|
Who is
Majid Ali, M.D.
►
Dr. Ali's CV
Majid Ali is a
pioneer who is changing the face of medicine with his
innovative and spirited approach.
His credentials are
impeccable
Complementary Medicine Journal
"I stand in awe of Ali's
superb scientific knowledge, his insights into the nature of
the the healing process and his ability to explain hard
science."
Aubrey Worrell, MD
Past President, the American Academy of
Environmental Medicine
Majid Ali,
M.D.
Editor,
The Journal of Integrative Medicine
Formerly, Associate Professor of Pathology (adj.), College
of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University, NY
Formerly, President of Staff and
Chief Pathologist, Holy Name Hospital, Teaneck, NJ
Fellow, Royal College of Surgeons of England
- Diplomate,
American Board of Anatomic and Clinical Pathology
Diplomate, American Boards of Environmental Medicine
Past President Capital University of Integrative
Medicine
Aging Healthfully Supplements
Now You Can Order Online
Oral Chelation
Aging
Healthfully
proudly offers the
Oral EDTA Chelation Protocol
developed and used
by
Majid Ali, M.D.
in his practice for
over twenty
years.
|
Darwin, Cancer Trials, and
Lapdog Joes
Lapdog Joes (In matters of health, reporters for the
corporate media nearly always act like lapdogs Joes—my term
for journalistic lapdogs—not like watchdogs,) of The New
England Journal of Medicine and The New York Times do
not understand or are too lazy to investigate crucial issues
of ethics and science in conducting clinical trials for
chemotherapy drugs for treating cancer.
In Darwin, Dysox, and Disease (2006), the eleventh volume of
The Principles and Practice of Integrative Medicine, I
defined a principle of science which I designate as the
Darwin Principle—a principle of drawing simple conclusions
from an extended and integrated study of a large body of
observations. The Darwin Principle accepts the validity of
each scientific observation concerning any part of the whole
but holds that none of them singly be accepted as the
definitive evidence of any conclusion about the condition of
the whole. The core tenet of the Darwin Principle is: No
part can be understood except through an understanding of
its relationships with the whole. I consider the Darwin
Principle of crucial importance for both understanding the
molecular biology of cancer and designing scientifically
sound treatment plans.
In 1831, Charles Robert Darwin (1809-1882), started his
journey aboard the British Navy ship H.M.S. Beagle around
South America. Over a period of five years, he accumulated
an enormous number of biologic and geologic samples, studied
them intensively, reflected on the interconnectedness of all
of them, and formed his simple — yet comprehensive—
biological theory of natural selection. In 1850, he
published On the Origin of Species which, in my view, is the
most significant work in biologic sciences. For individuals
interested in the control of cancer, Darwin’s core message
is this: No aspect of cancer can be understood except
through an understanding of its relationships with the
whole. Translation: No treatment plans for cancer which do
not address nutritional, environmental, and anger-related
issues can be considered scientific.
The clinical application of the Darwin Principle calls for
clinical trials which are radically different from the model
of chemotherapy drug trials in vogue today. The clinical
trials based on the Darwin Principle must be designed to
address the macro furies (toxic thoughts, toxic environment,
and toxic foods), as well as the three micro furies (oxidosis,
acidosis, and dysoxgenosis) of disease. Such investigations
can be conducted only as open, integrated trials in which
teams of experienced clinicians enter a sizeable number of
individuals with well-defined clinicopathologic entities
into trials and then are free to address all macro and micro
issues on basis of the needs of individual patients. The
trial outcome is determined by evaluation of the results by
patients as well as clinicians employing objective and
subjective criteria. The integrity of an outcome is assured
by ensuring that: (1) a sufficiently large number of
clinicians participate in the trial who categorically have
no financial interest in the outcome; (2) all cancer trials
include all patients treated at the center at which those
trials are conducted; and (3) all cancer trials are carried
out for sufficiently extended periods of study so that the
conclusions drawn from the data truly represent long-term
results of the trial. In Darwin, Dysox, and Disease (2006),
I present a compendium of my philosophic discussion of the
Darwin Principle and the results of several long-term
clinical outcome studies designed and conducted following
the Darwin Principle.
