MD, PhD, FMedSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCPEd

NATURAL NEWS announced the death of Nicholas Gonzalez with the following words:

It is with great sadness that we report the death of health freedom advocate and individualized nutrition specialist Dr. Nick Gonzalez, who on the eve of July 21 died from an alleged heart attack. Dr. Gonzalez’ contributions to anticancer nutrition protocols and an array of other nutritional therapies have been invaluable, and we would like to honor this pioneering natural healer by recognizing his benevolent legacy…

In contrast to the conventional cancer treatment model, Dr. Gonzalez’s approach was always about helping individuals heal through individualized care. Along with fellow colleague Dr. Linda Isaacs, Dr. Gonzalez helped build a repository of dietary protocols to help patients overcome their specific conditions through advanced nutritional therapies. His methodology centered around detoxification, supplementation with healing foods and nutrients, and specialized enzyme therapy…

Dr. Gonzalez was always a strong adherent to sound science, and he was never in it for the money. His humble, cogent approach to helping people heal naturally without drugs or surgery is a legacy worth remembering and passing on, and we’re thankful to have gotten to know this honorable man during his time on this earth…

This sounds as though Gonzalez was some kind of medical genius and scientific pioneer. Most cancer experts would disagree very sharply with this. Here is what Louise Lubetkin wrote on this blog about him, and I very much encourage you to read her whole post.

Those who recognize and appreciate a fine example of pseudoscientific baloney when they see one know that there is no richer seam, no more inexhaustible source, than the bustling, huckster-infested street carnival that is alternative medicine. There one can find intellectual swindlers in abundance, all offering outrageously implausible claims with the utmost earnestness and sincerity. But the supreme prize, the Fabergé egg found buried among the bric-a-brac, surely belongs to that most convincing of illusionists, the physician reborn as an ardent advocate of alternative medicine…

So what are we to make of Gonzalez? Is he a cynical fraud or does he genuinely believe that coffee enemas, skin brushing and massive doses of supplements are capable of holding back the tsunami of cancer?

At the end of the day it hardly matters: either way, he’s a dangerous man.

Personally, I believe much more in the text of Louise Lubetkin. How about you?

31 Responses to Dr Nicholas Gonzalez has died. Was he really a “a strong adherent to sound science” ?

  • It was the acceptance of this treatment modalitie that lead Steve Jobs to delay effective treatment. There is no way to know for sure if he could have survived. He certainly reduced the odds. One thing is certain, pseudoscience will never take responsibility for bad results.

    • Would you care to document your assertion about Jobs following the Gonzalez protocol? But of course you can’t since Jobs never followed the protocol though he did contact Gonzalez.

    • “The Truth About Cancer” Series by Ty Bollinger showed many cancer patients, including pancreas cases, patients who were ‘given’ few months to live, yet they never died, instead healed completely. Giving a prediction for somebodys’ life is a tip of bottomless arrogance, since it robs a needy sick person of hope. Unless the sick person has own opinion about most of the medical doctors and just ignores them, thus giving him/her a chance to survive. Enzyme therapy introduced by Dr. William D. Kelley for his own pancreatic cancer in the very last stage, was continued by Dr. Gonzales and successfully applied to hundreds of patients. When Dr. Gonzales said he could have saved Steve Jobs, he was absolutely right. His therapy does supply exactly these functioning proteins which the diseased pancreas can’t produce, thus allowing the entire body to regenerate, while being supplied with glucose and rebuilding the pancreas. He could have mentioned that the possible help would come under one condition, namely that Steve Jobs must have had his own will to live. That personal ‘decision’, Dr. Gonzales can’t and doesn’t ‘force’ on his patients, but that ‘decision’/hope is equally important for the healing process.

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Gonzalez_(physician)
    [At the time of posting this link, the page was last modified on 2015-07-23]

    • I don’t think the author of the obituary section of that wiki quite understands the rules of Wikipedia.

      Here is its present form. I don’t think it will survive in this form for long.

      Great sadness news from office of Nicholas J. Gonzalez, M.D. : Dr. Nicholas J. Gonzalez just pass away on Tuesday, July 21, 2015. The cause of death was cardiac related, it appears, as he suddenly collapsed and was unable to be revived. Dr. Gonzalez was in excellent health otherwise so his passing is quite unexpected.

