Radiation is curative for a few cancers. Immunotherapy extends life for some patients. Damage from standard treatments ranges from trivial to fatal.
4. The regulators’ approach is catastrophically wrong. They insist on randomized control trials using drugs with no more than a few components. These trials are time-consuming, expensive and usually unnecessary. The theoretical reason for controlled trials is to detect small improvements in performance. The practical reason for such trials is to lock out non-patentable, low-cost natural products, and to justify replacing older out of patent drugs with new patentable, and hence more expensive, drugs.
Small improvements in low-quality treatments are not much use. If a new treatment is very much better than current practice, this is very obvious. All that is needed is to observe outcomes and compare them with existing evidence. This is so-called “anecdotal” evidence, and it is totally ignored by regulators. With a new treatment, one or two exceptionally good results do not mean much, but twenty such results are very meaningful.
5. The medical industry is dominated by the drug industry. They, of course prefer to sell very expensive and high-profit drugs. They have no interest in low profit but useful treatment such as vitamin D3 supplementation to correct vitamin D deficiency.
6. Oncologists standards for success are much lower than the patient’s standards. Many drugs minimally extend survival. Patients endure the side effects and pay the cost and get a minimal survival benefit. Just one non-toxic, cheap helper treatment such as Avemar 2 does far, far better.
7. The fundamental reason for failure to achieve long-term survival is that standard treatments do not seek to improve the underlying conditions which caused the cancer. They basically seek to “repair” the damage caused by the disease and to continue “repairing” until the repairs no longer work. What is needed is an effective attack on the processes generating the cancer. Or to put it another way, make the body so hostile to cancer that it cannot survive.
What should the patient do?
There are therapies which minimize or prevent ongoing cancer generation. It is however, necessary to select a lead doctor skilled in these therapies.
In short, patients need to switch to a new lead doctor with new skills and new therapies. There aren’t many such doctors around. Further, patients should not leave it too late to make this change. Cancer and previous treatment damage can lead to a point of no recovery. Even if the cancer is then completely removed, there may be so much damage that it is impossible to survive.
The Ames protocol
This is a rational approach to preventing or minimizing cancer generation:
1. It is generally recognized that an improved diet will extend life. Aggressively improved diets, for example, the Gerson therapy, do even better. We can call these “helper” treatments. They extend life, but usually not as much as we would like.
2. The Ames protocol even more aggressively and effectively corrects nutritional inadequacies. It is non-toxic and not damaging. It includes multiple potentially curative treatments, helper treatments and treatment to kill health degrading parasites.
3. Correcting these nutritional inadequacies much improves the body’s ability to attack and kill cancer. This also improves lesser health problems such as asthma, allergies and skin problems.
4. Wilhelm Reich, M.D. 3 proved that all cancers are systemic diseases. This means that doctors need to treat the “system”- the whole body.
The Ames protocol works!
Dr Ames works in Puerto Vallarta, a tourist resort in Mexico. Mexico has fewer regulations than the United States and most of the Western world. He can offer inexpensive, safe, highly-effective cancer therapies which have been locked-out by governments in the Western world. Doctors in rich countries are typically not allowed to use most Ames protocol treatments. Doctors who do risk losing their licenses to practice medicine.
Further information is available on www.jakeamesmd.com
Recommended treatment
The most effective approach is to get 3 weeks intensive treatment at the Puerto Vallarta Clinic. This is followed by at home maintenance treatment which may continue indefinitely.
Next, best is a telephone, Skype, Viber or WhatsApp consultation with Dr. Ames. This is typically a 60+ minute initial consultation to set up treatment, followed by regular 20-minute consultations to monitor and assist progress.
Contact information and costs
In clinic treatment at the Puerto Vallarta clinic costs $US 32,400 for 3 weeks treatment. This includes approximately six hours of treatments six days a week, consultations plus three 20-minute follow up consultations.
Telephone (or Skype, etc) consultations cost $US250 per hour.
© 2018 Copyright Jake Ames and Douglas G. Mitchell, All Rights Reserved