The matter of patients deciding the efficacy of treatment is
likely to raise some eyebrows. We have raised generations of
doctors who think no clinical trials must be considered
valid in which the patients have had anything to say in
determining the outcome of the trial. However, who can gauge
the quality of sleep or energy — may I ask—better than the
patient himself? Or the freedom from toxic thoughts? Or the
qualities of mood, memory, and mentation? Or digestive and
menstrual health? Or sexual drive? Or absence or presence of
dry skin and muscle suppleness? For decades, I have been
baffled by hearing otherwise intelligent doctors mindlessly
insist that the patient’s voice must be vigorously excluded
from clinical trials.
The Aristotle Principle and Nutritional Therapies for Cancer
In my clinical work, I tried to walk in Darwin’s footsteps.
However, I recognize that there were others before Darwin,
some of whom Darwin credited for his work. Foremost among
them was Aristotle. He is the first among empirical
scientists. I include here brief comments about the Greek
empirical scientist, biologist, embryologist, and
philosopher whose work has evident relevance to my clinical
work with individuals with cancer.
Aristotle (384-322 BC) was the great empirical scientist of
the Greek civilization. He was a biologist who lucidly
documented the embryology of chicken. He rejected Plato’s
mystical speculation and established the inductive method.
In 335 B.C., he founded the Lyceum (library). His most
notable scientific achievement, in the present context, was
his classification of animals in an ascending scale,
reaching all the way to humans. Darwin acknowledged his debt
to Aristotle in his work with evolution. Based on his works
available today, it is often stated that Aristotle never
implied evolution in his classification of animals. That
does not seem right to me. How could a man of his towering
intellect and astute empiricism have missed that
relationship?
Aristotle’s extant works essentially come from the lecture
notes taken by his students and edited in the 1st century
B.C., and include Organum, De Anima, Discourse on Conduct,
Politics, and Ethics. Concerning observable phenomena,
Aristotle proposed four principles of explanation of
causality of physical phenomena:
✪ The principle of the material (substance of the thing)
cause;
✪ The principle of the formal (design) cause;
✪ The principle of the efficient (the maker) cause; and
✪ The principle of the final (purpose) cause.
In the context of cancer, what did Aristotle mean by
material (the substance of the thing) except nutrition? What
did he mean by the formal (design) except metabolism? What
did he mean by the efficient (maker) except the toxic
environment? In the context of cancer treatment, what did he
mean by the final (purpose) except the desired outcome in
cancer treatment? How often do the leaders in the field of
oncology ask themselves any of those Aristotolian questions?
Do they even remember any of the precepts of Aristotolian
empirical science? That brings me to what may be called the
“Aristotle Principle.”
The Aristotle Principle is the principle of empiricism in
clinical medicine that requires all relevant nutritional,
metabolic, and environmental issues must be vigorously
addressed with empirically-validated measures in every
patient. In cancer treatment, the Aristotlian Principle
means the following:
✪ No cancer treatment plan can be considered scientifically
valid if it does not address all relevant nutritional
issues;
✪ No cancer treatment plan can be considered scientifically
valid if it does not address all relevant metabolic issues;
and
✪ No cancer treatment plan can be considered scientifically
valid if it does not address all relevant environmental
issues.
Eco-monsters and onco-monsters relentlessly violate the
Aristotelian and Darwinian precepts with devastating
consequences. Millions of people with cancer all over the
world have—and continue to—suffer immeasurably because onco-monsters
do not allow oncologists the use of simple, safe, and
effective natural therapies for controlling cancer. The
mantra of onco-monsters is that there is no science behind
those therapies. In the chapter entitled “Onco-Monsters,” I
address that issue and show how pathetically ignorant men
and women are who hide behind that mantra.