  • When will the public realize that Natural News is not a reliable source of facts on health products or the subject of health?

  • Dr Ernst,

    While you published a vitriolic screed against Dr Gonzalez written by Ms Lubetkin isn’t it interesting that she never made reference to an animal study of his enzymes showing remarkable efficacy against cancer in mice.

    The concluding sentence in the article published as Saruc M, Standop S, Standop J, Nozawa F, Itami A, Pandey KK, Batra SK, Gonzalez NJ, Guesry P, Pour PM: “Pancreatic enzyme extract improves survival in murine pancreatic cancer.” Pancreas 28(4), 401-412, 2004. said as follows:

    “In summary, PPE (porcine pancreatic enzyme) is the first experimentally and clinically proven agent for the effective treatment of PC (pancreatic cancer). The significant advantages of PPE over any other currently available therapeutic modalities include its effects on physical condition, nutrition and lack of toxicity.”

    I’d like to know Dr Ernst whether you still stand behind Ms Lubetkin’s article?

    • Yes, I do.
      Because I know that 1) this study is in dire need of independent replication, 2) animal experiments are frequently not relevant to human cancer therapy.

    • Any enzyme to be effective must bypass stomach. As far as I understand, this was not the case.
      And mouse is very different from human. Yes, it is small, fast procreating and cheap and thus used in the labs, but only in the preliminary stage.
      And then cames 3 phases of drug research in the humans. Only after the 3rd. drug can be registered, but even after then, at least in Europe, it can be withdrawn from market because of unanticipated side effects or insufficient efficacy!

      • Enzymes in tabs with special coatings can easy pass stomach, plus a complete digestion in stomach happens only at pH ~1.0, when stomach is very healthy and when the digested food is mechanically so small, that enzymes have access to the entire surface of the food.
        When cancer stem cells are released during surgery, which obviously involves flowing BLOOD, the consequence always carries the potential of spreading the cancer around.
        Btw. cancer cells are VERY DIFFERENT from normal cells, in particular the receptors on their surface, their action potential, their changed/damaged DNA, etc. Their toxic by-products are the ones which at the end kill every cancer sick person. The best cancer treatment is ORGANIC, NON-GMO FOOD, juicing organic veggies like broccoli, greens, herbs, etc., the right diet with all the building blocks (proteins, minerals, vitamins) our bodies need, something very different than what Codex Alimentarius is telling everyone. GcMAF as a curing agent, should be also mentioned since there is enough proof that it works, better that RIGVIR, since no side effects. The first most important issue with cancer is not to panic and to realize, we carry cancer cells all the time, all what we need to win the fight by numbers is a healthy immune system! That means no vaccins with aluminum, mercury and more viruses and pathogenic bacteria….

        • @chris
          “The best cancer treatment is ORGANIC, NON-GMO FOOD, juicing organic veggies like broccoli, greens, herbs, etc.”
          Please enlighten us how organically farmed produce differs in any important way from conventionally farmed, what problem there is with eating GM food, and above all, where is the published evidence for all your claims.

          • You are obviously very ignorant – I suggest you educate yourself. Small example , farmed cattle are injected with hormones and get no exercise – this results in very fatty meat with a different fatty acid profile to what we humans have been adapted to eat. In addition your are ingesting hormones that are not good for you (obviously) and are associated with early puberty as even the milk is full of hormones as opposed to grass fed (their natural diet) free range cows. Notwithstanding what the effect of ongoing str3essfull Irving conditions do to the poor animals adrenal levels. Is suppose animal cruelty does not bother you either. But you know what they say – ignorance is bliss or the my version – the source of arrogance and blind prejudice.

          • @bibi

            chris’s post referred specifically to vegetables. You obviously live in the USA, a first-world country with — it appears to many outsiders — third-world cultural values. Here in the UK the injection of cattle with growth hormones has been outlawed for 20 years.

    • “Lack of toxicity” is already big warning sign, because cancer cells are not that different from normal ones, so surgery is the only treatment mehod lacking toxicity.
      In addition, in case of proteins obtained from other species, one must always bear in mind anaphylaxis.
      Anyway, the least toxic of all treatments, excluding surgery, seems to be virotherapy, like RIGVIR, but even that is not without side effects.