Medicine Once Was A Calling
Medicine once was a calling. Then it became a profession,
then a business, then the big business. No group of people
suffered from the transition of medicine from a calling to
big business more than the one with cancer.
When medicine was a calling, it attracted women and men with
a passion for healing. The practitioners became passionate
advocates for their patients. Then some practitioners of
medicine wanted prestige. They saw a possibility for that in
getting organized, and began calling medicine a profession.
In pursuit of seeking control over patients and peers, the
organized medicine established standards of practice. In a
shameful act of professional misconduct, the leaders in the
field of oncology chose to ignore the crucial issues of
toxic foods, toxic environment, and toxic thoughts. There
are few, if any, oncologists today who vigorously prescribe
nutrient therapies, diligently work to remove toxins (toxic
acids, metals, and pollutants), and effectively address
issues of toxic thoughts.
Next, medicine became an industry. The cancer industry
turned out to be the most callous. It gained complete
control over oncologists, and relentlessly persecuted
practitioners who attempted to address the issues of toxic
thoughts, toxic environments, and toxic foods. In the
process, the cancer industry enriched itself enormously by
an aggressive use of chemo drugs of dubious value
merchandised by onco-monsters. Not unexpectedly, those
riches did not escape the notice of real men of money in the
country. They hired more onco-monsters and took over the
oncology industry and converted it into the mega-business of
oncology, which owned chemo drugs, insurance companies,
medical journals, hospital boards, cancer centers, and
doctors who worked in them.
The rising incidences of various types of cancer, most
notably the twin pandemics of breast and prostate cancer,
have much to teach us about how seriously our environment is
disrupting our hormonal functions, and how those
environmental exposures are setting the stage for yet higher
incidences of various types of cancer. Regrettably, those
critical issues are seldom, if ever, addressed in oncology.
All the pronouncements of leaders in the field about cancer
begin and end with their choice of chemotherapy drugs.
Lessons learned through the loss of millions of lives all
over the globe continue to be ignored.
The Great Hoax: The “Target” Drugs That Are Not Target Drugs
These are heady times for low-level scientists in the drug
industry. They are pregnant with hope of designing “target”
drugs that silence individual genes or block single enzymes.
They plan to cure cancer with those target drugs. I welcome
such drugs for whatever benefit they can give my patients.
However, I have no illusions about the promise of the target
drugs. First, I know for certain that the so-called target
drugs are really not specific for their targets. Second, I
do not think there will ever be cures of most types of
cancer with the target drugs, since those cancers are not
caused by mutations in a few genes or a few enzymes. What we
need are integrated treatment protocols that not only employ
the old chemotherapy agents and the so-called target drugs
(for whatever benefits they yield) but effectively address
the essential metabolic derangements encountered in cancer
—acidosis (too much acidity), oxidosis (excess free
radicals), and dysox (lack of functional oxygen). I discuss
those subjects at length in the various chapters of this
volume. Here, I include brief comments about the so-called
“miracle designer drugs,” which are not miracle drugs by any
stretch of imagination, regardless of the spin created by
onco-monsters.
The success of Glivec [Gleevec in the United States] in the
treatment of chronic myleogenous leukemia (CML) has provided
proof of principle that cancer can be treated by identifying
molecular defects and designing drugs to correct them.
Promising results in trials with other molecularly targeted
drugs, such asIressa and Tarceva have given further
encouragement for such approaches. (Italics added)
Nature Reviews—
Cancer. 2002;2:645
The Reality
Tarceva [for lung cancer] resulted in an overall response
and disease stabilization rate of 48% as monotherapy for
patients who had failed previous chemotherapy…Iressa showed
a relatively modest 11.8% tumor suppressor rate at the most
effective dosing regimen… For example, in certain subsets of
patients with CML, 52% did not respond to Glivec, and 78%
relapsed within one year.
Nature Reviews—
Cancer. 2002;2:645
What Is Tumor Suppressor Rate?
It is a euphemism for temporary shrinkage of the tumor
before the cancer returns with a crushing roar. That is the
sad and recurring story known to all people whose family
members or friends were treated with chemotherapy. That is
sad truth behind the false hopes built with the promise of
tumor suppression with “new target drugs” that come around
every few years.
Oxygen Thinking and Integrative Cancer Treatment
In oncology, the crucial Darwinian and Aristotolian precepts
of holism and integration are consistently violated in the
clinical practice of oncology. Why is that so? It is because
onco-monsters do not allow oncologists to use nutritional,
herbal, detox, and oxygen therapies to protect their
patients from the toxicities of their drugs. Why is that so?
Because eco-monsters do not see any profits in health
preservation, disease prevention, and reversal of disease.
This is a harsh indictment of my profession. In this volume,
I present my arguments for that harsh treatment. Consider
the following quote from the September 2002 issue of Nature
Reviews—Cancer (page 637):
…is a seminal work and shows that the local microenvironment
is the driving force in stimulating or suppressing the
invasive and malignant behaviors of cancer cells.
Nature Reviews —
Cancer. 2002;2:637
The above is an encouraging note sounded by Nature Reviews.
Clearly, the journal is promoting an ecologic — read,
holistic — approach to understanding and treating cancer.
Let us hope that clinicians treating cancer will read it and
begin to think ecologically. Since oxygen determines the
microenvironmental condition within and around cancerous
tumors more than any other single element, let us also hope
that soon there will be “oxygen thinking” among physicians
caring for individuals with cancer. However, the article
quoted above was published four years ago. I still have not
seen any willingness to consider and address crucial
nutritional, environmental, detox, and oxygen-related
issues, which are of crucial clinical importance.
We physicians need to return to our calling. We need to
learn something about Aristotle’s empirical science. We need
to acquire some Darwinian sense of selective pressure on
cellular populations, and the relationships between the
parts and the whole. We need to be clear about who
eco-monsters are: They are cults of craven men who wantonly
and relentlessly destroy human habitat, poison our
environment, and unleash pandemics of cancer. We need to
know who onco-monsters are: They are people charged by
eco-monsters to do their bidding, regardless of the
consequences of their actions. They pretend to be great
scientists, academics, teachers, editors of journals, and
custodians of public health. They are the self-righteous in
a cruel cartoon, doing their masters’ bidding. They have no
passion for the sick, nor an authentic interest in service
to those with cancer. They want leadership but have no
concept of service. We physicians need to be aware. Our
patients pay an exorbitant price when we fail to do so.
Nowhere is that toll harsher and more punishing than when
our patients with cancer suffer from the false benevolence
of eco-monsters and the pseudoscience of onco-monsters.
|
| |
|
Now Available as
Instant Download
Integrative Protocols -
Vol 12 Principles and
Practices
of Integrative Medicine
Includes
Dr. Ali's
IV and IM formulations
E-Book price $35
Book price $95
Integrative Protocols -
Vol 11 Principles and
Practices
of Integrative Medicine
E-Book price $35
Book price $95
Dr.
Ali discusses Dysoxygenosis and varying
chronic diseases.
Chapter 1 Under Darwin’s Glow
Chapter 2 Energy Deficit States
Chapter 3 Integration
Chapter 4 The Oxygen Order of Life
Chapter 5 Oxygen
Chapter 6 Aging
Chapter 7 Inflammation
Chapter 8 Pain
Chapter 9 Heart Disease
Chapter 10 Asthma
Chapter 11 Renal Insufficiency
Chapter 12 Osteoporosis
Chapter 13 Metalicised Mouths
Chapter 14 Hormone Disorders
Chapter 15 Arrested Growth |
|
| |
| |
|
Spend 60 Hours with
Majid Ali MD
Dr. Ali's DVD Video library featuring 38 DVDs
Only $300
Free shipping too!
ORDER NOW |
DVDs
only $15 each!
|
An
extensive series of information on DVD
for the following:
|
|