  • I didn’t write to argue that this study should stand as conclusive proof of the Gonzalez protocol. Hardly. I wrote to say that it demonstrates Ms Lubetkin’s bias or sloppy research to omit this evidence.

    Your response suggests that you are not at all troubled that this research was ignored in the article. Instead you make the obvious point that the study needs to be replicated – with which I wholeheartedly agree. You condone the fact that Ms Lubetkin chose to ignore this study published in a reputable scientific journal written by a number of experienced researchers whose conclusion is unambiguous and remarkable. (And also apparently condoning ignoring evidence that enzymes survive the digestive system among other one sided omissions and mistakes she made).

    Instead she or you could have written an article that said that the results of the animal study were intriguing and should – as with any animal – or human – study be replicated. You allowed an article full of inaccuracies and irrelevancies and written in a tone of sarcasm and contempt to be published.

    And let’s be clear. This is not just an article about Reiki or healing touch, whose validity or lack thereof is not going to affect the health of many people in any significant way. This is about a doctor, trained at Sloan Kettering under the then President there who has treated 1000’s of patients, (including me who saw him for metastatic cancer in the liver who is well 25 years later) written a number of books, and who presents an argument backed up by some evidence for a remarkable treatment that may cure many advanced cancers. And all you do is assign someone to write an article that is essentially little more than character assassination.

    Based on your reputation and body of work I would have expected you to have written or had someone write a fair and balanced assessment of Dr Gonzalez. I was so wrong.

    • the post by LL does not claim to be a systematic review of the entire evidence; and even systematic reviews would normally not include animal studies because that often lack relevance to human disease.

    • The conclusion in the abstract of their paper is hardly conclusive.

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15097858

      ‘The data indicate that the beneficial effect of PPE on survival is primarily related to the nutritional advantage of the treated mice’

      There are no data on numbers of mice in each arm, differences between groups prior to treatment, dose or statistical method and there appears to have no blinding. Perhaps you know this information?

  • Cancers, including pancreatic, are different, so today’s medicines are being created for some types of cancer.
    Besides, food, after having been digested, does not differ significantly from other foods of that cathegory, so it cannot be used for treatment.

  • Where have you all received YOUR alternative cancer treatments? Because I beat an aggressive Her2+ tumor with natural protocols including vitamin C infusions, B17 infusions, hyperthermia laser, etc. etc. What we put into our mouths is over 80% of our “health”. Even cancer physicians will tell you diet is of the utmost importance. I believe you can have valid opinions based on what you’ve experienced personally, and not because you read it on a peer-group, university conducted study. Western medicine cancer survival mortality percentages have barely moved upward within the last 30 years. Early detection is all that’s improved. Western protocols tend to treat all cancer patients the same: chemo, radiation, surgery, oral chemo. Poison, burn, slash, poison. Why not utilize what the good Lord gave us on earth to heal? Who tracks people like me who survived and did “all natural chemo” that didn’t harm my body and kept my immune system intact? If chemo destroys your liver down the road, you’re a “bad liver” victim. If it strokes you out down the road, you’re a “stroke victim”. NOT a cancer victim. The statistics are inaccurate. Every person’s body/mind is different and such be “treated” as such.

    • So, so much wrong with what you say and much of it has been debunked on this website and elsewhere and you might like to read up on the success of cancer treatments in the last few decades:

      However, what makes you say lasers are natural?

    • @ Mel

      If we are to take your claims seriously we need more information. You say you are a survivor of Her2+ positive [breast] cancer. Fantastic, if you are right that is.
      Even if this is a nasty type of breast cancer it has a 68% cure rate with modern handling. That means that more than half of the women survive more than five years after surgery and additional therapy.
      For you to be able to tell us you “beat an aggressive Her2+ tumor”, we deduce that the tumour has been removed, right? Otherwise they would not be able to test it and say it is of the Her2+ kind.
      Until you inform us that the testing was only done on a biopsy (I really hope not for your sake they only took out part of the tumour i.e. a biopsy), our understanding will have to be that your tumour was removed as completely as possible and then some. If the tumour has not been removed, your chances are probably dismal whatever else is done.
      Of course, if you had curative surgery and then refused the additional “adjuvant” therapy, you still have a fair chance of long term survival but it will not be 68%.
      So, when you claim that you were cured by a number of alternative remedies,some of which you name, you forgot to mention the small but important matter of the operation.
      Also we have no information on how long a follow up you have to be able to claim you “beat it”. Was your surgery (diagnosis?) last month or ten years ago? I surely hope, as you of course do also, that you are cured of this nasty malignancy but you cannot be sure until a good deal of time has passed. Sometimes breast tumours reappear decades later. That is why everything is used to maximise cure. Not only „cut“ but also „poison“ and „burn“ as the idiots call it who try to lure desperate people into defaulting on science and taking their make-believe cures including apricot kernels (B17) lemon juice extract (vitamin C ) and flashlight waving (laser).
      We have no reason to believe that the „therapies“ you list are anything but make-believe. There is no biological reason to believe these methods work and all the tests that have been done on them have not shown an effect. If someone says they did, they are simply lying.

      • Ok, I’m all for being realistic, but refering to lasers as flashlight waving? Lasers aren’t unicorns.

        • @Shelley
          Where “unicorns” fit into this discussion I cannot discern?
          What I was alluding to is the use of low-power laser light, also called low level or cold laser.
          I should of course have been more specific when I listed a few of the most ridiculous cancer “cures” I could recall.

          My calling low level light therapy for “Flashlight waving” is intentionally derogatory.
          Use of low level laser light for healing is quackery, no evidence exists for any efficacy even if some “studies” have been overoptimistically interpreted.

          http://www.devicewatch.org/reports/lllt.shtml

          Of course there are medical uses for lasers, usually with enough power to coagulate and burn.
          One exciting use is in techniques where making the tumours sensitive to certain types of light and then irradiating them with laser emitting such wavelength.
          That does not mean a clown with a low-power laser he bought on eBay can pass for a cancer therapist.

  • Dr. Ernst, I think the following quote sums up the difference between people like you and Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez quite well:

    “You differ from a great man in only one respect: the great man was once a very little man, but he developed one important quality: he recognized the smallness and narrowness of his thoughts and actions. Under the pressure of some task that meant a great deal to him, he learned to see how his smallness, his pettiness endangered his happiness. In other words, a great man knows when and in what way he is a little man. A little man does not know he is little and is afraid to know. He hides his pettiness and narrowness behind illusions of strength and greatness, someone else’s strength and greatness. He’s proud of his great generals (and of his titles…MD PhD Fsb BS blah blah blah….my addition) but not of himself. He admires an idea he has not had, not one he has had. The less he understands something, the more firmly he believes in it. And the better he understands an idea, the less he believes in it.”
    ― Wilhelm Reich, Listen, Little Man!

    • @eric
      Your exercise in cut and paste fails to come through, other than as a fizzling attempt at a put down.
      What comes through quite loud and clear is that you know very little of the reality of neither professor Ernst nor the late lunatic N. Gonzales, even if you seem to harbour the illusion of doing so.

  • When you started bashing, I stopped reading. These posts are meant to discredit someone WHO HAS MADE PROGRESS and has BETTER SURVIVAL RATES than the Medical Mad Men who prescribe chemo. Your concerted ugliness only cements the believe that Gonzalez is threat to the mainstream medical killing machine.

  • The longer I live the more I realise that human fantasy is a curse that may one day be the end of humans. They defend their fantasies sometimes to the death. I trust neither the pharma/medical mafia model which defends itself with bribery and corruption nor the cultist alternative model which has more twists and turns than politics.

    I have my own opinions for a long and healthy life and follow them. I follow the lifestyles of such people as Mr Singh the 103yr old marathon runner from London rather than any person matter how many letters they have after their name.

    At 70yr old, one thing I am certain of is that the more we cut down trees to worship the meat eating cults the faster the planet will respond as it has done for hundreds of millions of years by clearing out all large creatures (and humans).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Gravityscan Badge

Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted.


Click here for a comprehensive list of recent comments.

Categories